This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil
"Although it is not Susan Pinker’s intention in writing it, reading her excellent book The Sexual Paradox: Troubled Boys, Gifted Girls and the Real Difference Between the Sexes cannot help but further reinforce my view that modern feminism in the 21st century is simultaneously illogical, unnecessary, and evil.
First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different. Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.
Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.
It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.
Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.
Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.
The feminist insistence that women behave like men and make as much money as men do may not be the sole reason for women’s rising levels of dissatisfaction with life; a greater incidence of divorce and single motherhood may also contribute to it. At any event, the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny. Men’s happiness has not declined in the last 35 years, because there has not been masculinism; nobody has insisted on the radical notion that men are women, although, as Christina Hoff Sommers documents, this may be happening in our current war against boys. For anyone who is looking for an effective antidote to modern feminism, I highly recommend Danielle Crittenden’s 1999 book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Women."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil
This great article provides a great answer to the modern feminist myths.
Discuss.
First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different. Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.
Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.
It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.
Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.
Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy. In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men. Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.
The feminist insistence that women behave like men and make as much money as men do may not be the sole reason for women’s rising levels of dissatisfaction with life; a greater incidence of divorce and single motherhood may also contribute to it. At any event, the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny. Men’s happiness has not declined in the last 35 years, because there has not been masculinism; nobody has insisted on the radical notion that men are women, although, as Christina Hoff Sommers documents, this may be happening in our current war against boys. For anyone who is looking for an effective antidote to modern feminism, I highly recommend Danielle Crittenden’s 1999 book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Women."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil
This great article provides a great answer to the modern feminist myths.
Discuss.
Scroll to see replies
Neo-feminism has no place in a society where, on the whole, men and women have equal rights and opportunities.
Edit - Hang on, I bothered to read what you wrote, feminism is fundamentally giving women free choice. This write up seems to suggest the author "knows better" than women and could choose better for them.
Edit - Hang on, I bothered to read what you wrote, feminism is fundamentally giving women free choice. This write up seems to suggest the author "knows better" than women and could choose better for them.
Some of the ideas of radical feminists are a bit wacky for me, however even as a male, I think feminism has an important role to play on raising awareness of issues and campaigning for rights.
Its a general misconception that there's equal rights and everything is rosy, women suffer more discrimination and harassment in the work place, have lower pay, there's lots of women who are victims of domestic violence. In the high flying careers there are far more men than women, and the odd example of a successful female doesn't disprove this.
Its a general misconception that there's equal rights and everything is rosy, women suffer more discrimination and harassment in the work place, have lower pay, there's lots of women who are victims of domestic violence. In the high flying careers there are far more men than women, and the odd example of a successful female doesn't disprove this.
I'm only part way through the following book but it deals with many of these issues and misconceptions.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backlash-Undeclared-War-Against-Women/dp/009922271X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249328952&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backlash-Undeclared-War-Against-Women/dp/009922271X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249328952&sr=8-2
MagicNMedicine
Some of the ideas of radical feminists are a bit wacky for me, however even as a male, I think feminism has an important role to play on raising awareness of issues and campaigning for rights.
Its a general misconception that there's equal rights and everything is rosy, women suffer more discrimination and harassment in the work place, have lower pay, there's lots of women who are victims of domestic violence. In the high flying careers there are far more men than women, and the odd example of a successful female doesn't disprove this.
Its a general misconception that there's equal rights and everything is rosy, women suffer more discrimination and harassment in the work place, have lower pay, there's lots of women who are victims of domestic violence. In the high flying careers there are far more men than women, and the odd example of a successful female doesn't disprove this.
But that is what it is discussing. The fact that women aren't men and therefore they should be treated differently.
This argument centres around what realm we are defining as equal. Is it in the society we have constructed? or in purely natural, instinctive terms?
The vast majority subscribe to society, and the realist in me knows that I have to, at least to a large extent, conform with this. But the anarchist inside me would throw away this notion and agree on the whole with the article on a purely primal basis.
The vast majority subscribe to society, and the realist in me knows that I have to, at least to a large extent, conform with this. But the anarchist inside me would throw away this notion and agree on the whole with the article on a purely primal basis.
Yeah I do think it's unnecessary in the modern world. It's clearly understandable for why it existed a few decades ago, gender equality today is partly due to the feminism at those times. Now though, it's just annoying and a pisstake.
Besides, I think now where there is such gender equality, feminists are trying to push to be the 'better' sex, trying to get one up on the men. Delusional biatches
Besides, I think now where there is such gender equality, feminists are trying to push to be the 'better' sex, trying to get one up on the men. Delusional biatches
Don_Scott
But that is what it is discussing. The fact that women aren't men and therefore they should be treated differently.
They are different and they are treated differently, but they should still be entitled to equal rights as are all humans.
MagicNMedicine
They are different and they are treated differently, but they should still be entitled to equal rights as are all humans.
I don't think the article is saying otherwise.
Don_Scott
But that is what it is discussing. The fact that women aren't men and therefore they should be treated differently.
I'm not sure what you mean by "modern" here, then, as plenty of feminists have asserted that women are different from men, and that various aspects of society have suffered by reflecting only the male, not the female. Such feminists might condemn a "Ladette" culture precisely because this Laddism is viewed as male.
Matriarchists that you can sometimes hear "joking" about how much better the world would be if women ruled are such "difference feminists," suggesting that naturally female attributes are better suited to running the world properly.
I honeslty simply can't be bothered to refute all the baseless assumptions in this article. And there are many.
Also, for the sake of the science of psychology, no article should be taken as valid. I wouldn't have answered at all if the article you took wasn't from a website called "PsychologyToday.com"
Anyway, let me briefly point out the most misinformed assumptions.
Firstly, let me make it perfectly clear that I'm not a feminist or otherwise an advocate of any set ideology. As I said before, I like to take think practically and independently.
Again, there seems to be a problem with the naunces of words. The term "weak sex" doesn't refer as much to physical strength as it refers to perceived or assumed physical strength. Men are bigger and bulkier, muscly and tend to be more aggressive. This makes them obviously perceived as more threatening and simultaneously, stronger. Also, men's general increased affinity for violent sports and fighting sports backs up my argument.
Firstly, the term "power" needs to be defined. Secondly, I know no women who are "impressed" by men dealing with (specifically) politics, money, etc. Most women are committed to, and love, men who have a normal middle-class job. Don't treat women as reproduction machines (for that reason, don't treat men either as reproduction machines). We are not animals. We are humans. We have different values. Women might like artists. Women often get married with relatively poor, ugly men. Social staus really is nothing.
That's a baseless opinion/assumption/quasi observation which hardly argues for itself. How can you measure someone's happiness? Hardly. Not to even consider measuring a whole population's happiness.
To conclude, the article is one-sided and not relevantly reliable. Plus, it completely ignores any cognitive argument and the existence of the cognitive psychology itself.
Also, for the sake of the science of psychology, no article should be taken as valid. I wouldn't have answered at all if the article you took wasn't from a website called "PsychologyToday.com"
Anyway, let me briefly point out the most misinformed assumptions.
Firstly, let me make it perfectly clear that I'm not a feminist or otherwise an advocate of any set ideology. As I said before, I like to take think practically and independently.
It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.”
Again, there seems to be a problem with the naunces of words. The term "weak sex" doesn't refer as much to physical strength as it refers to perceived or assumed physical strength. Men are bigger and bulkier, muscly and tend to be more aggressive. This makes them obviously perceived as more threatening and simultaneously, stronger. Also, men's general increased affinity for violent sports and fighting sports backs up my argument.
Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women.
Firstly, the term "power" needs to be defined. Secondly, I know no women who are "impressed" by men dealing with (specifically) politics, money, etc. Most women are committed to, and love, men who have a normal middle-class job. Don't treat women as reproduction machines (for that reason, don't treat men either as reproduction machines). We are not animals. We are humans. We have different values. Women might like artists. Women often get married with relatively poor, ugly men. Social staus really is nothing.
Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy
That's a baseless opinion/assumption/quasi observation which hardly argues for itself. How can you measure someone's happiness? Hardly. Not to even consider measuring a whole population's happiness.
To conclude, the article is one-sided and not relevantly reliable. Plus, it completely ignores any cognitive argument and the existence of the cognitive psychology itself.
I don't think it would be too disputable to say that 'naturally female attributes' are better suited to running some things than naturally male ones.
I think the problem with your argument is the vanilla assumption is that it swings a bit too far the other way.
It's pretty clear that on average men and women are better at different things, and are interested in different things. And some people jump to the conclusion that these differences are completely down to agree our society. But I think it would be very naive to assume that human biology doesn't bias this at all. So I agree to some extent that men and women are different.
However this can't be applied to individuals. There will always be exceptions. There will always be some women who have traits that are more commonly found in men, and there will always be some men who have traits that are more commonly found in women. So I don't think it's fair to somehow enforce these gender differences when they are not universal and only apply statistically.
It's pretty clear that on average men and women are better at different things, and are interested in different things. And some people jump to the conclusion that these differences are completely down to agree our society. But I think it would be very naive to assume that human biology doesn't bias this at all. So I agree to some extent that men and women are different.
However this can't be applied to individuals. There will always be exceptions. There will always be some women who have traits that are more commonly found in men, and there will always be some men who have traits that are more commonly found in women. So I don't think it's fair to somehow enforce these gender differences when they are not universal and only apply statistically.
Psyk
I think the problem with your argument is the vanilla assumption is that it swings a bit too far the other way.
It's pretty clear that on average men and women are better at different things, and are interested in different things. And some people jump to the conclusion that these differences are completely down to agree our society. But I think it would be very naive to assume that human biology doesn't bias this at all. So I agree to some extent that men and women are different.
However this can't be applied to individuals. There will always be exceptions. There will always be some women who have traits that are more commonly found in men, and there will always be some men who have traits that are more commonly found in women. So I don't think it's fair to somehow enforce these gender differences when they are not universal and only apply statistically.
It's pretty clear that on average men and women are better at different things, and are interested in different things. And some people jump to the conclusion that these differences are completely down to agree our society. But I think it would be very naive to assume that human biology doesn't bias this at all. So I agree to some extent that men and women are different.
However this can't be applied to individuals. There will always be exceptions. There will always be some women who have traits that are more commonly found in men, and there will always be some men who have traits that are more commonly found in women. So I don't think it's fair to somehow enforce these gender differences when they are not universal and only apply statistically.
Well, there are differences that between men and women that always apply.
For example women have anatomy which is designed for child rearing (breasts), no men have (working) breasts.
And there will always be some exceptions to anything but we should base a whole syste, just because of some exceptions to the rule.
Don_Scott
Well, there are differences that between men and women that always apply.
For example women have anatomy which is designed for child rearing (breasts), no men have (working) breasts.
For example women have anatomy which is designed for child rearing (breasts), no men have (working) breasts.
Well that's true (well almost, I believe it's possible for a man to have functioning breasts, but that would count as a medical problem). Which is why I agree that there are perhaps some laws that should be gender specific. Mostly relating to child care, but there might be other situations where it's appropriate.
Don_Scott
And there will always be some exceptions to anything but we should base a whole syste, just because of some exceptions to the rule.
And there will always be some exceptions to anything but we should base a whole syste, just because of some exceptions to the rule.
I don't see why things can't be more or less neutral. It seems some feminists think there's something wrong with a woman conforming to the traditional female roles. And of course there's nothing wrong with that, so certainly women shouldn't be discouraged from it. But I also don't think there's anything wrong with leading a different life if you are an exception and want to do something different.
Don_Scott
Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.
Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.
It is delusional to suggest that women retain power despite man's monopoly on social, political and economic resources. Not only is your 'power' concerned with beauty and aesthetics (showing your inherent misogynism), but you're portraying an individualistic, interpersonal characteristic as being some kind of political force. If you are a wealthy and successful man, the power you have over women comes in coercion. You can force and coerce others to achieve your will. Women were and continue to be used as means rather than ends in themselves. You honestly think that a woman can bat her eyelids and the state gives her anything she wants? The power that came with control is immense; relative attractiveness is nothing but a degrading defense of misogynistic ideals.
The reason men controlled those resources wasn't because 'women didn't need to', it was because women weren't able to.
Don_Scott
First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical
Rubbish! Sometimes people can fall into that trap, but its hardly a tenet of modern feminism.
The only thing I do agree with is that women are not 'the weak sex'.
Apart from the fact that everyone is individual and there are also strong women and weak men; it is just a matter of definition.
Physically, men are stronger than woman. Men have more muscles (not number, but size) and it's just logical that their bodies can be stronger that any female body could be.
But in terms of psychology, women tend to be the stronger ones. They are not agressive, but their way of fighting is brutal and a real torture to any men, just think about how those cliques were at the age of 14. They are malicious and sneaky, boys fight and 5 minutes later they sit together and laugh about anything.
What men claim to be 'complicated', is just another form of a fight- I haven't seen any boy in my life who ignored his friend for months or kept terrorizing him for any reason.
Both things can't be seen as the only thing that make men and women different, also you can't say weak to any of them. There are men who have proven a great mental strenght and women that are nothing but mental wretches; you just can't generalize. There are two main forms of strenght, and men and women have their own strategies to use them. But any further speculation would lead to generalization- such as 'the weak sex'.
Apart from the fact that everyone is individual and there are also strong women and weak men; it is just a matter of definition.
Physically, men are stronger than woman. Men have more muscles (not number, but size) and it's just logical that their bodies can be stronger that any female body could be.
But in terms of psychology, women tend to be the stronger ones. They are not agressive, but their way of fighting is brutal and a real torture to any men, just think about how those cliques were at the age of 14. They are malicious and sneaky, boys fight and 5 minutes later they sit together and laugh about anything.
What men claim to be 'complicated', is just another form of a fight- I haven't seen any boy in my life who ignored his friend for months or kept terrorizing him for any reason.
Both things can't be seen as the only thing that make men and women different, also you can't say weak to any of them. There are men who have proven a great mental strenght and women that are nothing but mental wretches; you just can't generalize. There are two main forms of strenght, and men and women have their own strategies to use them. But any further speculation would lead to generalization- such as 'the weak sex'.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
