Feminism Unnatural

i think youre dumb

 

thankyou. are you proud of your simple, and in no way relevant comment?

 

Humans have the power of reasoning and intelligence that animals don't have, at least to a omparable extent. Therefore, to say that because animals do it, we should also live entirely by instinct, is to deny ourselves this great gift of intelliget thought, the gift of choice, which only humans have. We have the ability to conquer the lower forces in our nature and rise to higher and more divine states of being. To surrender to instinct is to throw away this power we have been blessed with.

It is not only humans that have ego, all animals and plants, all living entities have ego. We all have the sense of "I" as attached to the body, mind and/or intellect. If we truly give up ego, then there remains no distinction of male and female, human and animal, all are equal, all are one. This state of union is called enlightenment, when the ego is completely discarded and the essential unity of creation is realized. So even in the egoless state there does not arise any question of superiority.

When we do have the human ego, we also have the power of intelligence and we use ot rise over our baser instincts. Therefore, to give equal status to women is a step in that direction. As other people in this thread have amply illustrated (I can think of a half dozen more examples off the top of my head), nature is by no means on the side of male superiority. In some species the male dominates, in some the female.

In humans the instinctive order is in favor of male dominion, agreed. But we are more than creatures of instinct. We have free choice. It is the result of that that we have cities, music, buildings, art, telephones, internet; our entire structure of society is a testament to the intellectual abilities of man. If you wish to live by instinct alone then reject all these things and live in a cave, wearing a string of leaves and hunt for your daily food.

All that said, I do think it is a useleful social order to have the men be the workers, earn money and food, while women take care of the children and the family. Personally I think the men have the easier part of the bargain. It is simple division of labor and it makes sense. Your error is in asserting that this order somehow gives males dominion over females. Women should be well educated, able to live on their own and survive in the world by their own strength. Having those skills, it is preferable that they pla their part in the scheme of things. Also, men should have the ability to take on the woman's role if needed. Neither is less than the other.

 

Look at any traditional, hunter-gatherer group of humans and you will see an egaltarian, equal society. Farming put men in charge because a.) they were stronger and did the heavy farm work and b.) they fought the wars. Women ever since in most societies have been definitely put in the backseat.

Some of the modern feminist movement is ridiculous and stupid, but I don't totally disagree with it, because it's only trying to put women back on equal footing with men.

By the way, comparing humans to animals and trying to make an argument that way is stupid. Some animals have females in control (ants, bees, spiders, most birds of prey) and some have males in control (lions, most apes, dogs, seals). Males do tend to be bigger and sometimes dominant, but not always, since even then the female has to consent to mating. Human women generally still have this power (aside from rape), and yes, it power. Ask any deprived husband...

 

I disagree that feminism is unnatural. Women are very intelligent and capable and should hold more leadership positions. It would be a waste for all women to be stuck in the home when many of them do such a great job working in the world along with men. Feminism is perfectly natural and it's a wonderful thing.

 

i think that in recognizing that humans cannot be placed on the same level as animals, you have stop putting the same conventions on humans. whether males play a dominant role in the animal kingdom or not (as freakyjoe pointed out), humans are in a whole other ballpark with our intellect, creativity, and greater self-awareness. so while you're correct that much of the world still works in an instinctual and primitive fashion, we as humans are gradually moving forward - we can't live as beast and intelligent ego at the same time.

 

i think this was very well-said..

 

Why is it that humans consider theirselves above nature until such topics as feminism and homosexuality come up?

 

I dont know about you, but I think homosexuality is perfectly natural. When man was evolving, we had the same heterosexual instincts as most animals do, since we needed to propagate the species. However, over the last century or two we have done so much propagating that there is no room left on Earth. To continue growing at the rate we are would destroy our species before long. Which is why there is a growing trend toward homosexuality... It is an evolutionary step, so that ur cravings can be satisfied without making more people, because at thi time that is what is in th ebest interest of the species. Mom nature knows we suck at restraint

 

alright lets see if i can do this and make it make sense (im pretty sleep deprived)

I don't think there is anything 'unnatural' about gender equality. I don't like cleaning the house and cooking and all that shit. I would rather be working and making money. My boyfriend was usually the one who would clean the house and cook (mainly because he was way better) and he LIKED it.... he worked too yes, but when it came to stuff around the house.. i just didn't like to do it. Now yes things will be slightly different when my child is born BUT I still plan on working and making money for awhile. Now I do still think of my boyfriend as my protector. BUT thats not saying that if I saw someone pointing a gun at him trust me i'd put myself between the gun and him.
I don't know if any of that made sense. But i tried to get a point across. sorry for rambling

 

I believe men and women are definately not equal. they are different. but they should have equal rights.

feminism generally wants to go a step further and put women ahead of men

men have dominance because they are stronger, and sadly to say it, more logical and socially stable on the whole. women cannot deny that wihle there are people who cross the line in many instances, on the whole, women are much more emotional and sym/empathetic towards others. they are able to carry out more tasks at once of course, women are traditionally hte multitaskers. however men are traditionally the methematicians and the providers, evolving to have a better grips with their environment and be able to solve problems objectivelymore. these differnces arent huge but they are there.

that said, i dont think a womans lpace is in the home and a mans to go and work. i think thats a very shallow and unintelligent interpretation of the natural order.

rather, the many tasks of the world and the many jobs should be realised that some are better done by men and some better done by women. and one of those jobs is in fact caring for a family at home. but that doesnt mean thats the only place, it just means its one of the places women are better suited for. at the same time there are more jobs outside of the house that men are more capable at ON THE WHOLE.

you know here in sydney, when they have the train alerts, any informative announcements are done by a female voice and any command announcements are done by a male voice. studies have shown that humans are more responsive to male commands, and to female help/compassion.

and i dont think thats social conditioning, id believe its also got an element of nature in it. if not totally the element of nature driving through the whole way, including the cultural conditioning element.

many animals, the female is much more dominant. but in many other animals, the male is. using those examples was all irrelevent, imo, caus one could jsut as easily say in HUMANS, the dominant is the male.

at any rate, i thinkall humans should have equal rights but we must realise that everoyne is differnet, and that males and females are differnet. and that is, as colours said, a more beautiful thing than men and women being the same.

 

What is so "natural" about a 9-5? I don't see wild animals putting on suits to go sit in a cubicle. What is so natural about linoleum floors and cable TV? Laundry soap and dishwashers? Bills coming in the mail and checks being processed at banks? We don't live in the natural world, honey.

So for the sake of argument we will call our evolved lifestyle "natural" - but then so would be our social evolution, and in that case men and women as equals would be just as natural.


And it is obvious men and women aren't technically "equal" but equal rights is what feminism is about. (I don't know many women who want to take that farther - I'm sure the number pales in comparison to the men who think women are baby-bearing laundry-cleaning machines)

 

There are differences. But I would say women are more socially stable than men, what with their better social skills, more talkative nature. Women in a crisis tend to want to talk about it, while men don't. Now you tell me which is going to be more effective in a nuclear scare? But at the same time, you need rational thought in these situations, and women are known to be more emotional while men are more rational-minded.

We need women in power and we need men in power. The yin of the woman and yang of the man balance each other out (I know, everyone has yin and yang elements...work with me). If you neglect one, the whole system suffers. Look how yang our world is: male dominated, all straight lines, hard, agressive, domineering, logical. We need softer, organic, receptive, intuitive things too or life becomes (is) a drag.

By the way, much of the dominance of men in the sciences and mathematics is cultural, not genetic inferiority of women. At least, it's partially or largely cultural.

 

no i think its not so much cultural because men simply have more objective skills. having to hunt, survey the land. some cultures, women fought, but men are stronger than women for a reason, caus nature made the men the ones who fought and supplied.

and i think if you saw any female society youd see that the social structureis not stable at all and is constantly changing and going crazy. stability is not the same as comfortability and complexity and dynamics that female societies have. male societies are much more one dimensional, which is mroe stable. i didnt say it was best. definately we need both a direction and a dynamic.

 

i have had female maths teachers in the past. one of them was a robot and wasnt really a woman, or a human even. the others, while capable, were less objective in their teaching and more.. well teacher-like. they see more aspects of the problems but dont see the structure of the truth as much. its just a generalisation ive noticed from differnet maths, and science teachers. women can connect their ideas with students better.. but seem to have less grips with the preciseness of what theyre actually teaching. again, jut a general observation

 

It is like brushing your teeth, you want to keep it clean but you fight over how you do it.

 

Stonerbill, right through school and engineerig college, the best professors and teachers I have had have been mostly female, with one notable exception. I would strongly support the theory that it is cultural.

 

All this comes down to the old question of is it 'nature or nurture' that makes the social person.

My own view is that obviously nature plays it's part, but it's really mainly social conditioning etc. 'Gender roles' are a socially constructed thing, they are not part of the natural order necessarily, although in some ways they reflect it.
But these roles as defined by the dominant culture are breaking down, or have broken down.

I think equality between women and men is a good thing.