I'm sorry, but its just laughable to compare the statement 'all humans are ass.holes' with laws of mathematics or rigorously proven theorems central to the workings of science. What is the difference? The latter examples are accepted truths, AXIOMS, whilst the former is a very spurious and generalised opinion.(Original post by Krov)
My list of philosophers all share the same view on Mankind, whatever you say.
And all respectable scholars DO begin with a clear axiomatic preamble.
More ridiculous is the fact that you seem to believe the arguments of 'Pascal, Nietzsche, Freud, Kierkegaard, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Oscar Wilde, Diogenes, Mill, Marx' to be heterogenous, when in fact they hail from widely different disciplines, argue on completely differing subjects, and their actual conclusions are nothing like 'all humans are innately bad'.
Even if it were, it would be the CONCLUSION, or INFERENCE of the argument, NOT the starting point, as you suggested with the term 'axiomatic preamble'.
Anyway. The point completely diverges from the thread.Really?! You accuse me of failing to provide data, yet you go ahead and make a big claim without any hint of rooting in evidence. In any case, I am sure that women and men are biologically, and perhaps cognitively, different. However it isn't a simple matter of dualism, and also biological influence does not equal biological determinism.(Original post by Krov)
By the way, you fail to provide any solid data with your links. As of November 2010, male and female brains are proved to be different, and thus are suggested to work differently.
Crucially: biological differences do not account for the wide ranging cultural elaborations of gender.
Girls and Guys (and any others also) Has real feminism died? Watch
- PS Helper
- 30-11-2010 16:57
(Original post by T-o dore)
- 30-11-2010 18:22
Those are two quite different views - that gender is both socially constructed AND biologically determined?
Afraid its not as simple as that
As I've said before, the woman typically assumes the position of 'carer' in a family, due to the indisposition that she is the one who gives birth, bonds with the baby earliest, is more inclined to the emotional aspect of care, and so on.
As a result of this, the women would stay at home whilst the men would go out hunting and gathering.
As a result of this, the way we evolved meant that men would go out and work, whilst women would stay at home and look after the kids and the home.
Hence, the biological difference (that women are designed in a way that makes it more appropriate for them to look after the children) resulted in the gender convention (that women stay at home while the men go out and work).
(Original post by Ellim)
- 01-12-2010 20:36
But women still get paid less than men for equal work. (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167)
The other day, I was at lunch with this guy who works in banking (I'm currently doing an internship). He said there was a fantastic woman on his team, but he couldn't promote her because the men on his team would get touchy. He instead secretly paid her more. Bad enough as this is, he didn't even understand the problem with what he did.
Economic barriers are a huge problem, but as shown above statistical information can clearly highlight this. Social barriers are so much harder to identify.
- 01-12-2010 20:51
FEMINISM HAS NOT DIED.
Look what happened to women in America in 20th Century. They achieved the vote in 1920. This first wave of feminists thought they had done it all, now social and economic equality would flow naturally as they exercised their vote.
They took their eye off the ball and by the 1950s, were forced back in to their suburban homes with little prospects beyond rearing children... Hence Second Wave Feminism.
Clearly, things have moved on since the 1970s in tremendous leaps and bounds. But we have to keep our eye on the ball. Feminism has a cyclical nature.
It makes me sad to speak to my friends who this 'feminism' is a dirty word. It isn't.
Girls should be educated about feminism and then they can decide whether they identify with it or not, and if so, how they can think about it and use it to come to terms with what being female means to them.
I lament thinking about the 90s, when female image was less sexualised than it is now. Remember Melanie C from the Spice Girls and compare with the Pussycat Dolls.
Having said that, no reason to stop thinking about it, but women have systematically been objectified and sexualised throughout history. It's probably time to focus on other things.
I went to a lecture by the South Place Ethics Society on feminism. I was struck by how out of touch it was with issues facing young women today. Banging on about the objectification of women isn't ACTUALLY going to help women continue the momentum of social, economic and political advances.
Moreover, I think the most fundamental problem facing women in the western world in the 21st century is lack of identity. Females in incredible positions of power have succeeded by adopting 'typical' male characteristics. Thatcher is the best early example, but kick ass CEOs of businesses and female politicians are not feminised in anyway. Why should women slot themselves into an already existing patriarchal system, forced to potentially deny identity resulting from biological differences rather than embracing and realising them?
Feminism isn't dead, but it may be time for the burgeoning of younger wave of feminists, who are more in line with genuine issues that face women in modern society.
- 04-12-2010 01:42
It has really become so divided, particularly within the 20th century but I'll keep on making sandwiches