Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
View Poll Results: Are you a feminist?
Yes 8 11.59%
No 47 68.12%
I don't understand feminism enough to decide 14 20.29%
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
NG
poo-tee-weet?
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,044
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
Send a message via AIM to NG
#71
01-04-2009
Default

If you're an activist, you're out there on the streets rallying people to sign petitions (or signing some yourself), picking perhaps, working in groups to achieve some objective decided upon.
Busy, busy, busy
sl1ck
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 8,668
Subtract from sl1ck's ReputationAdd to sl1ck's Reputation sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000 sl1ck IS OVER 9000
#72
01-04-2009
Default

So what essays/and or writings do you recommend for furthering one's knowledge of Feminism?
NG
poo-tee-weet?
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,044
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
Send a message via AIM to NG
#73
01-04-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1cK_ View Post
So what essays/and or writings do you recommend for furthering one's knowledge of Feminism?
Give me a week or so to give specifics, but the Engels essay is a good one, there's another Marx essay that's good, but the better ones I can't remember.
Busy, busy, busy
SyKaNe
Level 35
SyKaNe's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 3,159
Subtract from SyKaNe's ReputationAdd to SyKaNe's Reputation SyKaNe is a novice
#74
01-04-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuy View Post
Shut up, Jeff.

subtext: he's not that smart

edit: And it actually doesn't matter what form of the social contract he refers to; they're all sexist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharrgarbl View Post
Ah, well then, I concur.
Hmmm discrimination? Based on ignorance? déjà vu... Ironic how you are trying to diminish discrimination when all along you are the most biast. And trust me I definitely was talking about The Social Contract Theory. Last time I remember (which is right now) The Social Contract Theory In terms of the American political system, is the most significant of the theories of the origin of state. Philosophers Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau developed this theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hobbes wrote that in earliest history humans lived in ultimate freedom, in a "state of nature," in which no government existed and no person was subject to any superior power. That which people could take by force belonged to them. However, all people were similarly free in this state of nature. No authority existed to protect one person from the aggressive actions of another. Thus, individuals were only as safe as their own physical strength and intelligence could make them.

Human beings overcame their unpleasant conditions, says the social contract theory, by agreeing with one another to create a state. By contract, people within a given area agreed to promote the safety and well-being of all. In the contract (that is, through a constitution), the members of the state created a government to exercise powers they had voluntarily given to the state.

Basically, the social contract theory argues that the state arose out of a VOLUNTARY act of FREE PEOPLE. It holds that the state exist only to serve the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, that they are the SOUL SOURCE of POLITICAL POWER, and that they are FREE to GIVE or WITHHOLD that power as they CHOOSE. The theory may seem far-fetched to you being the day and age we live in. However, popular sovereignty, limited government, and individual rights were immensely important to the shaping of the American governmental system. In short, we wouldn't have America today if there wasn't the social contract theory. Feminism you know that would make sense if women stayed with guys that treated them nicely but no they always go with the asshole. Just the way they are wired.
DECLINE OF CIVILIZATION


Last edited by SyKaNe; 01-04-2009 at 10:47 AM.
NG
poo-tee-weet?
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,044
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
Send a message via AIM to NG
#75
01-04-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SyKaNe View Post
Hmmm discrimination? Based on ignorance? déjà vu... Ironic how you are trying to diminish discrimination when all along you are the most biast.
You never said how lol.

Quote:
And trust me I definitely was talking about The Social Contract Theory. Last time I remember (which is right now) The Social Contract Theory In terms of the American political system, is the most significant of the theories of the origin of state. Philosophers Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau developed this theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hobbes wrote that in earliest history humans lived in ultimate freedom, in a "state of nature," in which no government existed and no person was subject to any superior power. That which people could take by force belonged to them. However, all people were similarly free in this state of nature. No authority existed to protect one person from the aggressive actions of another. Thus, individuals were only as safe as their own physical strength and intelligence could make them.

Human beings overcame their unpleasant conditions, says the social contract theory, by agreeing with one another to create a state. By contract, people within a given area agreed to promote the safety and well-being of all. In the contract (that is, through a constitution), the members of the state created a government to exercise powers they had voluntarily given to the state.

Basically, the social contract theory argues that the state arose out of a VOLUNTARY act of FREE PEOPLE. It holds that the state exist only to serve the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, that they are the SOUL SOURCE of POLITICAL POWER, and that they are FREE to GIVE or WITHHOLD that power as they CHOOSE. The theory may seem far-fetched to you being the day and age we live in. However, popular sovereignty, limited government, and individual rights were immensely important to the shaping of the American governmental system. In short, we wouldn't have America today if there wasn't the social contract theory.
First of all, LOL at you teaching me philosophy.

Hobbes and Locke have complete opposite social contracts. But I'll let you in on how they're sexist.

Hobbes described the state of nature as one with complete freedom, and with that freedom man (he specifically says man, a nice little patriarchal sign there) was in a state of constant war. Further, Hobbes' way of gaining sovereignty was "might is right." The ruler(s), the sovereign, were not to be questioned -- if you disagreed with the sovereign power, tough luck because they're in charge. And since women at the time period were already considered the weaker sex, they were unable to obtain sovereignty in Hobbes' form of the social contract theory.

And the formation of a State in society for Hobbes involves laws of nature which Hobbes describe as “precepts, or general rules, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.” Man’s natural state, according to Hobbes, is a state of war, where each man acts in their own self interest, does as they please, and in a constant state of war due to three principal causes: competition, diffidence, and glory (Sterba 142). These laws of nature require a sovereign power, a force strong enough to cause these laws to be observed by fear; for without a force strong enough to cause them to be observed, Hobbes says, every man will remain in a state of nature . that is, a state of war.

Locke's social contract theory in Two Treaties on Government is the kind of social contract you think you know -- the democratic one. Locke's social contract theory is more or less (less actually) the American system of democracy. And it's sexism is oh so subtle that it passes right on by.

Locke talks in Two Treaties on Government as though women are equal; he, however, says very little (intentionally) about the family (private vs public life). Now since you didn't actually touch on a damn thing Locke actually said (you must only know your Hobbes lawl), I'll specify the differences.

Locke's state of nature describes three basic human rights: right to punishment, property, and self preservation. When man enters into a civil society, these rights transfer into the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke specifically states that one has the right to self preservation, but when one's self preservation is not in competition, said person has a duty, an obligation, to help in the preservation of others (the preservation of others benefits you by maintaining the society; you can't just let all of your comrades die).

Locke's most important right in civil society is the right to property. I'm going to assume you haven't read Locke's Labor Theory (the actual essay, not a wikipedia summary). It functions under four premises: (1) Every man has property in his own person (right to life, which is self owned), (2) a person’s labor is their property, (3) when you mix your labor with nature, what you remove from nature through labor is yours, and (4) when something is removed from the state of Nature common to all, such as land, it becomes theirs. The fourth premise is a conditional one, whose justification rests on whether there is enough of whatever good is being taken and if, when the goods come into one’s possession, there is some good resources left in common for others. In other words, you can’t rightfully come by an apple tree and take all of the good apples, leaving few or few worth having left for others.

Now here's the part Locke intentionally avoided: Locke assumes that women's role is in the family. Families, of course, exist in the state of nature and in civil society. It is the ownership of property that turns a man in the state of nature into a citizen of civil society. The ownership of property enters you into the public life, the civil society as it were. However, women can't own property, so they remain in the state of nature (the private life) and do not enter into civil society.

AND because the man has equal paternal right and ownership of the child, and because only the man has possessions (including the woman, btw; I'll expand on that if you'd life), inheritance is passed down through the father, awarding nothing to the woman.

There are, however, exceptions, those being upper class women, such as royalty, and childless, single women who have escaped the marital enslavement consented to when a woman says “I do” and own their own property.

Would you like to read the feminist counter-argument, or would you like to teach me more about philosophy?

Quote:
Feminism you know that would make sense if women stayed with guys that treated them nicely but no they always go with the asshole. Just the way they are wired.
Probably the most sexist thing you've said yet; I won't count on it though, since you're still talking.
Busy, busy, busy

Last edited by NG; 01-04-2009 at 11:40 AM.
SoonerBlondie
uber n00b (level 2)
SoonerBlondie's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 5
Subtract from SoonerBlondie's ReputationAdd to SoonerBlondie's Reputation SoonerBlondie is a novice
Send a message via MSN to SoonerBlondie
#76
01-04-2009
Default

haha...this is quite an interesting forum..
Wharrgarbl
Level 12
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 103
Subtract from Wharrgarbl's ReputationAdd to Wharrgarbl's Reputation Wharrgarbl is a novice
#77
01-04-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuy View Post
Oh, and Jeff, the patriarchal system exceeds 2500 years (but I know it's a nice round number to fall on since we know so much from that time period onward).
Well, I was referring to more the modern, Western society's structure whose patriarchy can, I think, be traced back to Greek and Roman civilization, which dates back to about ~500 BC. Greek civilization is older than that, but we don't have a lot of details about them prior to 500 BC or so.

I think the "barbarian" cultures tended to be a lot more matriarchal, or at least value women more. I mean, some of the barbarian cultures even had women warriors. That was really completely unfathomable for Greeks or Romans.
Niceguy: Who's this Wharrgarbl twat using words with 4+ syllables?
NG
poo-tee-weet?
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,044
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
Send a message via AIM to NG
#78
01-04-2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharrgarbl View Post
Well, I was referring to more the modern, Western society's structure whose patriarchy can, I think, be traced back to Greek and Roman civilization, which dates back to about ~500 BC. Greek civilization is older than that, but we don't have a lot of details about them prior to 500 BC or so.
Yeah 2500 is about as far as we can confidently go; some of the presocratic philosophers were in the 600+ and there's so very, VERY little about them that we know about. Most of what we know of the presocratic philosophers has come from others' writings, like Aristotle and Plato.

Quote:
I think the "barbarian" cultures tended to be a lot more matriarchal, or at least value women more. I mean, some of the barbarian cultures even had women warriors. That was really completely unfathomable for Greeks or Romans.
They did, actually. One of the really interesting things in that essay I linked from Engels is how, over time, the relationship between man and woman became greater unbalanced. "Savage" cultures, as Engels puts it, treated women better than we do today.
Busy, busy, busy
NG
poo-tee-weet?
NG's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,044
Subtract from NG's ReputationAdd to NG's Reputation NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom NG wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
Send a message via AIM to NG
#79
01-05-2009
Default



I'm waiting...
Busy, busy, busy
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#80
01-05-2009
Default

In the definition of feminism you have provided about equal rights and opportunities, I am 100% feminist, though not an active member fighting for these justices

But along with all philosophies/religions, there are blind followers who do not truly understand the meaning of what they are following. This leads to extremism. For example, my aunt is a member of a feminist movement, and everybody inside her feminism group were supporting Hilary Clinton in the presidential race, regardless of her policies (and don't be mistaken, I am not saying all of them voted solely on the fact she was a female, but it was a topic discussed by the group and played a major role). Anyway, I'll cut to the chase, but many "feminists" have actually preached female superiority. There is an example which comes to my kind which is featured in the book "50 essays: A portable anthology" which was a book used in my AP Comp class last year. I don't remember the feminist author's name, but she depicted men as foul pigs and women as a more civilized and superior being (sorry I don't remember the title, that might help).

I am whole heartily against "radical feminism", but 100% for equal rights and opportunities for all races and genders. Hopefully this accurately describes my opinion on the matter, though a lot of it looks like crap after rereading...
GT: Zyphex
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off