Why feminism is still nessecary

Why feminism is still nessecary (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

egern -> Why feminism is still nessecary (10/20/2013 2:56:55 PM)
Special report: The punishment was death by stoning. The crime? Having a mobile phon Two months ago, a young mother of two was stoned to death by her relatives on the order of a tribal court in Pakistan. Her crime: possession of a mobile phone. Arifa Bibi's uncle, cousins and others hurled stones and bricks at her until she died, according to media reports. Women's rights activists have launched an international campaign for a ban on stoning, which is mostly inflicted on women accused of adultery. They are using Twitter and other social media to put pressure on the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, to denounce the practice. The threat of stoning has even happened in Tunisia, a relatively liberal country with no history of stoning. This year, the head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice in Tunisia called for a teenage activist to be stoned to death for posting nude protest images of herself online. http://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/1592864/ Just to say that in many areas of the world there is much to do for feminists - male or female.

hlen5 -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/20/2013 6:29:39 PM)
Why did you include that link?

TigressLily -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/20/2013 7:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern .... Her crime: possession of a mobile phone. <snip> I guess I don't understand the twisted logic there. Are all women banned from having access to or owning a mobile phone in Pakistan? I'm sure there is no such prohibition against men doing the same. If a woman's husband or relatives (namely her father if she's unwed) permits her to use one, isn't that allowed or not? P.S. hlen5, you have me hesitant to click this link, since you can't unsee once you've seen what you don't want to see. [:-]

hlen5 -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/21/2013 12:06:37 AM)
It wasn't relevant, unless I missed it. It was a wallpaper site.

slavekate80 -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/21/2013 8:28:38 AM)
The laws in Pakistan are either unfair or unfairly applied. I'll buy that. But you don't need feminism to understand that stoning someone for owning a cell phone is an affront to basic human rights, and it's a localized problem. In certain parts of the world, white people are targeted for violence - that doesn't translate to a need for special white rights' groups (especially in places where they're already dominant), it just means that laws and enforcement are not always fair and some people are guilty of human rights violations. That can be addressed without wild claims that any particular race (or gender) should be singled out for attention and special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people.

egern -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/21/2013 9:04:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 Why did you include that link? By mistake, ups. Here it is: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/special-report-the-punishment-was-death-by-stoning-the-crime-having-a-mobile-phone-8846585.html

egern -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/21/2013 9:05:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TigressLily quote: ORIGINAL: egern .... Her crime: possession of a mobile phone. <snip> I guess I don't understand the twisted logic there. Are all women banned from having access to or owning a mobile phone in Pakistan? I'm sure there is no such prohibition against men doing the same. If a woman's husband or relatives (namely her father if she's unwed) permits her to use one, isn't that allowed or not? P.S. hlen5, you have me hesitant to click this link, since you can't unsee once you've seen what you don't want to see. [:-] The right link is there now, and there are not nasty pictures. I know what you mean.

egern -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/21/2013 9:16:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekate80 The laws in Pakistan are either unfair or unfairly applied. I'll buy that. But you don't need feminism to understand that stoning someone for owning a cell phone is an affront to basic human rights, and it's a localized problem. As is pointed out in the article (sorry about the link, it is there now) it is not a localized problem. it exists in several parts of the world, and with growing fundamentalism it is likely to get worse. But even if it were localized, I cannot see why it should not matter? quote: In certain parts of the world, white people are targeted for violence - that doesn't translate to a need for special white rights' groups (especially in places where they're already dominant), it just means that laws and enforcement are not always fair and some people are guilty of human rights violations. That can be addressed without wild claims that any particular race (or gender) should be singled out for attention and special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people. First, in a lot of cases it is practical to target the specific problems directly. That is why there was a civil rights movement in US in the 60's, for example, and an abolitionist movement earlier on. Secondly, to attack human right violations you'd have to have a society that recognized all its citizens as citizens, and which had accepted the idea of human rights. And two clarifying questions to you: I am curious as to why you think that reports of stoning are 'wild claims'? What would constitute 'unwild claims' in your opinion? And why do you feel that the right not to be stoned to death can be considered attention and "special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people." I do not understand your reasoning - I dare say we would all want to avoid being stoned to death.

leonine -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/21/2013 9:33:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekate80 The laws in Pakistan are either unfair or unfairly applied. I'll buy that. But you don't need feminism to understand that stoning someone for owning a cell phone is an affront to basic human rights, and it's a localized problem. In certain parts of the world, white people are targeted for violence - that doesn't translate to a need for special white rights' groups (especially in places where they're already dominant), it just means that laws and enforcement are not always fair and some people are guilty of human rights violations. That can be addressed without wild claims that any particular race (or gender) should be singled out for attention and special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people. If someone is targeted because of their race, it's a racist issue. If someone is targeted because they are female, it's a feminist issue. Not "sexist" because, while there are situations - though very few - where whites are subject to racial persecution that parallels that suffered by non-whites elsewhere, there are no real life situations where men are subject to systematic gender-based persecution that parallels that experienced by women. This is a fact, though mentioning it usually brings the backwoodsmen out with guns. And yes, it's a local issue, inasmuch as it happened in one place, not all over the world at once. Every atrocity is a local issue. It can be dismissed if it is unusual and atypical in the culture in which it happens. It is worthy of note if, as here, it is (a) typical of similar events before and since, and (b) symptomatic of a deeper dysfunction in the society.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/21/2013 11:35:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: slavekate80 The laws in Pakistan are either unfair or unfairly applied. I'll buy that. But you don't need feminism to understand that stoning someone for owning a cell phone is an affront to basic human rights, and it's a localized problem. As is pointed out in the article (sorry about the link, it is there now) it is not a localized problem. it exists in several parts of the world, and with growing fundamentalism it is likely to get worse. But even if it were localized, I cannot see why it should not matter? quote: In certain parts of the world, white people are targeted for violence - that doesn't translate to a need for special white rights' groups (especially in places where they're already dominant), it just means that laws and enforcement are not always fair and some people are guilty of human rights violations. That can be addressed without wild claims that any particular race (or gender) should be singled out for attention and special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people. First, in a lot of cases it is practical to target the specific problems directly. That is why there was a civil rights movement in US in the 60's, for example, and an abolitionist movement earlier on. Secondly, to attack human right violations you'd have to have a society that recognized all its citizens as citizens, and which had accepted the idea of human rights. And two clarifying questions to you: I am curious as to why you think that reports of stoning are 'wild claims'? What would constitute 'unwild claims' in your opinion? And why do you feel that the right not to be stoned to death can be considered attention and "special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people." I do not understand your reasoning - I dare say we would all want to avoid being stoned to death. I don't think you see what slavekate was saying. I don't think she was saying that stoning to death is an acceptable punishment. I think she was saying that it's not a feminist issue, but rather, a human rights (no gender assignment) issue. That is, it's not a fight that just feminists should be fighting, but all of humanity should be fighting. And, I think the "wild claims" weren't the reports of stoning, but that it's a "feminist" issue. Many times, a one-gender or one-race solution doesn't necessarily promote equality, but the advancement of that gender/race to the detriment of other genders/races. Affirmative Action was a way to make sure there would be minorities represented in employee ranks. If a minority wasn't as good a candidate as a white guy, but got the job because of AA practices, that is an example of racism against that white guy. Every race and gender should be held as equal. Having different rules for people based on gender and/or race is discrimination, and each gender and race should be in support of reducing that discrimination. The Rev.'s Sharpton and Jackson get tons of criticism because the only time they are vocal and in front of an issue is when it's a black person that has been discriminated against. While it's great that they are willing to stand up for their beliefs, it's racist if they don't do the same when it's a black person doing the discriminating. I don't have to be black to be able to call out white supremacist fucktards. I don't have to be a woman to want equal treatment for women. I'm not a feminist. I'm not a male-chauvinist. I'm a racist in that I believe thehuman race to be superior to all other races on Earth.

egern -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/22/2013 1:19:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: slavekate80 The laws in Pakistan are either unfair or unfairly applied. I'll buy that. But you don't need feminism to understand that stoning someone for owning a cell phone is an affront to basic human rights, and it's a localized problem. As is pointed out in the article (sorry about the link, it is there now) it is not a localized problem. it exists in several parts of the world, and with growing fundamentalism it is likely to get worse. But even if it were localized, I cannot see why it should not matter? quote: In certain parts of the world, white people are targeted for violence - that doesn't translate to a need for special white rights' groups (especially in places where they're already dominant), it just means that laws and enforcement are not always fair and some people are guilty of human rights violations. That can be addressed without wild claims that any particular race (or gender) should be singled out for attention and special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people. First, in a lot of cases it is practical to target the specific problems directly. That is why there was a civil rights movement in US in the 60's, for example, and an abolitionist movement earlier on. Secondly, to attack human right violations you'd have to have a society that recognized all its citizens as citizens, and which had accepted the idea of human rights. And two clarifying questions to you: I am curious as to why you think that reports of stoning are 'wild claims'? What would constitute 'unwild claims' in your opinion? And why do you feel that the right not to be stoned to death can be considered attention and "special protections above and beyond what is the right of all people." I do not understand your reasoning - I dare say we would all want to avoid being stoned to death. I don't think you see what slavekate was saying. I don't think she was saying that stoning to death is an acceptable punishment. I think she was saying that it's not a feminist issue, but rather, a human rights (no gender assignment) issue. That is, it's not a fight that just feminists should be fighting, but all of humanity should be fighting. And, I think the "wild claims" weren't the reports of stoning, but that it's a "feminist" issue. Many times, a one-gender or one-race solution doesn't necessarily promote equality, but the advancement of that gender/race to the detriment of other genders/races. Affirmative Action was a way to make sure there would be minorities represented in employee ranks. If a minority wasn't as good a candidate as a white guy, but got the job because of AA practices, that is an example of racism against that white guy. Every race and gender should be held as equal. Having different rules for people based on gender and/or race is discrimination, and each gender and race should be in support of reducing that discrimination. The Rev.'s Sharpton and Jackson get tons of criticism because the only time they are vocal and in front of an issue is when it's a black person that has been discriminated against. While it's great that they are willing to stand up for their beliefs, it's racist if they don't do the same when it's a black person doing the discriminating. I don't have to be black to be able to call out white supremacist fucktards. I don't have to be a woman to want equal treatment for women. I'm not a feminist. I'm not a male-chauvinist. I'm a racist in that I believe thehuman race to be superior to all other races on Earth. I get your point. However, it is rare that people who are humanists and believe in human rights on a general basis can manage to get interested in all the many places and ways that human rights are stomped, and we tend to put our interest in what is closest to our own situation. Thus black people work for black people, women work for women, men work for men, handicapped people work for handicapped people and so on. I would ask what on earth is wrong with that? It is only natural, and surprising that it should attract such anger from some. If I read you right, your answer is that focusing on what is closest to your own situation automatically means some sort of supremacy ideas or fundamentalism or exaggeration. And while I agree that this can happen, it is always a small but loud group who is like that, and the only one the press gives space to or people hear. But without the specific orientated groups nothing would be done! Women would not have the vote, neither would black people, handicaps would not be accepted and so on. Humanism is too broad and diffuse. For results you need to focus, and I cannot see that as a wrong. It certainly does not mean that you think less of other people's rights, normally.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/22/2013 6:17:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern I get your point. However, it is rare that people who are humanists and believe in human rights on a general basis can manage to get interested in all the many places and ways that human rights are stomped, and we tend to put our interest in what is closest to our own situation. Thus black people work for black people, women work for women, men work for men, handicapped people work for handicapped people and so on. I would ask what on earth is wrong with that? It is only natural, and surprising that it should attract such anger from some. What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with people that share interests, concerns, and characteristics grouping together. But, if you're going to work towards "equality," you should work towards equality. Supporting discriminating policy in an effort to force some equality standard is bad policy, imo. quote: If I read you right, your answer is that focusing on what is closest to your own situation automatically means some sort of supremacy ideas or fundamentalism or exaggeration. And while I agree that this can happen, it is always a small but loud group who is like that, and the only one the press gives space to or people hear. Focusing on what's closest isn't an automatic discrimination the other direction. But, if you're in favor of "equality," then you should be in favor of "equality" in every situation. If there is a black on white hate crime, the Rev.'s Jackson and Sharpton should be vocal in condemning it. If there is white on black hate crime, white folk should be vocal in condemning it. When there is discrimination by one skin color against a person of different skin color (based solely on skin color), every person of skin color should condemn the discrimination. Same goes for gender discrimination, age discrimination, etc. If you are only vocal in one type of discrimination, is that truly supporting equality? quote: But without the specific orientated groups nothing would be done! Women would not have the vote, neither would black people, handicaps would not be accepted and so on. Humanism is too broad and diffuse. For results you need to focus, and I cannot see that as a wrong. It certainly does not mean that you think less of other people's rights, normally. Did no white men work towards equality for blacks? Did no free men work towards freedom for slaves? Did no men work towards equality for women? The Neo-Nazi's marched in Toledo several years back (October 15th, 2005). They marched in a primarily black neighborhood. There was no legal means to prevent it. Of course, all Hell broke loose and the people of the neighborhood trashed the area, including damaging police and rescue vehicles. The Neo-Nazi's were angry with law enforcement because their planned march was stopped. The rioting Toledoans were angry with law enforcement because law enforcement was protecting the Neo-Nazi's (you know, doing their jobs). They came back in December that same year. This time, they were prevented from marching, but were allowed to hold a rally in front of a government building in downtown Toledo (youtube video). Please notice that there weren't simply black folk shouting at the Neo Nazis. There were white folk there, Hispanic folk there and black folk there. There were young adults to older adults of the various skin colors. That was great to see. That's what it should be like. The police car that hit the kid in the video was racing away from rioters who were throwing bottles and rocks at the police.

TigressLily -> RE: Why feminism is still necessary (10/22/2013 7:01:42 AM)
Egern has brought to our awareness a systemic condition as it relates to targeting females, which is often done to set an example to other females in oppressive societies not to cross the line or else face dire consequences. Oppressive cultures oppress males in other ways, but do not ordinarily carry out sentences by stoning them. This is a female-specific form of capital punishment, not a black & white human rights violation extending across the board. quote: ORIGINAL: leonine quote: ORIGINAL: slavekate80 The laws in Pakistan are either unfair or unfairly applied. I'll buy that. But you don't need feminism to understand that stoning someone for owning a cell phone is an affront to basic human rights, and it's a localized problem. If someone is targeted because of their race, it's a racist issue. If someone is targeted because they are female, it's a feminist issue. Not "sexist" because, while there are situations - though very few - where whites are subject to racial persecution that parallels that suffered by non-whites elsewhere, there are no real life situations where men are subject to systematic gender-based persecution that parallels that experienced by women.... And yes, it's a local issue, inasmuch as it happened in one place, not all over the world at once. Every atrocity is a local issue. It can be dismissed if it is unusual and atypical in the culture in which it happens. It is worthy of note if, as here, it is (a) typical of similar events before and since, and (b) symptomatic of a deeper dysfunction in the society. Further, as egern noted [paraphrased], tout le monde are not in global agreement as to what constitutes basic human rights. (In some Westernized countries, for instance, this would entail providing national health care for all its citizens--a hot & heavy debatable issue among us Americans).

JeffBC -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/22/2013 9:38:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leonine there are no real life situations where men are subject to systematic gender-based persecution that parallels that experienced by women. This is a fact, though mentioning it usually brings the backwoodsmen out with guns. Sorry, I live in a city and don't own a gun but yeah, I find your "fact" highly questionable. Further, I agree with slavekate. I don't need to be a feminist to dislike stoning people for the use of cell phones... whether or not that stoning is targeted at women more than men. I'm thrilled that you think feminism is still necessary. I disagree... not with what feminism has become.

singlemaltlady -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/23/2013 2:45:56 AM)
http://www.primewire.ag/watch-6255-The-Stoning-of-Soraya-M ^^^ This is a link to see the film free. It is perhaps the most disturbing film ever but it will erase ignorance and hopefully, inspire protective action(s).

egern -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/23/2013 9:35:55 AM)
DesideriScuri: quote: If you are only vocal in one type of discrimination, is that truly supporting equality? Yes, in as much as it is completely impossible to actively support ALL kinds of cases concerning equality on this green earth, even if I knew them all and even if I engage a secretary. I may be vocal in some, but I cannot be vocal in all, even if I sympathize. I think we choose the causes that for some reason or other strikes us the most as being something we have to support, as for instance did the civil rights supporters on the marches you talk about. It is true that you do not have to be black or a woman or handicapped to support those causes, fortunately many people do even out of interest as you point out.. But do you imagine that said white marchers would be in all marches concerning all aspects of equality? I think they would have enough on their plate supporting the one they choose, or maybe one more? This would not mean that they are insincere about equality, as I see it.

egern -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/23/2013 10:25:32 AM)
[]ORIGINAL: leoninequote there are no real life situations where men are subject to systematic gender-based persecution that parallels that experienced by women. This is a fact, though mentioning it usually brings the backwoodsmen out with guns. quote: Sorry, I live in a city and don't own a gun but yeah, I find your "fact" highly questionable. Comments? quote: Further, I agree with slavekate. I don't need to be a feminist to dislike stoning people for the use of cell phones... whether or not that stoning is targeted at women more than men. I'm thrilled that you think feminism is still necessary. I disagree... not with what feminism has become. I am quite surprised in how much is in a word - feminism. My thought was that in many cases people say that feminism is no longer necessary, and I wanted to point out that the world is a very different place depending on where you are, and in some women are under very much pressure, even to defending their lives. People have mostly responded by disagreeing with the word - feminism - while (in many cases) not seeing the problem itself -stoning - other than various versions of oh what a pity and they aught not do that... And the discussion became about feminism, not stoning. In hindsight I should probably have expected it, but I didn't. You speak of what feminism has become - what do you think of what it has become in the countries we now speak of? Of a 14 year old girl going up against the fundamentalist's rule against women being educated, and getting shot, and surviving and going on doing it? Of people arguing against how the Koran is interpreted, at very real risk of their lives? When you say 'you do not like what feminism has become', do you mean in western countries, and the heroes fighting for freedom around the world do not actually count?? It is called 'feminism' because it is women fighting for the right to a life, and the men are not helping them, even those who do not try to kill them and they loose their family as well. But it might as well be called 'female freedom fighters.' Would that suit better? I would like to pose that question to all: is feminism really only us in the western world, and does the bravery shown in the rest of the world not count, all because of semantics???

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/23/2013 11:02:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern It is called 'feminism' because it is women fighting for the right to a life, and the men are not helping them, even those who do not try to kill them and they loose their family as well. But it might as well be called 'female freedom fighters.' Would that suit better? I would like to pose that question to all: is feminism really only us in the western world, and does the bravery shown in the rest of the world not count, all because of semantics??? My only disagreement is that this is something only "female freedom fighters" should be fighting, if you mean freedom fighters of the female gender. If you mean fighters for women's freedoms, then, I wholeheartedly agree.

JeffBC -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/23/2013 11:03:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern I would like to pose that question to all: is feminism really only us in the western world, and does the bravery shown in the rest of the world not count, all because of semantics??? No, it has nothing to do with semantics. It has to do with not putting bullets in the gun of my enemy which is pointed at my head. I happen to be a member of this western culture you speak of. So if I support "feminism" then I am shooting my own self in the head because implicitly I'm supporting what WE mean by feminism. Now, how exactly would you have me support "feminism" in some far off land? Periodically I do sign petitions but I'm way more likely to do so if it is presented as a human rights argument and not a feminist one. A sense of self-preservation is in play here not "semantics".

TigressLily -> RE: Why feminism is still nessecary (10/23/2013 5:32:22 PM)
"Women's [Equal] Rights" is synonymous with "Feminism," which replaced the outdated "Women's Liberation Movement" nomenclature. The latter was so sneered at by being referred to as "Women's Lib" and by its supporters being thus labeled "Women's Libbers." I can remember being asked, "You aren't one of those Women's Libbers, are you?" as a young girl by males of all ages. Schoolboys were aping what they heard at home from their fathers. This sort of pettiness hasn't gone away, I can plainly see, nor the shaming tactics employed against females. Only nowadays, the label bandied about is "Feminist." quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: egern It is called 'feminism' because it is women fighting for the right to a life, and the men are not helping them, even those who do not try to kill them and they loose their family as well. But it might as well be called 'female freedom fighters.' Would that suit better? I would like to pose that question to all: is feminism really only us in the western world, and does the bravery shown in the rest of the world not count, all because of semantics??? My only disagreement is that this is something only "female freedom fighters" should be fighting, if you mean freedom fighters of the female gender. If you mean fighters for women's freedoms, then, I wholeheartedly agree. Point well taken, DS. Egern, the term "female freedom fighter" would be taken as a joke at large or else made into one by every pundit imaginable. JeffBC & slavekate80, no question this is a Human Rights issue, whether it had been a male or a female accused, tried, found guilty of possessing a mobile phone, then unjustly turned over to relatives to be executed in a barbaric manner by stoning. Nonetheless, I find it sad not only that a female was singled out in this manner, but that the both of you distance yourself from Feminism as you perceive it as more of an institution instead of a grass-roots movement, which it should be. It's almost as if this concept represents a threat or the irrational belief that by promoting Women's Rights to ensure the protection of disenfranchised women around the world, somehow men are giving up a portion of their basic human rights. Until this kind of scarcity mentality can be reconciled, no global citizen is safe from wantonly arbitrary persecution.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375