Feminist "Philosophy"

[bhall0689]

I think the vast majority of the conservative religious have never actually taken a Gender Studies class, yet still feel entitled to critique and dismiss. So, yeah, their presumptions about what Feminism is at its core about (it’s NOT about domination) are completely wrong.

 

[larkin31]

I think the vast majority of the conservative religious have never actually taken a Gender Studies class, yet still feel entitled to critique and dismiss. So, yeah, their presumptions about what Feminism is at its core about (it’s NOT about domination) are completely wrong.

agreed

it was argued on an anti-feminism thread just a few days ago that feminism had as its overt mission to destroy the family and destroy marriage! Meaning, for everyone!

So, does anyone here have anything to help us all understand what feminist “philosophy” is? I asked the OP, but she has not responded.

 

[HCF]

I’ll try to elaborate a bit more. As I stated in my first post, I have never taken a Feminist “Philosophy” class because the Gender Studies department was considered a subset of the Sociology department, not the Philosophy department. In my classes we did not so much discuss feminist philosophies as examine the difference between sex and gender, and deconstruct what it means to be masculine and feminine in society (particularly in high school, one of the most interesting places to observe the gender-shaping phenomena).

Think about how “feminine” and “masculine” qualities are emphasized from the very first moments a baby is born - pink for girls, blue for boys. As children grow up, there is a certain type of toys they are expected to play with - although it is often socially acceptable for young girls to cross this norm (ie, play athletic sports, play with toy cars and trucks), parents are often concerned when young boys cross this norm (ie, like to play with Barbies, play dress-up in girls’ clothing). I recently saw a thread in the parenting forum in which a mother was concerned about her little boy’s desire to play dress up in girls’ clothing. Many posters encouraged her to stop the behavior. So, from this young age, men are taught that there are definite boundaries that as a male, you do not cross.

Girls experience their own initiation into femininity, although usually not until the onset of puberty when girls start to receive messages about how they are to act and look, especially the acceptable way to act and look around guys. Girls form cliques just as guys form cliques, and these cliques create an expected member identity that each part of the group conforms to through dress, language, and action. Basically, this is the way I understand gender and how it IS actually shaped by the society we grow up in. If anyone would like some good reading suggestions, I can send you in the direction of some really, really excellent Gender Studies readings.

I am neither a Gender Studies major nor minor; I am an English Writing major. I did take 3 Gender Studies classes in the Sociology department, but my training stops there. I’ve tried to summarize my basic understandings that I garnered from those classes, but of course the actual studies and essays I read were much more eloquent and convincing.

I hope you all have an excellent day, and do remember that we are all brothers and sisters who are called to be peaceful and treat one another with respect.

Much love.

Right on. Last semester I took a Majority-Minorities class and one of the issues discussed was the “development” or the socialization of gender. While I do believe that men are inherently masculine and women inherently feminine, expressed as leadership and protection by men and nurturing by women, the society one is raised in plays a huge role in the formation of gender.

 

[bhall0689]

Right on. Last semester I took a Majority-Minorities class and one of the issues discussed was the “development” or the socialization of gender. While I do believe that men are inherently masculine and women inherently feminine, expressed as leadership and protection by men and nurturing by women, the society one is raised in plays a huge role in the formation of gender.

I assert that it’s impossible to differentiate between “natural” inclinations and “socialized” inclinations. After all, people’s relationships with each other and their environment means so much more than whatever is written in their genes.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I assert that it’s impossible to differentiate between “natural” inclinations and “socialized” inclinations. After all, people’s relationships with each other and their environment means so much more than whatever is written in their genes.

I agree with most of what you have said so far.

Still, personally I do not like Gender Studies. And I DID take one back in the Day.

But like I said, I agree with most of what you have said.

 

[inocente]

I wanted to leave this link for anyone that would like to look over it: The Male Privilege Checklist
Readings like this are what true “feminism” is all about.

I liked the last bullet best – I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

 

[inocente]

You’ve again proven that you didn’t read Stove’s article and that you are content to attack a silly straw man caricature instead of the real argument being offered. (Maybe that’s all you’re capable of? I don’t know, dude.)

No, I read it. Embarrassing, over 8,000 words to cover up his lack of evidence and pot-holed logic. I mean if you started as an uncritical member of his choir then I guess it might just work but if you take a critical agnostic stance it’s risible. Stove may have done some good work (I’ve not read any of his other stuff) but imho this one essay has hurt his reputation for all time.

 

[inocente]

[Citation needed] And “equal opportunity” sounds ambiguous. Furthermore, some sciences are more advanced and complex than others…

Depends on the variance. You couldn’t automatically conclude that the cause is “purely cultural” merely on the basis of some variance. It would make sense for *both *culture and genetics to factor in.

I was looking mainly at this UNESCO report (pdf, 7 Mb).

Global trends in tertiary education

I’ll try to give your arguments some due consideration. I’d be interested to know some of your thoughts on ToM and ASD neurotypology. Different but equal? One is superior to the other?

Not sure the results are relevant - see next post for why.

 

[inocente]

Really, all I’m trying to throw on the table is that making blanket statements such as ‘women are less intelligent than men’ contributes to the gross inequalities that women experience in society and the workforce.

Yeah, and schools and society tend to favor this one, but that is not accurate nor representative of the big picture. I know, I am a teacher. And an English teacher! Some of my most verbal students are pretty darn dumb. This is partly why early reading is NOT an indicator of general intelligence (which really is an empty term) or academic success later in life. Fortunately.

I’d be interested in your perspectives here.

One of my careers is R&D project manager. The job description is basically to agree exactly what and when you’re going to deliver, select a team, foster an atmosphere where the team members will feed off and look after each other, and run interference so they can get on with their work.

Selecting the right people for the team is critical, and often they will have special skills and talents beyond mine. It’s not usually wise to select the most brilliant people because they tend to be brittle, not “team players”. The idea instead is to create a team than can become greater than the sum of its parts.

My job is on the line so choosing the right people is paramount, and here’s the thing - color of skin, sex, sexual orientation, IQ scores, certificates, … these all turn out to be worthless measures. We are social animals, in most things since prehistory we prevail not as isolated islands but through working together, and from personal experience gender is not only an irrelevant measure but counter-productive.

Two personal conclusions (a) any project manager with any kind of prejudice will quickly fail big time, (b) all attempts to measure general worth or intelligence fail miserably because they can’t get a grip on the complexity of the individual.

 

[larkin31]

I’d be interested in your perspectives here.

One of my careers is R&D project manager. The job description is basically to agree exactly what and when you’re going to deliver, select a team, foster an atmosphere where the team members will feed off and look after each other, and run interference so they can get on with their work.

Selecting the right people for the team is critical, and often they will have special skills and talents beyond mine. It’s not usually wise to select the most brilliant people because they tend to be brittle, not “team players”. The idea instead is to create a team than can become greater than the sum of its parts.

My job is on the line so choosing the right people is paramount, and here’s the thing - color of skin, sex, sexual orientation, IQ scores, certificates, … these all turn out to be worthless measures. We are social animals, in most things since prehistory we prevail not as isolated islands but through working together, and from personal experience gender is not only an irrelevant measure but counter-productive.

Two personal conclusions (a) any project manager with any kind of prejudice will quickly fail big time, (b) all attempts to measure general worth or intelligence fail miserably because they can’t get a grip on the complexity of the individual.

Right on, brother-sister. I teach and I coach and I both assemble and participate on academic teams of various kinds. It is paramount to select teams with specific skills in mind, and often I try to balance things in a crude Meyers/Briggs sort of way. I also think about leaders/cooks and am careful not to put too many together. Gender can be a dynamic in a group, but it does not correlate strongly with any of these other factors (in my experience).

 

[bhall0689]

Fun fact: In my English class we have been discussing linguists’ theory that people use less forms of politeness online than they do face-to-face. We are to identify politeness strategies (or lack thereof) in an online discourse and analyze it for tomorrow. I’m using Betterave’s posts in pages 11-12. Thanks, Betterave! Your rudeness has finally benefitted me for once. I highly doubt that anyone will bring in as strong of an example for tomorrow. I can’t wait to discuss with my professor.

 

[inocente]

Fun fact: In my English class we have been discussing linguists’ theory that people use less forms of politeness online than they do face-to-face. We are to identify politeness strategies (or lack thereof) in an online discourse and analyze it for tomorrow. I’m using Betterave’s posts in pages 11-12. Thanks, Betterave! Your rudeness has finally benefitted me for once. I highly doubt that anyone will bring in as strong of an example for tomorrow. I can’t wait to discuss with my professor.

Have you done any exercises on body language?

One form is to look at a photo of people interacting where you’re given a back-story, and then you have to predict what the characters are thinking and what they will do next. It’s great fun to hear everyone’s answers. Women are usually better at this than men, but for a heterosexual male I get really high scores (i.e. high correlation with what is supposedly the right answer). The downside is a real difficulty working out some posters’ intent online due to absence of cues, but then rats you can’t have it all.

 

[In_Spiration]

By the way, I’m an adult female over 50 years old. I don’t need to call your mommy. Stop “flaming” the women on this topic.

Age isn’t very relevant. And I didn’t imply you needed to call anyone. I put quotations around that part, as if to be doing an impression of what you might just as well say. As kids, everyone knew people who’d boast about some for-the-moment unprovable accomplishment and often implore the incredulous to call and ask someone else (not present) for verification – someone the skeptic has never met, who he obviously can’t or won’t ever call, usually his mom. You may have thought, “It’s certainly not worth calling his mom over, so whatever; I won’t call his bluff.” That’s the whole glory of the move!

No need to get upset, because nobody should take me to be quoting you, as I think it’s clear that I was simply mocking your attempt to personally brag, by comparing it to child’s play.

Also, I haven’t used one tad of emotion within the context of any of my posting to this topic.

I can’t disprove you with 100% certainty. Unless behaviorism is true.

Like I earlier stated I don’t agree with you or Stove! You just won’t except that.

I’m quoting In Spiration’s post on p. 10, which was directly addressing you:
You disagree. We get that part.

I recall one topic you were on that I posted to that you stated you have to deal with your demons. Interesting. Your the first person I’ve ever known that has demons.

Now there’s some mental stretching. The one on Pascal’s Wager? Three possibilities: 1) You actually thought I was claiming to be possessed by demons when I merely mentioned Descartes and his epistemological thought-experiments about a deceptive, evil demon; 2) You think that simply entertaining the possibility of radical skepticism is the same as being possessed by demons; 3) You somehow failed to appreciate that I was arguing w/someone according to certain practically established premises that I don’t necessarily accept just to show/see where they lead. And at some point, you inferred that I must “have demons”. That’s obviously being charitable, trying to explain your laughable comment as only a pitiful attempt at reading comprehension, instead of malice.

Nice try. Even though it was probably quite mean-spirited.

AngryAtheist8:

Hopefully you will never have any daughters.

Girls have enough problems without adding a father that believes them to be inferior (just because they lack a masculine brain).

Now you’re personally shaming me for trying to protect my hypothetical daughters from hormone-heavy teen boys? Girls shouldn’t be aware of the dangerous tendencies of the male sex drive so that they won’t naively be too trusting and get hurt? Yeesh. I figured we’d actually agree when it came to criticizing men.

If the flaws in my arguments are so obvious why don’t you say specifically what they are (as I have noted the specific flaws in Stove’s argument). If you don’t, I can only assume that you cannot, and that your words about flaws are nothing but empty words.

Ironic. Plus, as you saw, I said that I remembered addressing your problems with Stove already. Since you didn’t bother to check, here’s what I said:
Stove said he probably wouldn’t change his mind on the basis of his argument to the effect that the requisite evidence couldn’t be discovered within his lifetime. He didn’t state any unwillingness to consider counter-evidence; instead, he clearly gave his own reasons for thinking that a lot of so-called contrary data is, or wouldn’t, in fact be such (that is, wouldn’t really discount his conclusion and count as “evidence”). Stove did point out what sort of evidence would legitimately counter his view and really support its opposite, namely a long period of intellectually dominant performance by females (i.e., one roughly matching men’s thus far). As far as I can see, he made arguments for all his points and you’ve merely (and haughtily) noted that you reject his conclusions.

Unlike the troll Betterave, In Spiration appears to attempting to use reason to argue his point. So I am beginning to suspect that he is not a troll, but simply a sincere misogynist.

Aw shucks, you shouldn’t have! It’s kindness like this that makes me regret my plunges into the foul depths of polemics. I’m red-faced. In order to reciprocate, I’ll give you advice. I believe the character-assassinating term you’re looking for is ‘male chauvinist’, not ‘misogynist’. Please be careful with your shaming language in the future. You wouldn’t want open-minded observers to find you uneducated.

Of course that is arguably worse, and if In Spiration really is a misogynist, we should hope that he has no power over any women in real life.

I’m afraid that your worst nightmare is a reality. I do indeed have a whole lot of power over women. You see, I was blessed not only with an irresistible, ruggedly handsome face and chiseled body, but also with a disarmingly smooth knack for charming flirtation. Girls adore me and submit to my every whim! Hide your kids; hide your wives! On top of that, I own a daycare for girls only, where I indoctrinate them with my views at an early age. Furthermore, I’m the *real author of Twilight novels, and I’ve covertly inserted subliminal messages that by now must have reached every single teen girl in the world. (Hint: they were all knee-deep in misogyny! [Disturbing, maniacal laughter])

*This paragraph is not entirely serious and should not be taken to express the opinions or beliefs of In Spiration, Catholic Answers, the Catholic Answers Forum Staff, or females in any way.

 

[In_Spiration]

bhall,

You’ve come off pretty civil so far, so I hope I don’t offend you too much. Keep in mind that when I speak of “women”, I am speaking generally, in the same way as when I say, “Women are shorter than men.” If you find that I hurt your feelings, that I seem implicitly insensitive or crude, then I encourage you to trust when I explicitly say that my intention isn’t to insult either you or women. I actually *have *taken a class on “gender” differences. (Universities these days force you.) One of the lessons dealt with communication styles. Men and women have a tendency to misinterpret each other as a result of these. It’s probably best to interpret everything I say in a limited, direct, more literal sense and avoid “reading between the lines”.

First of all, at least where I attend college, gender studies is a part of the Sociology department, not the Philosophy department. Sociology is the study of human behavior, particularly the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.

Central to the topic of gender studies is the differentiation between what it means to be MALE/FEMALE, and what it means to be MASCULINE/FEMININE. A person’s sex is static and determined by nature, masculine and feminine qualities are fluid and crafted through socialization.

You’re overstating your case. The Nature vs. Nurture debate hasn’t been officially declared over in any respect, as having been somehow won by Leftist sociology departments. In fact, advances in genetic research have not and likely will not bode well for blank-slatists or academic activists.

Gender studies does NOT deny that there are differences between men and women, but what it does assert is that most of these differences are due to different socialization of the masculine/feminine, and have nothing to do with what it actually means to be male or female.

No argument. This is a well-known fact about these departments.

On a side note, no one has ever denied in my gender studies classes that men are generally stronger and more athletic than women. This is a difference that is determined by sex, though, NOT gender.

OK. Now what if we find out that one’s mental/intellectual capacity is mostly determined by various biological/physical-based features involved w/brain functioning? What makes you think that physical strength would evolve in dimorphic fashion, but brain power couldn’t? It’s at least possible, yes? We perhaps shouldn’t just assume that thought and mental abilities are completely fair game for full cultural molding.

Frankly, I think the assertion that men are intellectually superior to women is a load of BS. 90% of my professors in college were female, the majority holding doctorates in their field. Women also tended to be more actively involved in my classes, and therefore their comments during discussion/lecture outshone the mens’. Finally, more females are enrolled in college nowadays than men. The new generation is awash with educated, thinking, reading females - out with the old, in with the new!

Nobody said women can’t be smart, although I personally wouldn’t point to academia to illustrate the point. Our education system is mostly a joke from top to bottom. Absorbing large quantities of information is not a sign of high-order thought. The fact that “Gender Studies” is even a department is a good indicator of how much stock we should place in having a PhD.

For the purpose of illustrating my point, let’s assume that women ARE intellectually weaker than men, but that their intellectual inferiority does not make them any less equal. This notion leads to the unfair and immoral exploitation of women, particularly in the work force where women (as a whole) are STILL paid less than men for the exact same work. Feminism will not “go away” as long as inequalities such as this persist in our society.

So even if the IDEA of women as intellectually inferior does not in and of itself equate inequality, the application of the notion in society leads to gross inequalities.

To start, look into research like this. I didn’t read that one in particular, but it seems to highlight the general thrust of some studies I have seen (and am too lazy to find at the moment) that point out the simplification in “wage gap” complaints.

Now, it’s not necessarily a sign of exploitation if women do not have the same status in society as men either. Should men begin riots to fight the horrible fact that they’re disproportionately underrepresented in domestic careers such as homemaking? Obviously not. But imagine that our society one day exhibited an irrational worship for motherly nurturing and domesticity, to the point that we even no longer lauded the almighty Triumph of the Will to Power(!). Then we just might feel slighted. Maybe men are only comfortable w/their relative domestic absence because our culture is so ridiculously male-centric that it underestimates and devalues traditionally feminine strengths and domains. That would make Feminism rather ironic, no? That would mean that, in their attempts to become equal to men, feminists were implicitly assuming male superiority.

Maybe I’ll sum up my definite beliefs about all this in a later post. If you understood them, you wouldn’t say I harbor hate, contempt, or negative intentions toward females. It’s tragic that most of them who grow up in Western societies have become collateral damage in an ideological battle.

 

[In_Spiration]

I’ll try to elaborate a bit more. As I stated in my first post, I have never taken a Feminist “Philosophy” class because the Gender Studies department was considered a subset of the Sociology department, not the Philosophy department. In my classes we did not so much discuss feminist philosophies as examine the difference between sex and gender, and deconstruct what it means to be masculine and feminine in society (particularly in high school, one of the most interesting places to observe the gender-shaping phenomena).

Think about how “feminine” and “masculine” qualities are emphasized from the very first moments a baby is born - pink for girls, blue for boys. As children grow up, there is a certain type of toys they are expected to play with - although it is often socially acceptable for young girls to cross this norm (ie, play athletic sports, play with toy cars and trucks), parents are often concerned when young boys cross this norm (ie, like to play with Barbies, play dress-up in girls’ clothing). I recently saw a thread in the parenting forum in which a mother was concerned about her little boy’s desire to play dress up in girls’ clothing. Many posters encouraged her to stop the behavior. So, from this young age, men are taught that there are definite boundaries that as a male, you do not cross.

In case you’ve never been pointed to it, there is seriously tons of evidence like this, whether in humans or other primates:

In one recent experiment, Janice Hassett and her colleagues presented male and female rhesus monkeys with a choice of toys—wheeled vehicles vs. plush toys. The male monkeys showed a strong and consistent preference for the wheeled toys. The female monkeys showed no strong preference either way (Hassett et al 2008).

In another experiment on vervet monkeys, Gerianne Alexander and Melissa Hines presented monkeys with a series of different toys. The researchers didn’t test toy preferences directly, because monkeys only saw one toy at a time. But Alexander and Hines did find that females were more likely to pick up dolls than were males. And the male monkeys were more likely than females to handle toy cars (Alexander and Hines 2002).

Girls experience their own initiation into femininity, although usually not until the onset of puberty when girls start to receive messages about how they are to act and look, especially the acceptable way to act and look around guys. Girls form cliques just as guys form cliques, and these cliques create an expected member identity that each part of the group conforms to through dress, language, and action. Basically, this is the way I understand gender and how it IS actually shaped by the society we grow up in. If anyone would like some good reading suggestions, I can send you in the direction of some really, really excellent Gender Studies readings.

I am neither a Gender Studies major nor minor; I am an English Writing major. I did take 3 Gender Studies classes in the Sociology department, but my training stops there. I’ve tried to summarize my basic understandings that I garnered from those classes, but of course the actual studies and essays I read were much more eloquent and convincing.

Of course culture and environment play major roles in behavior. You just seem to underestimate the power of Mother Nature while elevating the autonomy of Man. I suggest you balance your Gender Studies research with the literature on the other side of the divide.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Now you’re personally shaming me for trying to protect my hypothetical daughters from hormone-heavy teen boys? Girls shouldn’t be aware of the dangerous tendencies of the male sex drive so that they won’t naively be too trusting and get hurt? Yeesh. I figured we’d actually agree when it came to criticizing men.

I was speaking sincerely and in reference to this statement by you on page 10 of this thread. I have highlighted the most important part for the reader’s convenience:

Look at my previous posts for an idea of why I’d it seems that the “male brain” is ultimately superior to the “female brain”. If we can agree that there really is a difference between the normal man’s neurotype and the normal female’s, and that men are more suited to subjects like science, math, etc., then I’d be glad to move the discussion forward, i.e., to an assessment of their respective values.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

In Spiration, you are once again quote-mining what I have written in your message 223. I would hope kind readers will take the time to read all that I have written on this topic. Thank you.

In Spiration, you earlier brought up an article written by David Stove. As I previously mentioned, I don’t agree with David Stove, Betterave, or you. Apparently, David Stove is a favorite of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. I don’t support the Discovery Institute. I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design Movement. Are you?

In Spiration on 98 page (message7) you said, “What I can say is that I presently lean toward the belief that men are generally superior re: physical and intellectual abilities (viz. philosophical, scientific, mathematical, artistic, etc.). Finally, for the record: women are naturally more empathetic and compassionate than men.”

You never replied to my comment. MY comment to you once again to you is that I’m a woman. I think men can be just as empathetic and compassionate as women can be. As far as the rest of your statement, it’s absolutely without a doubt in my mind and experience untrue. Furthermore, it’s biased and bigotry too. Your belief system in this case is contrary to reality. I will also tell you this much, I wouldn’t and don’t hang around in real life outside of the Internet with men or women who think as you do. That is the TRUTH!

I’d like to return to the issue about Feminism by bringing to light the following which I endorse. :“No consideration of the problems associated with development could fail to highlight the direct link between poverty and unemployment. In many cases, poverty results from a violation of the dignity of human work, either because work opportunities are limited (through unemployment or underemployment), or because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family. For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for a global coalition in favour of decent work, supporting the strategy of the International Labour Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral impetus to this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every country of the world. What is meant by the word decent in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one’s roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living. (ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS THE LAY FAITHFUL AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHARITY AND TRUTH on June 29, 2009 at Saint Peter’s in Rome)

So looking above what the Pope has written then it would be fair for me to say that “Feminism refers to movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Its concepts overlap with those of women’s rights.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Since I am involved with science, I support: “Science is a worldwide endeavor and ought to be open to anyone — regardless of ethnicity, gender, religious commitment, or any other personal characteristic.”
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_worldwide

In Spiration, as far as you mentioning demons in your message 223, it was your comment
(#3) on this topic “What is “God’s Will”?” wherein you mention demons: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7468221#post7468221 Of course, I don’t believe in demonic possession.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Ironic. Plus, as you saw, I said that I remembered addressing your problems with Stove already. Since you didn’t bother to check, here’s what I said:
Stove said he probably wouldn’t change his mind on the basis of his argument to the effect that the requisite evidence couldn’t be discovered within his lifetime. He didn’t state any unwillingness to consider counter-evidence; instead, he clearly gave his own reasons for thinking that a lot of so-called contrary data is, or wouldn’t, in fact be such (that is, wouldn’t really discount his conclusion and count as “evidence”). Stove did point out what sort of evidence would legitimately counter his view and really support its opposite, namely a long period of intellectually dominant performance by females (i.e., one roughly matching men’s thus far). As far as I can see, he made arguments for all his points and you’ve merely (and haughtily) noted that you reject his conclusions.

I checked what you said, I simply rejected it as unreasonable (much like I did Stove’s poor article).

When debating someone, demanding that they prove their point by providing evidence that cannot plausibly be gathered within the lifetime of anyone involved is not a reasonable tactic.

That is essentially what Stove has done. Moreover he has said that only evidence like that would convince him of the intellectual equality of women.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m afraid that your worst nightmare is a reality. I do indeed have a whole lot of power over women. You see, I was blessed not only with an irresistible, ruggedly handsome face and chiseled body, but also with a disarmingly smooth knack for charming flirtation. Girls adore me and submit to my every whim! Hide your kids; hide your wives! On top of that, I own a daycare for girls only, where I indoctrinate them with my views at an early age. Furthermore, I’m the *real author of Twilight novels, and I’ve covertly inserted subliminal messages that by now must have reached every single teen girl in the world. (Hint: they were all knee-deep in misogyny! [Disturbing, maniacal laughter])

*This paragraph is not entirely serious and should not be taken to express the opinions or beliefs of In Spiration, Catholic Answers, the Catholic Answers Forum Staff, or females in any way.

I was once again speaking sincerely, but if the sarcasm brings you comfort or joy, go ahead. It certainly doesn’t bother me.

 

[Captain_America]

It’s very difficult to say that there is any unique thing called “feminism”. Perhaps at one time this was true. Now it’s all been broken up, and perhaps “feminisms” or “genderisms” is what makes for a better description.

Given the multiplicity of feminisms, it’s a bit like watching TV. You can find just about anything there that you went looking for.

It is a concern of mine that whenever “feminism” is brought up, it usually creates anger and disharmony, so I don’t see a great deal of value in getting into the area. Besides, why reduce human life?