I’m afraid, your point did not seem like a personal observation but a matter of fact generalisation. The fact you think every modern feminist woman wants to create a parallel (as oppose to ‘equal’) world, sadly reflects how little you know about feminism. Feminism is a lot more than just a brand and a title for an aggressively strong woman! I can assure you that within feminism, there are many different groups, differences, disagreements and disputes trying to define the concept, practice and the ideal face of equality. Some groups are happy with equal opportunities while other are still committed to prove that men and women are equal in every sense. Some just want to focus on eliminating sexism and women to get their due credit while others fight for full female domination of this world. There are simply so many facets of Feminism and if to you Feminism means creating a parallel world, then you might want to expand your argument little further because frankly speaking, I cannot relate to it at all.
So why are men being blamed for those evils? I don't get it. For the men that do not practice those evil things - are they praised for having good patriarchal norms? Or are they considered to be men who are not patriarchal?
Not all men get blamed for it. Only those who practice and support such evil.
I'm afraid, your point did not seem like a personal observation but a matter of fact generalisation. The fact you think every modern feminist woman want to create a parallel (as oppose to 'equal') world, sadly reflects how little you know about feminism. Feminism is a lot more than just a brand and title for a seemingly aggressively strong woman! I can assure you that within feminism, there are many different groups, differences, disagreements and disputes trying to define the concept, practice and the ideal face of equality. Some groups are happy with equal opportunities while other are still committed to prove that men and women are equal in every sense. Some just want to focus on eliminating sexism and women to get their due credit while others fight for full female domination of this world. There are simply so many facets of Feminism and if to you Feminism means creating a parallel wold, then you might want to expand your argument little further because frankly speaking, I cannot relate to it at all.
Not all men get blamed for it. Only those who practice and support such evil.
Peace Jolie
Thanks for these refreshing posts ... :)
I have two further questions ...
a) Granted that feminism is an umbrella movement ... so please define the lowest common denominator for me ... what does all feminism have in common?
b) Do you think there is room to have a patriarchy that the majority of feminists can be happy with? If so, what will it resemble?
a) Granted that feminism is an umbrella movement ... so please define the lowest common denominator for me ... what does all feminism have in common?
b) Do you think there is room to have a patriarchy that the majority of feminists can be happy with? If so, what will it resemble?
A) Respect leading to Equal Opportunities.
B) Army - combat fighters - as far as my knowledge of feminism goes, most feminists tend to be pacifists and I am one as well.
Are you sure that - "respect leading to equal opportunities" is a line that defines feminism? Because nowhere in that statement does it even use the word "female" ... I would think that all feminism has some issue about "females" in its lowest common denominator, you also mentioned earlier that not all feminists want equality but female domination. so there must be something different to what you have said above.
Let me give it a try ...
I think all feminists "are putting efforts to have women recognised more for what they do and increase the impact of women in society by calling for doing what women traditionally have not always done"
So they want:
1) Women to be viewed more favourably
2) Womens roles to be more universal to achieve that end
So you have said that you do feel a patriarchy can work in society so long as it resembles an army? Really? So if feminists are pacifists then would they be or not be part of this army structured patriarchy?
Yes Psyah I am sure but I would say that you are certainly mistaken if you think I'm here to give you the self satisfying answers you've been fishing for. I didn't want to insult anyone by suggesting Feminism is about female issues, I would assume the title gives away the female focus. Even the literal definition of the word Feminism in dictionaries alludes to equal rights and opportunities. Hope that helps.
The feminists who want female domination also use equal opportunities and rights as a starting point. What may sound like domination to others is often a demand for equal numerical representation for them.
[QUOTE]
So you have said that you do feel a patriarchy can work in society so long as it resembles an army? Really? So if feminists are pacifists then would they be or not be part of this army structured patriarchy?
[/QUOTE]
You are making my job quite tedious and dull by repeatedly misunderstanding the point or purposely extracting the most off point and unreliable interpretation of my original statements.
You asked:
*Do you think there is room to have a patriarchy that the majority of feminists can be happy with? If so, what will it resemble?
*
To that I replied that Army is one such patriarchal institution which is generally accepted as it is (or perhaps just ignored) by the Feminists. Since many Feminists tend to be pacifist explains why they have very little interest in pushing the female agenda in such institutions. In regards to your last sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I’ll cut to the chase, when I asked about the patriarchy that feminists would be happy with … I was alluding to whether they think it possible for a governance system that is both clearly patriarchal (i.e. Puts men in charge) but at the same time does not hinder the rights and raises the respect level for women? I didn’t understand the “army” response to be honest … and then you said feminists are pacifists … which sort of starts to resemble that parallel world model that you stated was not the case …
My question is what if a patriarchy is the best thing for women? Not any patriarchy … One that ensures that women are respected and given their rights. What if the more roles in society become equalised the level of respect between genders goes down? Which it will … In an absolutely equal society … An individual gets into an argument with another (man vs woman) then the man could resort to equality and thump the lady … to a lesser degree that is happening already … Is it more or less common for a woman to be given a seat on a train or bus? If she is not given that seat … How can that be construed as respect?
Equal society does not mean less civilized society. In an argument, even a man mustn’t thump another man. I’m a woman and I do not see being not offered a seat on the bus or train as a sign of disrespect or a lack of respect. I’m young and able and can stand for hours, I rather have that seat given to an elderly, parent with a young child or a pregnant woman.
In regards to your second paragraphs. It’s just an ‘if’. A big if. A dreamy and an impossible if. Patriarchy was established and going strong for thousands of years, it took a woman’s movement for patriarchy to mend it’s ways. The women’s movement and women in general have come so far to go back to total patriarchal control.
Equal society does not mean less civilized society. In an argument, even a man mustn't thump another man. I'm a woman and I do not see being not offered a seat on the bus or train as a sign of disrespect or a lack of respect. I'm young and able and can stand for hours, I rather have that seat given to an elderly, parent with a young child or a pregnant woman.
In regards to your second paragraphs. It's just an 'if'. A big if. A dreamy and an impossible if. Patriarchy was established and going strong for thousands of years, it took a woman's movement for patriarchy to mend it's ways. The women's movement and women in general have come so far to go back to total patriarchal control.
Well I believe you have a skewed perspective of history and a very optimistic view of feminism (but because it is not monolithic you are allowed to have that view ... I get it, but that does not remove the baggage) ... From my perspective it is designed to dismantle the family unit and makes more people part of the tax/economic system. Equal opportunities is itself questionable ... But it is being desired for ... To what end? What will the architecture look like in such an equal world?
Well I believe you have a skewed perspective of history and a very optimistic view of feminism (but because it is not monolithic you are allowed to have that view ... I get it, but that does not remove the baggage) ... From my perspective it is designed to dismantle the family unit and makes more people part of the tax/economic system. Equal opportunities is itself questionable ... But it is being desired for ... To what end? What will the architecture look like in such an equal world?
Well I have my own doubts about your historical knowledge.
From your posts, you clearly seem to have a problem with Feminism and equal opportunities and equal rights. What exactly you want me to discuss or say to you that will make your self important pessimism and skepticism look relevant?
I appreciate your efforts to be profound and intellectual, but I'm afraid typically circular 'philosophical' debate has it's time and place. I've made it quite clear that this thread is mainly to discuss discrimination in Philosophy discipline and the inherent sexism in Philosophy departments.
Frankly speaking, I have zero interest in knowing why you think equal opportunities is a questionable demand. I am assuming you must think patriarchal and unequal Britain was a wonderful place for women and working classes 100 years ago. But just to answer the last question, hopefully the desired equal world (where people of every class, race, gender, religion, socio-economic) background has equal opportunities and equal rights will be a happy and just world.
OK. Can someone tell me what the 'field of philosophy' looks like?...from whatever little I know, it exists in universities only?
what are professional philosophers like? where do they work? how do they marginalise women?
sorry for stupid questions...but i just ask anyways.
Philosophy as an academic discipline. Field of Philosophy mainly refers to academia. Professional Philosophers would most probably be writers with published work and academics. At least here in Britain, it's often been reported that female academics and students often face a very time to get themselves approved in male dominated Philosophy departments. Often there is a case of favouritism, patronising and intimidating behaviour and lack of regard as some men still like to think women are intellectually inferior and on why earth would they want to study Philosophy. (Well I don't understand why anyone would want to study Philosophy anyway)
You are right, hence the actual questions asked in the OP were also different. Somehow the topic got swayed in in totally different direction by over analysis of the issue of sexism and discrimination.
If there are men (philosopher men) who don't want women to study philosophy ... They need to ask themselves ... Why? And if the reasons are egoistic, baseless and emotionally driven they ought to kick themselves for being such poor philosophers and step out of the way ...
I don't know about the academic domain of philosophy ... But if I were a woman I would start up a rival institution or pursue an alternative way of getting myself heard in philosophical matters. Not that I think it is important for me (as a male or female) to be heard ...
Philosophy and engineering, I believe, remain the few disciplines where the ratio of men:women is greatly skewed towards the men. I personally think it has something to do with the fact that these are the oldest professions on the planet.
The word scientist first entered the English language in 1834(ref below). Of course this doesn’t mean that this was the inception of science, but one may say the profession of scientist did not exist before then. Copernicus, Newton, Galileo practised astronomy which we now call a science but in their time they would have referred to as mathematicians and astronomers (remember, not a scientist). Women have made their mark in science. And scientist isn’t exactly an old profession.
Philosophy and engineering have existed as professions for literally thousands of years. And thousands of years ago, I don’t know of a single civilisation that wasn’t essentially a patriarchal society.
Whilst women have entered the fields, I think we are slowly but surely bridging the gap. Whether we are ever able to, is another question entirely. Since these professions have been dominated by men, some very stereotypical ideas have entered the field. I believe this mentality is essentially the root cause of any gender discrimination at work. Whilst it may have been a big problem, I know that women are now encouraged to enter these fields. Organisations have been set up within companies and independently to monitor and control (punish?) gender discrimination.
At least, that’s what I think.
What’s really interesting is the impact that female ideologies may have had on philosophy. How would philosophy as we know it today be different if we had such significant women scholars as those of ancient Greece?
But I leave that question to the philosophers.
In school for sports the teacher used to put out three events for us to go to ... football, netball, athletics
We had to choose which to play ... it turned out the majority of girls chose netball, and majority of boys football and the remaining disinterested kids girls and boys chose athletics.
Despite being a totally free choice ... the genders did not naturally fall in to an arithmetic proportionate representation. The same is the case I think with philosophy and engineering.
Why should we make women study philosophy if they may not want to ...
There have been a few women philosophers in the subcontinent in the ancient and medieval times. But difficult to find after 13th-14th century. Mainly because of lack of education and status of women over all degraded by then and were not taken seriously.
to a lesser degree that is happening already … Is it more or less common for a woman to be given a seat on a train or bus? If she is not given that seat … How can that be construed as respect?