Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Biotech

Journal Some Woman's Journal: Feminism Defined (Boring Academic stuff) 92

Journal by Some Woman

I was discussing my previous journal entry with my boyfriend tonight, and he was a bit bothered by the misuse of the label "radical feminist." He asked that I might consider clarifying the differences between the four main types of feminism, so, at his request, here goes.

The definitions below are taken verbatim from here. Though the source is political, these definitions are consistent with what I know, and are purely academic in nature.

Liberal feminism emphasizes social and legal reforms through policies designed to create equal opportunities for women, thereby assuming that changes in socialization practices and the reeducation of the public will result in more liberated and egalitarian gender relations. It underpins mainstreaming efforts that lead to extensive changes in women's legal rights and status.

Marxist feminism sees capitalism's class relations as the root cause of the oppression, exploitation and discrimination experienced by women. Under capitalism, the family system characteristic of modern societies can socialize or force women into unpaid domestic labor that benefits men. Marxist feminism, in contrast, does not see men per se as the "enemy" -- both working class women and men are exploited by capitalism, which must be overthrown to create a more equal and equitable society. It asserts that, except for their sex, working class women have more in common with working class men than with upper class women.

Socialist feminism sees the origins of women's oppression in the systems of patriarchy and capitalism. It underscores how the relations between capital and patriarchy bring about women's subordinate status. There is, therefore, a need to transform capitalism simultaneously with the struggle against male domination and to surface the gender perspective in all social, political, economic and cultural issues. Socialist feminism, especially for women in developing countries, has worked at overcoming gender blindness in the struggle for development and against shared oppression of women due to class, race, religion or citizenship.

Radical feminism looks at gender as the primary form of oppression and sees class and race as extensions of patriarchal domination. Most of its strategies are focused on reshaping consciousness and redefining social relations to create a woman-centered culture. Sometimes featuring a rigid rejection of men as a dominant class, radical feminism emphasizes the positive capacities of women by focusing on the creative dimensions of women's experiences. It also serves as the cutting edge of the women's movement, exploring vast tracks of unknown grounds in seeking women's liberation.

I, for example, fall within the liberal feminist category. I don't believe that our social system is fundamentally broken, but, rather, that we can work within it to effect change. The ideas discussed in my prior journal entry that were labeled "radical feminist" most likely also fall under liberal feminism as well.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feminism Defined (Boring Academic stuff) More

Feminism Defined (Boring Academic stuff)

Comments Filter:
  • I would question the inclusion of the "Marxist" and "Socialist" streams. To me, they look like they are either some feminist principles bolted on to a political agenda, or some political issues bolted on to a feminist agenda. It would depend on the individual. I would see feminism as essentially orthogonal to Marxism, for instance, with not much necessarily in common. It might be that Marxist feminists are more disposed to be radical or revolutionary, while Socialist feminists are more inclined toward t
    • I would question the inclusion of the "Marxist" and "Socialist" streams.

      As would I. By those definitions, I've never met a marxist or socialist feminist, and I would hope I never do. I've met plenty of liberal feminists, and unfortunately, far too many radical feminists.

      • Well, I've met quite a few. Anybody who has ever had to sit through an ISO (International Socialist Organization) diatribe has gotten an earful.

        Having been blown off by radical, separatist feminists just last night when I questioned their marxist buddy,

        Rustin
        • Anybody who has ever had to sit through an ISO (International Socialist Organization) diatribe has gotten an earful.

          Well... anybody who has ever had to sit through an ISO [iso.org] (International Organization for Standardization) diatribe has gotten an earful too!

    • To me, they look like they are either some feminist principles bolted on to a political agenda, or some political issues bolted on to a feminist agenda.

      That's the thing about Marxism and socialism- they see inequality as caused by a political system, and they think that in order to remove inequalities, we must completely restructure our political system. Personally, I wouldn't distinguish between the two of them, and most texts that I have seen don't. Usually, radical, marxist, and liberal are listed a
      • Thanks for the concise explanation. I particularly liked this, from one of your other posts:

        When I say "feminism" I am speaking about the idea of equal opportunity to make choices.

        I think that is the basic point on which nearly all of us agree. Interpretations vary from there. :-) I'm particularly glad that my daughters live in a world where this is increasingly the standard.
      • The entire basis of their theories. Radical feminists believe that there are fundamental ingrained differences between men and women. Liberal feminists believe that many of the "differences" between men and women are, in fact, learned.

        What about the phisical differences between males and females? There do seem to be some academic feminist theorists who believe that many if not all physical differences between men and women are learned and the result of conditioning. From what I've read of their work I wou
        • Thank you for your input.

          You are pretty much in agreement with my beliefs, with one clarification. I favor dealing with the root cause of things instead of finding a pretty nice correlation that's easier to deal with. For example, too often race is considered to be associated with social/intellectual/etc conditions when, in fact, socioeconomic condition is the largest contributing factor. Likewise, in the case of sex differences, I prefer that people be considered only by the relevant facors, which is u
          • The quagmire isn't in the obvious professions (such as phsyically intensive ones such as firemen) but in others were, historically, women tended to participate less in. For example, to this day the great majority of mechanics (auto or whatever) are men. While there are theories for explaining this, most of them revolve not around the strength required for the job but the desire of women to perform this particular job. Several studies have found that males tend to excel at gauging distances and visualizing m
            • I don't know about the situation at your university, but at the University of Colorado at Boulder the significant majority of chemical engineer students were men, especially by the senior year.

              Actually, when I started here, I was shocked at the number of women in chemical engineering. When I transfered into the program, 2/3 of the transfer students were/are female and about 35% of all of the chemical engineering majors are female, which is higher than every other department in the Institute of Technology

  • Consider the Source (Score:3, Informative)

    by bethanie ( 675210 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @08:12AM (#6221327) Journal
    I really owe you two responses (I've been stewing on your reply yesterday -- I believe that we actually fundamentally agree, but I'm going to have to leave that for later -- my daughter starts preschool today and I don't have time to do it justice this morning). But I think I can fire this one off in just a moment or two (after a fairly careful reading).

    I can appreciate that you have found a fairly nicely packaged set of definitions of various "types" of feminism. And, as a matter of fact, their definition of "radical feminism" pretty closely matches my own. I don't think it's as nifty-keen as they apparently do, though.

    And, as johndiii already pointed out, WHERE is the "Conservative Feminist", if you will? Where is the woman seeking empowerment by fulfilling her traditionally defined gender role and elevating her status thusly? (That's kinda funny if you think about it -- but in truth, it *is* a kind of "feminism"!)

    I'll tell you -- I have trouble accepting what this website has to say based on two definitions on the page that came before the feminist "streams." Those are:

    • Affirmative Action
      • A policy action that favors marginalized groups in society, such as women. While it is a special measure, it is not considered discriminatory since it aims to accelerate the attainment of equality between the dominant and marginalized groups.
      • Affirmative action should not result in unequal or separate standards and must be continued even when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved. An example of an affirmative action is allocating 50 percent of top positions in the bureaucracy to women as an acknowledgment that sociopolitical conditions exist which prevent women from ascending to those positions.
    And
    • Biological Determinism
      • A theory that biological differences between women and men dictate a difference in social roles and personality, and that these differences reinforce the notion that men are superior and women are inferior.

    In my opinion, with these two definitions, the credibility of the rest of the material on the page becomes INSTANTLY suspect! I have a fundamental problem with Affirmative Action being "not considered discriminatory since it aims to accelerate the attainment of equality." It IS discriminatory, based on the definition of discrimination -- it just places FAVOR on people based on discrimination. And I do not believe that this is a valuable policy. I believe that people should be promoted/hired/rewarded based on merit and merit alone. Yes, our society is unequal and something should be done to even the odds, but THIS is not the solution. It KEEPS people marginalized.

    I also have a problem with the idea that acknowledging that there are fundamental differences between men and women based on our biology "reinforce[s] the notion that men are superior and women are inferior." Absolutely NOT!! In my opinion, acknowledging these fundamental differences simply strengthens each gender's role in society!! When you acknowledge that there are some things that men are naturally inclined to excel at and others that women are instinctively do better, then you acknowledge the need for both sexes to be respected and valued based on their own strengths and abilities to contribute.

    Where this has the greatest influence is within the base unit of society: the family. And that is where I am focusing my attention and directing the vast majority of my theorizing. I believe that this is one of the fundamental differences between what you and I are talking about, SW. I want to delve into this more deeply in the other thread -- please give me some time to do so -- but you are talking about feminism in the context of women as individuals within society. I am talking about feminism in the context of women as members of the societal unit that is the family.

    OK. I know that this is not complete, but I've reached my deadline and I have to go take care of my familial duties!! I feel SOOO empowered!! ;-)

    ....Bethanie....

    • I agree with you to an extent. But... To me, biological differences create predispositions, not certainties. I mean, obvious biological differences like the ability to have children aren't a predisposition, though it may possibly be that they are some day. :-) I'm talking mental ability differences or personality differences.

      Women may be, in general, better at multitasking than men, but that doesn't say a whole lot about any particular woman or man. And, men may be, in general, better at tasks requiri

    • These definitions are taken directly from feminist theory. I mentioned that the source is political, but they were the first page I encountered with Google that gave nicely packaged definitions of all three (four) types of feminism. I reiterate, these are textbook definitions. It's like saying that you disagree that there are two political spectrums, economic and social. It is a social science that has invented these terms to suit their needs. If you think that there are more types (and I do, I think l
      • These definitions are taken directly from feminist theory.

        A theory is a ll fine and well, but display in detail how it would actually be successful without emasculating men while maintaining familial cohesion and raising quality children en masse.

        I mentioned that the source is political,

        Yes, and it uses the terms "socialist" and "marxist". And let's not forget "liberal", which you said was one of the words that you stopped paying attention after in your previous JE. Come to think of it, you also said
        • This is what is actually feminism.

          My boyfriend is of the belief that the biggest mistake the feminist movement made was calling themselves feminists. As it is, this is the name that sticks, misnomer or no.

          Anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that you understand the concept of a matriarchy. There is no governmental system in existance that would support a matriarchy. Radical feminists believe that our entire existance is a product of the patriarchy and that we need to establish a matriarchy, based on fe
    • You're not getting it. The whole point is that people are entitled to be called what they want to be called, not some derogatory label or a label that is claimed by a more extreme group.

      In a post in the last journal you say:

      The truth is, they haven't. They've tried to make women the "equals" of men, which in the feminist mentality means "same." And we AREN'T the same. We have a lot of strengths that men simply don't possess. AND vice versa!! By trying to prove that women can do *everything* men can do,
      • instead of using the label... that they've adopted for themselves.

        You know what? I can't keep track WHAT "they're" calling themselves these days. And to tell the truth, I really don't *care*. We can go back and forth and argue semantics all you want -- but what it really amounts to is a tactic employed to avoid addressing the real issues, as your dearly beloved has already done brilliantly above (and to which I am fixing to respond to).

        If you feel like someone's calling you names, say "Sticks and Stone
        • You know what? I can't keep track WHAT "they're" calling themselves these days. And to tell the truth, I really don't *care*. We can go back and forth and argue semantics all you want -- but what it really amounts to is a tactic employed to avoid addressing the real issues, as your dearly beloved has already done brilliantly above (and to which I am fixing to respond to).

          They've all been calling themselves these things for a long time. I have less of a problem with "feminazi" than with "radical feminist"
          • A few points:
            • I was trying to come up with an alternative for "feminazi." The term I used instead came at the suggestion of Herr Perfessor, who SW seems to deeply admire (and who later, claims to be in way over his head). Apparently, that was quite ill-advised, since I then got jumped all over for using that term. So now I've changed it back and kept the old one, and tried to do my best to cover all the bases. My point wasn't to get into a degenerative argument over the various sub-sects of the feminist mo
            • Re: terminology, I understand it was not intentionally deceptive. It just really annoys when people take a term that belongs to a group almost everyone dislikes and attaches it to a far more moderate group. In the case of "radical feminists" this particular group is so far from the mainstream you'd never encountered them before. Happens.

              For someone who you claim not to be worth taking the time to talk to, you sure do link to him a lot!!

              A couple times, yes. But I don't reply. There's no point. It's
            • Maybe I'm getting senile in my old age, but I don't remember having written anything even vaguely resembling a statement where I "claim[ed] to be in way over [my] head".
              Could you refresh my memory?

              Rustin
              • Senility notwithstanding, I stand corrected, sir. I have *no* idea where I got that idea from. At this point, a couple of days after my post, I have nary a chance of recalling, and my efforts to use technology to assist me have failed. So you must certainly be right.

                Might I excuse myself with a profuse apology and a reference to the voluminous number of posts that I had to read to keep up with the thread. In there somewhere my wires got crossed.

                Thank you *very* much for the correction, and I will do my
                • We've all done it.
                  You'll get smoother and faster as you go.

                  But that is what, for now, makes you a newbie ;->

                  P.S. check out my latest large post. I suspect that you will find it of interest though the language is, urm, not your own.

                  Rustin
                  • But that is what, for now, makes you a newbie ;->

                    No, my dear Perfessor, that is what makes me a mother trying to Slashdot while doing half a dozen other things. Since I had a kid, my concentration has never been the same. Newbie has nothing to do with it. (So quit calling me names, dammit!) :-)

                    ....Bethanie....

                    P.S. I may or may not read your latest long post. I am getting really disenchanted with discussing anything of a political nature -- on-line or in person. It's just not an area that interest
          • I think I just lost my train of thought in one of those echo chambers!

            But honestly, I like that "I don't know about YOU, but *I* am learning a *LOT*! Therefore, I WIN!!!"

            Hard to argue with an interested person claiming to have learned from you. Unless you didn't want them to learn, but rather change.

            Then I suppose from that point of view you lost (they didn't change) AND they won (they learned something from you).

            I am going to go and try to find the echo chamber with my train of thought

            of thought

            of
      • You're not getting it. The whole point is that people are entitled to be called what they want to be called, not some derogatory label or a label that is claimed by a more extreme group.

        no, you're not getting it. Every lengthy intellectual debate I have ever participated in has at one point or another gotten into a discussion of terminology. Often, when this point comes up, it turns out that there's a bit more agreement than there was before the terminological discussion unless one insists on getting hi
        • Every lengthy intellectual debate I have ever participated in has at one point or another gotten into a discussion of terminology. Often, when this point comes up, it turns out that there's a bit more agreement than there was before the terminological discussion unless one insists on getting his or her panties in a bunch over the terminology itself, insisting that theirs is more right.

          Hey, this medium encourages nitpicking, but that's another story. Insisting on calling your opponents names and/or callin
          • And the US Army could call itself the Happy Fun Place and that wouldn't change the fact that it's in fact the Patriachal Death Machine?

            That's the biggest pile of bullshit i have seen out of you yet (and that's quite a feat). The US Army is niether patriarical nor a death machine. The closest I can come up with in military comparison to a Patriarichal Death Machine is the Nazi SS from World War II, though the Nazis were supported by men and women alike and therefore not patriarichal, and were thus an Ary
            • That's the biggest pile of bullshit i have seen out of you yet (and that's quite a feat). The US Army is niether patriarical nor a death machine. The closest I can come up with in military comparison to a Patriarichal Death Machine is the Nazi SS from World War II, though the Nazis were supported by men and women alike and therefore not patriarichal, and were thus an Aryan (also a misnomer but for historical reasons I will let that slide) Death Machine.

              Sarcasm appears to elude you, my friend. I agree wit
              • But "Feminazis" are not a group or a school of thought.

                not true. When the term was initially coined, it was in reference to fiercely pro-abortion feminists.

                What is it with you and insulting people?

                it's how I entertain myself in the midst of all the idiocy that goes on here on slashdot.

                This has been a largely fact-free discussion.

                Your use of the term discussion doesn't quite portray the situation properly. I found it to be more of a "riot" or "cesspool" for the most part.

                You just create wild sp
    • You asked where the conservative feminist is.
      The conservative feminist is in power and has no need of empowering movements.

      Some examples:
      Maggie Thatcher
      Golda Mair
      Catherine the Great
      Elizabeth I
      Theodora (Wife of Justinian the Great)
      St. Helen (Mother of St. Constantine the Great)
      Cleopatra

      I am sure that others will occur to you.
      • that'd be "conservative women". I don't recall Cleopatra and St. Helen being feminists. They were simply women in positions of political power. Revisionist history is bullshit.
      • I really doubt that Cleopatra was conservative or a feminist. Just because she was powerful doesn't mean that she believed in impowering other women or had a conservative view of the world.

        Also, depending on how you define 'conservative' and 'feminist' you may not be able to name anyone in history or in the present that is both simultaneously as the definitions sometimes mutually exclude the other.

        Lastly, I'd like to point out that some (many?) men are feminists too. So your list could include them as wel

        • Cleopatra was VERY conservative, to the point of denying any innovating she did was innovation. Think about the mileu she lived in. As far as empowering other women, she didn't believe in empowering ANYBODY. (She was the absolute ruler of Egypt until the Romans showed up you know). What she believed in was what she wanted. Nothing else. She was a selfish evil woman who killed her husband for power and then slept with anyone who could help her maintain that power, you know the type, a Cosmo girl.

          Most of bei
  • I understand Biological Determinism, that makes sense to me. I don't understand feminism. I understand wanting to be paid the same for the same job, if you want that job. I don't understand wanting to be paid the same, then going out and expecting a member of the opposite sex to pay. I know some women who count themselves as feminists that do that. Just doesn't quite seem fair.

    My girlfriend, after marriage & offspring wants to be a house-wife. She gets criticism from feminists because of that...
    • I as well like The Man Show, but that is neither here nor there.

      My girlfriend, after marriage & offspring wants to be a house-wife. She gets criticism from feminists because of that.

      Because I am lazy, I refer you to this post [slashdot.org] that I made yesterday that discussed my position on this issue in more detail than you ever wanted.

      I think we can all agree that whippin that colored boy is a touch worse than paying Mrs. Jenkins seventy five cents less than Mr. Howard.

      Saying that X is bad, but Y is worse
      • Because I am lazy, I refer you to this post that I made yesterday that discussed my position on this issue in more detail than you ever wanted.
        I can't really contend with any of your points, because they're all valid. I'm just saying that I don't understand the sheer amount of energy that goes into being a feminist. I'm speaking purely from my experiences, and every woman I have ever known that labels herself has a feminist I can't stand except one. They have these impossible agendas, would prefer a wo
        • Equality was a misnomer on my my part. I think we are discussing two radically different tenets of feminism. I'm not talking about economics. I'm talking about people not looking at me like I have a secondary purple head because I express that I never want to be pregnant. I want people to treat me as an intellectual equal, and most people do, something for which I can thank all of the feminists who came before me. People in my family pressure me about getting married, but they don't do the same for my
          • I'm talking about people not looking at me like I have a secondary purple head because I express that I never want to be pregnant. I want people to treat me as an intellectual equal, and most people do, something for which I can thank all of the feminists who came before me. People in my family pressure me about getting married, but they don't do the same for my male cousin who is two years older than me. It has nothing to do with money, it's about a culture that, deep down, treats women differently for no
            • Everybody gets discrimated against. It's just part of life. Whether your are male, female, black, gay. Try being a male and working at Victoria's Secret. Putting energy into overly-sensitive people (Yes, I am saying that anybody who feels any sort of a sting from discrimation is overly-sensitive) is just not something I will never understand.

              There is discrimination, then there is whining.

              When somebody can't get into college, can't take out a loan, won't be hired for a job, can't live in a certain neighbo
              • When somebody can't get into college, can't take out a loan, won't be hired for a job, can't live in a certain neighborhood, or can't get a meal in a restaurant because of their race, color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation that is discrimination.

                You mean because I don't qualify for a scholarship because I'm Irish-American? There is more racism against whites in America than any other race. It's just the government legislates for it, instead of against it.

                For example the group of black FBI agents
                • You mean because I don't qualify for a scholarship because I'm Irish-American? There is more racism against whites in America than any other race. It's just the government legislates for it, instead of against it.

                  I'm speaking mostly historicly, at least as far as the US goes.

                  I'm not talking about not getting scholarships, I'm talking about not being addmitted at all to college. There was a time not that long ago, when non-whites simply couldn't attend many colleges such as the University of Alabama. Simi
                  • This [qm2.org] page mentions the lawsuit, but doesn't go into detail at all. At least this verifies that it happened.
                  • Sorry I don't happen to have a link to that story handy. It shouldn't be too hard to find as it caused a big stink a couple of years back and resulted in a major appology by the Denny's CEO.

                    So no harm, no foul. Some dumbasses ruined a couple of guys lunch. Worse things have happened.

                    I'm speaking mostly historicly, at least as far as the US goes.

                    History is the past, and I'll agree that the US has a tainted one. Now it's much different, and it has been for the last 50 years.

                    I really don't want to
                    • , a persons choice to sell goods to certain people is their right. What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service?" It's absurd that people tell me who I can and can't sell to.

                      ACtually, NO. My wife is cramming for her BAR exam (thus, she is a lawyer, but not an attorney. Intriguing distinction. IT still doesn't matter; any legal advice or interpretation from me is worth SHIT) and there is a thing in the constitution called the "Interstate Commerce Clause"-
                      And the guidance she was given was tha
                    • Thanks for the info, it's good to clarify that. I really would love to go to law school but I don't want to spend the money on it, so I love the free educations :)

                      So - if a business was completely self-sustained (everything made by the actual owner of the business) than they could do whatever they wanted? Interesting thing to test...

                    • so I love the free educations :)
                      When its coming from me, you get what you pay for ;)

                      So - if a business was completely self-sustained (everything made by the actual owner of the business) than they could do whatever they wanted?

                      Probably not. Given that the BBQ case tried that argument in spirit (even if they weren't 100% self sustaining) and even if you had a State approved law that said only locals could buy from your store, your money may come from out of state mints. Or, or....

                      You see where I'm g
                    • You see where I'm going with this? Again, IANAL (in a big way, you should see me when I bandy about legal terms and completely flail on their meanings, I think it gives my wife great joy) but as long as there is some sort of buying processed goods, or processing goods bought sold, or (insert "say anything" joke here), The CC is literally the federal catch-all.

                      Which proves I need to start my own country, elect George as the president, have your wife be the A.G. and we just boot out whoever gets voted as a
                    • Yo, I'm with it.

                      To the revolution!
                • link?
                  there [google.com]. Was that so very hard?
                  All that I did was go to google and type
                  Denny's "secret service" discrimination
                  It was a bunch of Secret Service agents, not FBI, but still.

                  As you will see, it was one of the biggest antidiscrimination cases of the past twenty years (though the far-less publicized Coca Cola [geocities.com] lawsuit [arizona.edu] is probably more relevant).
                  Funny how somebody so het up on discrimination hadn't even heard of it. After all, it even involved your dear friend, Bill Clinton.

                  But then again, since Denny'
                  • Was that so very hard?
                    All that I did was go to google and type
                    Denny's "secret service" discrimination
                    It was a bunch of Secret Service agents, not FBI, but still.

                    Eh, Rustin... you are starting to violate your own rules of debate. Condescension isn't the proper way to argue. They offered the case, not me. They back up their statements, not me. Burden of proof.

                    By the way, as a white male from a prosperous background, I find your statements about "more racism against whites in America than any other rac
                    • Eh, Rustin... you are starting to violate your own rules of debate. Condescension isn't the proper way to argue.
                      Yes, I will concede that I am REALLY pissed.

                      As for facts, allow me to quote (H)olyGeekboy and say that the plural of ANECDOTE is not DATA.

                      You are making an emphatic statement that conflicts with every study I have every seen, every attempt to measure of which I have ever been aware (and trust me, having spent my time with groups from the Young Republicans to the aforementioned ISO, and being t
                    • Yes, I will concede that I am REALLY pissed.

                      Ok, then tell me why you are in this thread then? Do you plan to accomplish anything? Are you going to erase my memories of racism by saying a few magic words? Nope... so be pissed all you want, it's just wasted energy.

                      As for facts, allow me to quote (H)olyGeekboy and say that the plural of ANECDOTE is not DATA.
                      If I look around, and I see the sky is blue and I say it's blue it's data. If I look around and I see approximately 90% of the black people I've
                    • Alrighty, you are just getting delusional here. "Half dozen cases" now means two links and a google search on the same case. Right...
                      Okay, so we've established that you neither followed the links at all (which were certainly *not* to the same case), nor read the stuff google linked to nor have any actual data of your own worth sharing, despite my giving you, what, eighteen categories in which such data is frequently collected. ('cause I'm a helpful guy and clearly you don't like spending time searching ;-
                    • Okay, so we've established that you neither followed the links at all (which were certainly *not* to the same case), nor read the stuff google linked to nor have any actual data of your own worth sharing, despite my giving you, what, eighteen categories in which such data is frequently collected. ('cause I'm a helpful guy and clearly you don't like spending time searching ;->)

                      I did follow the google link, which was one case. Due to your wonderful condescending tone, ("Was that so hard") I figured your
                    • I also forgot to tell you:

                      The Coca-Cola link on Yahoo that you seem to think contains a holy grail for your case all leads to 404 errors.
          • People in my family pressure me about getting married, but they don't do the same for my male cousin who is two years older than me.

            Well, this could be because men can have babies at anytime in their life after puberty whereas women are certainly on a clock (with mid to late 20s being the best time to bear kids apparently). If your cousin was getting into his mid to upper 30s, I bet he'd be getting some pressure too.

            • I've pretty much expressed to my family that I do not wish to birth children. (I've spoken of my desire to adopt somwhere in these threads.)

              Amusing conversation I've had about marriage...

              Uncle: So, when are you getting married?
              Me: Well, I'm not at a point right now where I see any benefit.
              Uncle: I think the sex is pretty enjoyable.
              Aunt: You know, you don't have to be married to do that.
        • Racism has been legislated against, but only if you are white.

          Indeed. When we used to live in the predominantly black East End of London, my girlfriend and I were taunted for being white, and it occasionally got a bit more serious (we were told that we didn't belong in the area, and to move out, eventually resulting in death threats). About that time, I remember seeing a programme on TV with a black guy claiming it was impossible for a black man to be racist, since racism was by definition whites putting

          • When we used to live in the predominantly black East End of London, my girlfriend and I were taunted for being white, and it occasionally got a bit more serious (we were told that we didn't belong in the area, and to move out, eventually resulting in death threats). About that time, I remember seeing a programme on TV with a black guy claiming it was impossible for a black man to be racist, since racism was by definition whites putting down blacks. Somehow I don't quite see how he arrived at that definition
          • Similar to being a white kid geek in a 70% black high school. The term African-American is mostly hated by them as I found out.

            Also similar to being a white kid in the middle of china (buddy of mine grew up there).

            It doesn't matter where you are. If you are the minority (will be hated. Christians are killed by the 1Ks in India (millions of people).

            I should also point out that the custom long ago was to enslave your enemies after a military victory. Africa did this. US native americans did this to ea
            • yep. i knew a handful of black kids growing up in california and they all thought the term african-american was stupid since they had never been to africa nor did they care to go. They preferred the term black, and the nationality "american", and used them seperately rather than in some ridiculous compound like black-american or something.
    • Xerithane, I'm going to be a bit of an ass here, but it's in support of a point I think you're trying to make.

      1> I have never heard of a "feminist"(or woman for that matter) campaigning for women to be included in selective service. Combat roles, yes, but selective service no. This is based on my experiences with quite a few feminists in college, purely anecdotal of course.

      2> I've seen "feminist" professors actively discriminate against men in their women's study's classes(fail, force out, questio
      • Xerithane, I'm going to be a bit of an ass here, but it's in support of a point I think you're trying to make.
        Being an ass isn't always a bad thing, but then people come around and call you contrarian and things in an attempt to debunk what you say. At least you are candid and up front.

        4> There was a rape survivor march, a few (read about 20) of men wanted to march who had been victims of rape(by other men, and women, yes women can and do rape, batter, and be evil [guys do not have a monopoly on inh
        • I wrote a quicker, shorter post in your Journal, but here goes.

          On the equality ticket, men and women are not perfectly equal, no, but they are equally capable of a great deal of things. Physically, there are differences, and potentials are capped by gender (upper body, lower body, endurance, speed, pain tolerance, etc.) where you could take the best from one gender and stack him/her up against the best from the other gender and actually declare one superior or inferior in that category, but this is irrele
      • I have never heard of a "feminist"(or woman for that matter) campaigning for women to be included in selective service.

        Here's one for the record. I am for equality for all things good and bad. If we are going to have a draft, it shouldn't be sexist. I would rather we not have a draft at all, however.

        The whole "womyn" thing is downright inane.

        Best quote ever: "You can't be offended- I said it with a 'y'." I believe the word in question was "bytch". :)
  • I would like to say I'm in over my head on this subject but... (this probably belongs in that other JE though)
    My wife is doing what she always wanted to do (so she tells me) and that is:
    Have some babies.
    Raise them.
    Keep a house.
    Spend her man's money.
    and get crazy in the sack.

    I do my best to facilitate her.
    Of course some relatives and friends have made the comment that she's not fulfilled or that I'm keeping her down and pregnant.
    But she NEVER tries to justify what she does or how her life is going to any of
    • But she NEVER tries to justify what she does or how her life is going to any of the detractors because she feels complete in herself.

      Well, I'm insecure and need validation in triplicate before I can continue on my path. That's the real reason for my alter ego. So that I can have her send me nice e-mails telling me that I'm a good person. :)

      Good JE you cute little lab rat!

      Thank you, mean oppressor who hails from the Patriarchy!
    • My wife is doing what she always wanted to do (so she tells me) and that is:
      Have some babies.
      Raise them.
      Keep a house.
      Spend her man's money.
      and get crazy in the sack.

      I do my best to facilitate her.

      Oh, y'all are my heroes, both of you!! I love it ('specially the "sack" bit!)!

      ....Bethanie....
  • ...from the last journal, so as soon as I saw the word 'liberal', I stopped reading.

    ;-P
  • Okay. This is kind of odd.

    About an hour ago I decided that enough was enough for the day. I turned off my computer, turned off the monitor, the living room light, and went back to my back bedroom to read.

    So I pick up a book ("The Gilded Beaver" by Anonymous) that I picked up somewhere (probably at a client's place), sit on the bed and start reading.

    Fifty-three pages in, I hit an interesting description of the differences between men and women. (See, there is a point to this.) I read a few more pages, and
  • This site [the10lenses.com] has racism information which can in some ways also be applied to other discriminations. I'm somewhere in between colorblind (genderblind) and trancscendant where it comes to both gender and race. I recognise that differences in genes exist, but it's very important to me that the disctinction between "genetically female" and "socially defined as a woman" be impressed very clearly upon the minds of the general public. In my ideal world, anybody can be a woman or a man, regardless of gender, becaus
    • Thanks for the link, the comments, and the insight.

      Yep, here we are discussing gender issues for days right in the middle of gay pride month and none of us bring up the mutability issue.
      D'oh!

      btw, the rigidity of gender roles is actually far from universal nor was it always as true in western societies.
      Do a search on the word "berdache" and you'll vast reams of data. Right here in New York City, one of the first royal governors was transgender.
      Or we could start with a good ol' boy IT manager [skirtman.org] who has cert

Slashdot Top Deals

To be is to program.

Close