Thread: Male Feminists

Originally Posted by Spartiate

There will obviously never be total equality between men and women due to the physical disparity between male and female. Political equality is pretty much a done deal in the West though.

OK. Let's consider "political equality". Given that men and women constitute roughly equal proportions of the population, why do males constitute a significantly larger proportion of politicians?

Originally Posted by Xei

There really is very little outside of pop culture that suggests handedness has anything much to do with your mental functions (or that the whole left/right brain personality thing is true either). If you think about it, the idea that multiple complex facets of your personality like logic or creativity are the result of a single, simple physical characteristic is really quite bizarre anyway. There are a million different genetic and environmental causes for who you are; your skilled hand is pretty much irrelevant. In fact there have been studies into the exact issue of handedness and mathematical ability, which have found no statistically significant link.

I thought that was a joke, coz she said she is terrible at logical thinking lol
But yeah, you're correct, handedness is irrelevant in basically everything.
Basically your body is switched around but everything works the same way.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

OK. Let's consider "political equality". Given that men and women constitute roughly equal proportions of the population, why do males constitute a significantly larger proportion of politicians?

Maybe women are smarter?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

OK. Let's consider "political equality". Given that men and women constitute roughly equal proportions of the population, why do males constitute a significantly larger proportion of politicians?

Most likely many factors, not least of which is the fact that women have only been allowed to vote and take part in politics in the US for less than 100 years.

There are no restrictions in place for women who want to take up office. That's as much as the state will ever be able to do against sexism.

@Deerythedeer
I want to apologize for my overtly antagonistic post about a week ago on this thread. It was childish and unnecessary. I dont want to be the complete asshole that excuses his belligerent behavior on being inebriated because that is not a valid excuse but I have been very stressed out lately and I'm sorry I took out my assholishness on you.

But also this is not an admittance that you were right and I was wrong, I respectfully disagree with many of your posts and think you often fall victim to the sexism you accuse others of but Im sorry for the douche way I went about it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Most likely many factors, not least of which is the fact that women have only been allowed to vote and take part in politics in the US for less than 100 years.

There are no restrictions in place for women who want to take up office. That's as much as the state will ever be able to do against sexism.

So once the state has done everything that it possibly can to solve a problem, the problem is solved? Assuming of course that sexual inequality is a problem...

No, let's make it so a vote for a woman is worth more, to balance out female inequality in government.

Don't be silly Philosopher.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

So once the state has done everything that it possibly can to solve a problem, the problem is solved? Assuming of course that sexual inequality is a problem...

The thing is that in many places we no-longer need problem solving targeted at women's problems. We need it targeted at inequality and injustice problems.

How am I being silly? I simply asked a question. If there's a problem that the state can't do anything about, does that mean that the problem is solved? Because otherwise I don't see how stating that there's nothing more for the state to do has any bearing on if political equality has been achieved or not.

@khh, I agree with you. However saying that some mystically undefined notion like 'equality' has been achieved for a particular segment when it hasn't even been defined (much less achieved) is counterproductive to that goal.

And we still haven't defined equality.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

So once the state has done everything that it possibly can to solve a problem, the problem is solved? Assuming of course that sexual inequality is a problem...

It might not be outright solved, but at least people have the means to now solve the problems on their own. For instance, if there is an injustice in the workplace when it comes to sexual equality, you can take it up with labour legislators.

Originally Posted by khh

The thing is that in many places we no-longer need problem solving targeted at women's problems. We need it targeted at inequality and injustice problems.

What about reproductive rights and rape? The GOP seems to be turning back the clock on many of these issues.

Could you give any specifics?

Doesn't your constitution protect these values?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

How am I being silly? I simply asked a question. If there's a problem that the state can't do anything about, does that mean that the problem is solved? Because otherwise I don't see how stating that there's nothing more for the state to do has any bearing on if political equality has been achieved or not.

I thought you meant, should the state go beyond its function and try to change things. Apparently this was a misconception, so sorry. But really, I don't think there's much to the question. Once the state's done all that it can, that's the end of the issue from an academic perspective. It's then up to the public if they want to go further; it's up to women in particular. Although these changes actually happen naturally anyway. The liberalisation of values follows a pretty much linear trend; whether this is for women's rights or homosexual's rights or whatever. In the end, the meme of rationality spreads of its own accord, until dissidence basically reaches zero.

And we still haven't defined equality.

I took a crack at it and you seemed okay with the solution.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

What about reproductive rights and rape? The GOP seems to be turning back the clock on many of these issues.

Women aren't the only ones with injustice issues. What about women that falsely accuse a man of rape and he is, without question, sentenced guilty? What about men who lose their kids when they are more able to provide for them and love them just as much if not more? You act as if any injustice upon women is intolerable and unfair, as if they happen to no one else and women are just being picked on, but you just have to realize that in the end these issues begin to work themselves out. The general trend in America has been to become more liberal, whether or not you are a republican or a democrat. This is clearly evident just by looking back to the 20s (or any of the decades for that matter) and then back to now. I'm sure the issues I just mentioned about injustices towards males will be worked out too. As khh said, we need problem solving targeted at inequality and injustice problems. Any kinks in the hose along the way will eventually be worked out. Welcome to being just like everyone else. Inequality and injustice surrounds us, and it is a problem that all people have to deal with, here and there. So don't be so upset, you're only hurting yourself. You can live life without such negative emotions, at least with this as their cause (there is plenty of misery, hate, and anger to go around).

Damn,, well said snoop!!

and Xei.


It seems to me things have been largely turned around already (since the real inequality of the 50's and 60's anyway) and as the last 2 posts mentioned, the smaller issues seem to slowly be getting worked out as well. It seems to be just a matter of time. I'd say to anyone who still feels a burning sense of injustice that they should probably become an activist themselves if they can't let it rest.

Well, I've recently been exposed to Camille Paglia, and I have to say I'm impressed and intrigued by her. I don't agree with all of her views, but her critique of modern feminism actually feels like a liberating breath of fresh air. She's really criticized a lot of the assumptions that modern feminists (including myself because I've been parroting them) have made, but instead of feeling insulted I feel embarrassed for being so reactionary and naive, in this thread most of all.

Paglia is amazing!!! I've read Sexual Personae several times, and like you I agree with much of it but not all, but mostly I'm just blown away by how clearly she's able to dig down into issues that are usually thought of only in a shallow surface way and expose the deeper threads at the root of them. In fact that book served as a springboard from which I started delving into other authors she mentioned - currently reading a lot of C G Jung.