Feminism general thread

[AlexanderDitto]

(snip)

It did.

While you have to be very careful to control societal effects in the prevalence of mental health disorders between the sexes, I would be very surprised if their was no difference at all in the rates of metal health disorders between the sexes.


One interesting fact I came across is while females are more likely to attempt suicide in western culture, males are far more likely to succeed in killing themselves so the suicide rate is higher in males than females (Wikipedia).

Psychologists love trying to find gender differences in the incidence of various conditions, perhaps because it's such an easy manipulation to do. They are also routinely disappointed by a lack of any significant differences. There are some consistently demonstrable effects, like the suicide one you mentioned, but the majority of them are small or nonexistent.

Now that's somewhat up for debate, but the crux of the issue is that it's hard to separate biology from sociology with gender. Men are socialized to keep their feelings contained (in general in American society, which is where a lot of this research gets done), and that means men are less likely to report or be diagnosed with various mental illnesses. Controlling for the effects of society in this case is essentially impossible, at least with the current tools at our disposal.

If I'm not mistaken, much of the difference in suicide completion rates between men and women can be explained by two things. Tycherin mentioned one of them: preventative strategies (mental health help). The other is methods. Women tend to use methods that are less immediately lethal (drug overdosing) while men resort to actions with higher mortality (firearms).

---

Well, guess what? Feminism helps us all.

And if we want to get the people who push back to hop on board the feminism train, we need to make that clear to them. Feminists aren't looking to elevate women at the expense of men; feminists are looking to make a better world for everyone.

[J_S_Bach]

Just to play devils advocate here, feminism helps us all as long as you think like us, act like us and just generally do what we do and have decided is the way you should act. Part of feminism is the feminist political/societal theory and like an society (to paraphrase Hobbes I believe) we, as individuals, need to sacrifice personal freedoms to live in a happy and safe society. Feminism is just one way of looking at dealing with equality, there exists other theories that can also benefit everyone. I do not believe that feminism is the simple answer to a complex question. But I do think that feminism is seeing a rejuvenation and becoming more and more popular again, which is a good thing, but I strongly believe that it shouldn't be dealt around as the only correct way to live.

[korvys]

we, as individuals, need to sacrifice personal freedoms to live in a happy and safe society.

I'm curious, oh advocatus diaboli. Which freedom's might those be?

[J_S_Bach]

As stated in my original post: "feminism helps us all as long as you think like us, act like us and just generally do what we do and have decided is the way you should act"

It's giving up the personal freedom of deciding what is right or wrong, how to behave and how to feel and using an outside metric of morality that has been decided upon by a group.

It happens to everyone, everyday and several different levels. Most of the time we're unaware of it, or if we are aware of it we agree with its necessity. It's not a good or bad thing, it just is.

One of my mentors was very found of saying to me "don't believe it when you hear 'everyone is welcome' because what they really mean is 'everyone is welcome, as long as you think, act and look like we do.'". It's just something that has always stuck with me and has a habit of niggling into my brain when I hear universal statements about society.

[Deedles]

Just to play devils advocate here, feminism helps us all as long as you think like us, act like us and just generally do what we do and have decided is the way you should act. Part of feminism is the feminist political/societal theory and like an society (to paraphrase Hobbes I believe) we, as individuals, need to sacrifice personal freedoms to live in a happy and safe society. Feminism is just one way of looking at dealing with equality, there exists other theories that can also benefit everyone. I do not believe that feminism is the simple answer to a complex question. But I do think that feminism is seeing a rejuvenation and becoming more and more popular again, which is a good thing, but I strongly believe that it shouldn't be dealt around as the only correct way to live.

Emphasis is mine.

Just wanted to point out that women already have to do that to ensure that they don't get raped by not going to that party, not having anything to drink if they do go, keeping their drinks with them at all times, taking that different route home despite it taking longer, declining to go for drinks/coffee with male colleagues, booking a hotel room when they're going to a con instead of crashing at the place of someone they know online, etc.

[J_S_Bach]

Yes, Deedles, those are also things I do everyday but they are not the personal freedoms I was referring to. it's Hobbes idea of Natural Law (A general rule discovered by reason that forbids a person from doing anything destructive to her own life and gives her the right of self-preservation. The laws of nature state that human beings must strive for peace, which is best achieved by contract).

I never said we are living in an ideal society because we aren't. I simply wanted to point out that saying feminist theory is good for everyone and being sold and if everyone subscribed to feminist theories the world would be perfect. Which is true BUT the same could be said about most other political theories "as long as we all agree the world would be perfect" however, individuals ruin everything, not groups, individuals tarnish groups. Similar to how the theory of communism works on paper but fails in practice.

I would like to see a future where the philosophies of feminism, humanitarianism and egalitarianism (just to name a few) find an equilibrium I believe that course hold great potential as a society we are already agreeing that the ways of the past are no longer acceptable and those that still follow them must change or they will be consequences, that's how society evolves. Those afraid of change will push back, as we're seeing. But what we need to do is alter their idea of what equality means. Communication and education are key to mass societal overhaul.

[Deedles]

I don't see what you mean when you say that it would impede on someone's freedom. Could you be more specific, like an example? Right now all I can think of that feminism stands for that could "impede" someones freedom is wishing for a stop on catcalling, wishing for thought and action towards diversity in media(which should be a freedom, rather than the opposite, since feminism is trying to break the idea that "if it isn't Steve it won't sell".). Anyway, that's a couple of things I could think of, but I feel like I'm on the wrong trail, thus the wish for an example.

[korvys]

So far, the freedom "to decide what is right and wrong" is a bit vague. I was hoping for something a bit more concrete. For example, if you want the freedom to think it's right to catcall women, or on the more extreme end, that it's right to treat women as less than men in general, well I'm not exactly crying over your loss of freedom.

[Metcarfre]

Judith Slaying Holofernes is a painting by the Italian early Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi completed between 1614–20.[1] The work shows an apocrypha scene from the Old Testament Book of Judith which details the delivery of Israel from the Assyrian general Holofernes. In this scene, Judith and her maidservant behead the general after he has fallen asleep drunk.

The painting is relentlessly physical, from the wide spurts of blood to the energy of the two women as they try to wield the large dagger.[1] The effort of the women's struggle is most finely represented by the delicate face of the maid, which is grasped by the oversized, muscular fist of Holofernes as he desperately struggles to survive. Although the painting depicts a classic scene from the Bible, Gentileschi drew herself as Judith and her mentor Agostino Tassi, who was tried in court for her rape, as Holofernes. Gentileschi's biographer Mary Garrard famously proposed an autobiographical reading of the painting, stating that it functions as "a cathartic expression of the artist's private, and perhaps repressed, rage."[2]

Discuss

[J_S_Bach]

So far, the freedom "to decide what is right and wrong" is a bit vague. I was hoping for something a bit more concrete. For example, if you want the freedom to think it's right to catcall women, or on the more extreme end, that it's right to treat women as less than men in general, well I'm not exactly crying over your loss of freedom.

That's Hobbes' point. When we enter a social contract we agree that some personal freedoms are worth more than others, shelter, food, justice, etc. There are people with an outdated version of what equality means and that's where a lot of the pushback towards egalitarianism and feminism is coming from. They need to be reeducated or, as Hobbes would put it, cut away from the social contract. Even on a subconscious level that can be a daunting concept. The transformation from an affluent member of society to a social pariah is something that anyone would resist.

The point of my post was to point out there are other philosophies besides feminism that deal with equality. None of these philosophies will cure everything we currently find wrong with our society so none of them should be treated that way unless you can answer and convince everyone of:
-Why is feminism the BEST course of action?
-What makes feminism BETTER than egalitarianism or humanitarianism?

[Elomin Sha]

It's a good painting. Are you asking to discuss to see if its content is acceptable or not?
I see it similar to the lampooning you get in papers of popular figures, this one is more focused on a personal one. Maybe a mechanism for coping, I'd say acceptable.

Question: If the genders were reversed, if a male was raped by a female, would the painting be acceptable?

[Metcarfre]

-Why is feminism the BEST course of action?
-What makes feminism BETTER than egalitarianism or humanitarianism?

I'm pretty sure this conversation isn't worth having for the umpteenth time in this thread.

[Deedles]

I'm with Met on this. That discussion has been done several times in the thread already.

It's a good painting. Are you asking to discuss to see if its content is acceptable or not?
I see it similar to the lampooning you get in papers of popular figures, this one is more focused on a personal one. Maybe a mechanism for coping, I'd say acceptable.

Question: If the genders were reversed, if a male was raped by a female, would the painting be acceptable?

I find paintings like that acceptable if making them were for 'personal use'(what I'm meaning with personal use in this case is that it was painted as a method to vent and get feelings out on a canvas as a way to release emotional pressure) rather than to show to the world. If a painting such as this was created to be shown to everybody then I don't find it acceptable, whether it was a female or a male that got raped.

[Metcarfre]

I like the painting. Clearly, in the context of the times, the woman had very little power to be able to enact or seek any sort of justice. The painting of her aggressor, however petty, as victim is ultimately empowering to her. In the face of such power imbalances, you take what you can get. Also, adds layers of meaning to a work of art, which is always fun.

[Duckay]

I see it as not unlike the notion of writing a character into your book who is a more comically incompetent or evil version of someone who wronged you.

[Deedles]

I definitely can't dispute that. It is a great painting, and with what the times were like then I can understand her actions. I guess I really should of expressed myself better and clarified that I meant that I wouldn't really approve a painting such as that done in our day and age.

Then again, my main problem with if someone made a painting such as that now a days and made it public would be if they used their actual faces in it. If it didn't contain that then I think its fair game.

[J_S_Bach]

I'm with Met on this. That discussion has been done several times in the thread already.

Actually it hasn't, and that's one of the problems.

[Duckay]

My instinctive reaction was that the question was more about art than feminism, because artworks have been formed with real people being inspirations for the characters in the piece (be that painting, sculpture, literature, etc) many times.

But I then put it to you; do you have a different feeling about whether this is "acceptable" because it is a woman venting rage about rape than you would if the circumstances were different?

[Metcarfre]

"HEY EVERYBODY! TALK ABOUT WHAT I, A DUDE, WANTS TO TALK ABOUT! I DEMAND WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ON MY TERMS! WHAT DO YOU MEAN, CHECK MY PRIVILEGE?"

[Duckay]

I'm with Met on this. That discussion has been done several times in the thread already.

Actually it hasn't, and that's one of the problems.

If you define "discuss" as "agree with you", then no. But the topic has been pretty thoroughly canvassed.

[Deedles]

My instinctive reaction was that the question was more about art than feminism, because artworks have been formed with real people being inspirations for the characters in the piece (be that painting, sculpture, literature, etc) many times.

But I then put it to you; do you have a different feeling about whether this is "acceptable" because it is a woman venting rage about rape than you would if the circumstances were different?

No, not really. I am overall against using the visage/face of other people in ones art in such a manner if you plan on publishing it. Note that it's only if the artist plan on actually putting it out there for the world to see, if they're drawing it solely for oneself and to keep to oneself then I don't really care since it was done for their sake and their eyes. If the artist really wishes to publish it though then you can make the one who wronged you look different in the piece, but still have that represent them to you.

[phlip]

So far, the freedom "to decide what is right and wrong" is a bit vague. I was hoping for something a bit more concrete. For example, if you want the freedom to think it's right to catcall women, or on the more extreme end, that it's right to treat women as less than men in general, well I'm not exactly crying over your loss of freedom.

It's a loss of personal freedom in the same sense that going from "You can play Call of Duty or Battlefield" to "You can play Call of Duty or Battlefield or Gone Home" is taking people's games away, or forcing all games to be a homogenised PC blob, or whatever people are claiming this week.

That is to say: not at all, unless you take a seriously warped definition of... pretty much everything.

[Tycherin]

-What makes feminism BETTER than egalitarianism or humanitarianism?

Egalitarianism is a philosophy, and the same goes for humanism. Feminism is a movement that proposes a way of achieving egalitarian/humanist ideals. There's no discussion to be had as to which one is "better" because they're not the same class of thing.

[AlexanderDitto]

I like the painting. Clearly, in the context of the times, the woman had very little power to be able to enact or seek any sort of justice. The painting of her aggressor, however petty, as victim is ultimately empowering to her. In the face of such power imbalances, you take what you can get. Also, adds layers of meaning to a work of art, which is always fun.

I think it's also very clever/fascinating to have couched the commentary in a biblical apocrypha. First, because of the protection/advantage that conferred (Biblical scenes were generally seen as respectable topics for art at the time) combined with the fact that she selected not from the cannon, but from the apocrypha... very interesting.

It's also telling to contrast it with the Caravaggio work of the same name, which is much less physical/strained than this one. Caravaggio didn't really depict the same intensity of struggle that Gentileschi did... I wonder why. (I have a pretty good guess.)

[Elomin Sha]

A long piece but an interesting one:

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/11/13/anit ... yone-hates