Feminism and Political Correctness

[Paj!]

I love the idea that we know how your children will feel about you.

[heroicjanitor]

I'm not sure how abortion and religion came up (though that's not to say they aren't relevant), though I find they represent possibly the only cans of worms bigger than making the suggestion that people of all genders should be treated fairly.

 

I feel a bit scattered so I will number my points and they might go back and forth a bit but bear with me.

 

1. The question of science ever being able to predict the sexuality of a person is a big if at best. There has been some research into it though, and I have heard the theory that as homosexuality is more prevalent in more dense populations (I think including various species of animals) that it could be partly a response to resource management - a gay organism could act as another ally to look after the species without adding more strain on resources through procreation. Citation needed again, will try to track this down (apologies for not having time so far to do any deep research per post). That's one possibility, which would mean in a way everyone has a "gay" design. Another possibility is a gay gene, but this flies in the face of evolutionary theory, unless there is something especially beneficial to the populations that gay organisms bring. This seems shaky, I don't see any advantages/disadvantages. The other possibility or rather factor that could contribute, is that upbringing and environment plays a part. Don't know any papers off the top of my head on this.

 

2. the suggested link between reproductive rights and eugenics -

I think this is the part that upsets me the most, because this is the kind of argument anti-choice advocates love - the narrative that people who seek abortions are choosy selfish sinners. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it inadvertently demonises the extremely vulnerable population of pregnant women already struggling for their own autonomy against all kinds of political attacks, and I think it's really important not to fall into this trap.

 

Currently in america there is a war on reproductive rights going on.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/07/number-of-day_13.html

 

Over here it's catching on too - I believe there is legislation in the works to take the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Chip chip chip...

 

3. the assumption that people would want to eliminate homosexuality/the assumption that people would want to have sexuality in common with their children - not so much outrage here as just strong disagreement

 

4. the false dilemma posed between accepting homosexuality or protecting reproductive rights for women - this kind of choice is only ever going to be presented by the republican house to obama...

 

5. (previously) the false dilemma posed between saving breast cancer patients versus other patients. Massive slippery slope. When you start making comparisons like this where do you end? With the education money for a severely learning impaired child, you could heat X number of homes for old folk? If we unplugged the life support on this coma ward we could reduce the deficit? slip slip slip

 

Also you could use your argument for prostate cancer too - I'm sure everyone here has heard of movember. And you know what, it's good that people are aware of these things and getting checked! A breast exam where a tumour is not found is NOT a wasted exam!

 

If there is a gem like good access to cancer screenings (which is a massive privilege and only available in some countries) and other things aren't doing as well, that's not a viable criticism of feminism. That's showing it works! And that everything else could be so much better too. Feminism's gain is not anyone else's loss.

 

Finally I'd like to say that we shouldn't get adversarial. What I am trying to fight is oppression and the attitudes it perpetuates, attitudes that in turn perpetuate oppression.

 

There's a lot of work to do.

 

I'd say it's quite certain science will be able to predict sexuality at some stage. It is a physical feature of someone, so it can be detected.

 

I amn't anti-choice, pro-choice is obviously the right way to go. I'm just saying it is a possible situation, and you act as if I shouldn't mention these things so as to withhold information in an argument. It isn't an argument against choice I'll stress again, and the type of people who are anti-choice are likely anti-gay. They'd probably allow this, but refuse abortion.

 

Most religions are against homosexuality, atheists are the minority. It obviously depends on how easy it would be to make the change though.

 

That's not a dilemma. I just said it will be possible at some stage. You don't have to accept one or the other I just posed it as an example of where feminism and LGBT would clash. If a majority of women DID want to make this change, I suspect LGBT would be up in arms and feminists would say it is the mother's right. IF. So whether a lot of parents would want this is the main issue.

 

The breast cancer thing is what I am more clear on. There is way too much exposure for it. Funding needs to be allocated to more serious medical issues ahead of less serious ones.

 

I just want to put counterarguments to the things you say because whenever I hear these things I never receive research or statistics, I'm just supposed to believe it is true and join the cause. If I don't it's like I'm some immoral asshole.

 

Sheep can already be proven gay in the womb

[EddieColeslaw]

Ideas relating to this thread. Not others. Although every time I make a thread people just want to argue with me specifically. I don't like to make threads. I created a tumblr. There I can voice myself and not have a flurry of "you evil bastard your kids will hate you".

 

I haven't written anything in it yet though, Only made it today.

 

I don't think people target you specifically, it's just that you are generally very forthright about voicing your opinion

[Yvonne]

I'm not trying to demonise you and I'm not calling you an arsehole, just interrogating your arguments, some of which are dangerously flawed. Will post more tomorrow (possibly, or will be drunk)

 

For now this should tide us over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Giraffes

[chairdriver]

Homosexuality occurs in over 450 species, homophobia in only 1.

 

[jayseven]

Sidebar; do people have a problem with the concept that alternatives to 'normal' are 'mutations' in some form?

[Emasher]

Most religions are against homosexuality, atheists are the minority. It obviously depends on how easy it would be to make the change though.

 

Actually there was a study not long ago that predicted religion will all but disappear in several countries in the not so distant future (although not in our lifetimes unfortunately). Its going to be quite some time before we can predict that sort of stuff anyway, so hopefully religion isn't going to be what gets in the way of that sort of thing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

[Eenuh]

heroicjanitor: how is there too much exposure on breast cancer? And how is it not a serious illness?

 

From what I can see here in Belgium, it's not "overexposed" (not sure when something is really) and other cancers are talked about too. Saying that one disease is less worse than others just seems wrong to me, especially as it's still a deadly disease.

[heroicjanitor]

Just to say I am most likely wrong about gays becoming a lot rarer, I was trying to add importance to the argument just to see what people would say. The main point I was trying to discuss was whether changing the sexuality of a fetus would be allowed. I wouldn't do it myself, but you know there would be some who would. People got a bit distracted by the background story though/ I phrased it poorly :p The question is slightly influenced by some cultures using early gender screening to make sure they had boys.

 

I'm not trying to say breast cancer isn't serious, it is very serious. But relatively it isn't as serious as other cancers/diseases and it gets too much funding. Though breast cancer's gain isn't everyone else's loss in terms of funding, since a lot of it is made in fund-raising and you can't expect people to have the same passion for every type of disease, there are a limited number of doctors/nurses/beds and I just think it receives too much. Most women significantly overestimate their chances of dying from it because of (what I see as) scaremongering.

 

I'm clearly not an expert though, I used to think that it was good because it would lead to breakthroughs in all areas but people are telling me that researching one type of cancer only helps that type of cancer

[MoogleViper]

heroicjanitor: how is there too much exposure on breast cancer? And how is it not a serious illness?

 

Over here breast cancer is by far the most funded cancer per patient (that sentence sounds wrong, but you know what I mean). This leads to breast cancer patients recieving far better treatment than other cancer patients.

Edited July 15, 2011 by MoogleViper

[Yvonne]

How do they sleep at night??

[MoogleViper]

How do they sleep at night??

 

Much better than other cancer patients.

 

 

Somehow I just can't imagine feminists campaigning for an increase in funding for testicular or prostate cancer charities. Funny that.

[Yvonne]

and that just shows how little you know about feminists.

 

You remind me of this guy:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/05/maude-save-us.html

 

Also men get breast cancer too

Edited July 15, 2011 by Yvonne

[Fresh]

Bloody women should be in the kitchen! I'm going to pose here with in my bearskin coat on a pile of dead homos.

 

*sings*

 

O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light...

[Yvonne]

Finally some honest misogyny!

 

while 1

{

print signature + "\n";

}

[Emasher]

Typical feminist, not indenting their code.

[The fish]

My two cents: I am a feminist. I believe far two much in life is slanted against women solely because they're women. I do, however, have a problem with the whole "male privilege" thing. Firstly, I take issue with the idea of not being able to be aware of my privilege - the entire concept is set up to make me have to either accept something I don't fully agree with or be labelled as sexist &/or privileged.

 

Secondly, their are areas close to my heart in which there is female privilege. Arguably the best area that illustrates this is my chosen career as a teacher, and hopefully a primary school teacher in future. If I were female, people would say "ooh, that's interesting", and assume nothing. As a male people tend to attach one of two(or both) things to it: people question my sexuality, or consider that I might be a paedophile, purely because of my gender.

 

Another problem for me personally is having long hair - I now have a "normal", business-like hair, but as a teenager I had long, below shoulder-length hair. For a woman, no one assumes anything. As a male, people assumed I was some kind of work-dodging, lazy, drug-using hippie, purely because of the combination my choice of hair cut and gender. There's other issues, like that of being assaulted (if I'm out at night and a drunk guy hits me, it's "a bit of argy-bargy", and if I defend myself in anyway, it's "a drunken brawl", but a women would be treated very differently), but for now I'll leave it.

Edited July 15, 2011 by The fish

[heroicjanitor]

You should be the president or something... You're very good at expressing yourself :p It always feels like you wrap everything up, and are less biased than everyone else. Hats off.

[The fish]

You should be the president

 

I'm well aware, thank you.

[MoogleViper]

You should be the president or something...

 

You disgust me.

[The fish]

But relatively it isn't as serious as other cancers/diseases and it gets too much funding.

 

I really hope you just didn't read that back before posting it and that you're not really a massive dickhead.

 

Breast cancer research doesn't get too much funding, other types of cancer, especially male-specific cancers, get too little, and have too little in the way of support structures and established fund-raising initiatives (a good example of this is that if someone does, say, a run to raise money for breast cancer, it's easy to organise and is seen as a normal and positive thing to do. If you do the same run but to raise money for testicular cancer, it's difficult to find a pre-arranged support structure to do it in, and people will might wonder if you suffer from it. I dare say the average amount of money raised would be less, but I'll admit that's just idle speculation).

 

 

Unless breast cancer researchers are literally having to burn money as they have too much of it, they don't have too much. If you think others have too little, then grow the fuck up and do something to raise money and awareness for it.

[heroicjanitor]

Is all of the funding raised for breast cancer raised from fund-raisers or does it come from the state? I am under the impression that a lot of it is lobbied for. In which case it would be at the expense of other cancers/diseases which are included in the budget. All of them having more money would be ideal though.

[EddieColeslaw]

I always thought that the reason that breast cancer awareness is so much more prominent than other types of cancer is because some person/organisation took the intiative to do it, or they're more active, for whatever reason. For example, the pink Ballygowan bottles, in support of the Marie Keating Foundation. I assume they approached Ballygowan. If a testicular/prostate cancer had approached them and convinced them to do it, then the bottles would have been a different colour, in support of that. Or maybe breast cancer foundations are becoming a monopoly, idk.

 

Not everything is going to be represented/have equal amount of awareness. It depends on whether there's anyone pushing it. A group have felt strongly enough about breast cancer to initiate this, it's been picked up by the news/media and supported, this is the result. It's not like there isn't room for awareness of other cancers/conditions.

 

I do agree with herojan in that the media are slightly too enthusiastic about it, and there is an element of scaremongering (see this Wiki article), but what's done is done. Instead of complaining about it, there needs to be action in raising awareness of other diseases.

[Pestneb]

Research has shown that children tend to genderise jobs anyway even when they're non-gender specific (e.g. nurse, cleaner, teacher vs. firefighter, doctor and builder) yet alone when they specifically have the word 'lady' in them.

 

Just to throw this in here. We're often told how absolute freedom and choice is the only way to live, but perhaps it should be acknowledged that stereotypes can bring stability and security. Personally I find too much choice distracting, gender stereotyping in the context of jobs can be a useful filter to allow children to focus in on what they can aspire to be.

Taking myself away from the situation, a few questions

 

1)What's so bad about have gender specific jobs? such as, what if ONLY women could become lunchladies, and men where excluded from that job?

Would it devalue the person getting the job? Would it devalue the persons not getting the job? Would it devalue women? Would it devalue men?

 

A lot of stereotypes are useful in providing a social structure, defining norms that allow a society to function smoothly. If you work to hard to break those stereotypes without building in replacement metastructures to take their place, you end up with a society that is either hypocritical or disfunctional. My personal view would be that western society is becoming increasingly both.

[Yvonne]

Prescribe precisely how someone must live their life and then see how much social stability you get in the end.

 

Would you be happy being told you couldn't pursue your interests because you weren't an X or a Y?

 

I knew gamers were bad but I didn't realise they were THIS bad.

I declare my exit from this thread.

 

Jesus fucking christ, bring a flood.