Are post-feminism women happier?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) Normal <> Allowable

No, indeed.... a certain amount of deviation from the norm is tolerated in all societies. However, functioning societies are geared towards the interests of the norm, since they are the ones that keep society going. I suspect the more counter to the interests of the norm some deviation is, the less tolerated it will be in a functioning society. A society that privileges the deviant over the norm is engaging in cultural suicide.

I wasn't talking about "allowable" though, I was talking about things being "normalised". The progressive programme has not been to accept that there are a few CEOs who people keep mistaking for secretaries, or that some poor benighted men wander around the fringes of society wearing wigs, bad makeup and enormous stilettos. The project is to queer society so that there is no normal for these people to be excluded from, or better still to invert the pyramid and replace what was normal with what was deviant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) Which side of your mouth are you planning to argue out of? On the one hand, you're arguing that attempting to overcome socially imposed prohibition of behavior on the basis of sex is irrational and a losing argument... and on the other hand you're arguing that acknowledging evolutionary instincts is also irrational and a losing argument. I don't see how you can possibly hold both views without some sort of massive cognitive dissonance.

I'm losing the thread here a little. I was attempting to follow the logic that was of wanting to escape the societal baggage of femininity and then claim that "woman" is some special category that needs protecting. What is special about women that I should care about them more than short wimpy men? If you define women in a materialist way, you ditch all the stuff that makes them special and worth defending.

I don't think I said anything about acknowledging instinct as being irrational. Sure, women have all these instincts and feel threatened by men blah blah blah. But if you have reduced women to some materialist definition, then as I said, you have ditched everything worth defending about women. At that point why, beyond you not liking it, not count trannys as women? The category is debased anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) You seem to be extending all of my views to a black-and-white end point of absurdity, rather than engaging in my actual views.

The thing is that I disagree with you about where your views lead. I think they lead to particular endpoints. You saying "but I don't like that endpoint" isn't an argument. I probably don't like that endpoint either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) I'll be honest - right now, what I am inferring is that you hold a rather traditionalist view.

Certainly. Wildly traditionalist by the standards of the forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) You aren't supportive of transgender policies, not because you have any concerns about the erosion of female rights, but because they transgress the hard line gender roles of what is acceptable male behavior and comportment and what is acceptable female behavior and comportment.

No. This is the problem with liberals. Because liberalism is founded on these "rational" self evident universal principles and somehow everything stems deductively from that you assume that is how everybody else operates. Again, no! I think counting trans-women as women will make men and women unhappy. I'm not deducing that from moral principles, I'm looking at the world and trying to understand what men and women are actually like. Has feminism made women happier?

I have no moral vision for men and women that I want to realise. I'm not offended by the idea of a female general, or a female CEO. However, I think this is a road that leads to unhappiness and chaos if it's perused as a moral good. If I thought there was a pot of gold over the rainbow where progressivism delivered what it promised and a happy stable socanety came out of it I would view the whole thing completely differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) You appear to be arguing that males should NOT be allowed socially to dress in female clothing, or to use female spaces...

I don't know about not allowed, but I am deeply sceptical that anything good is going to come out of encouraging that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) while also arguing that females do NOT merit any accommodations or protections due to our reproductive role and vulnerability.

You have completely misunderstood me. I don't believe females, when reduced to some materialist idea of what a woman is, are worth any special consideration at all. That isn't how I view women though. I am not a materialist. From my perspective, it is insane and a sign of the collapse of some critical aspect of society that there is even a conversation about whether women should have to accept unwanted men into their changing rooms and that we should be expected to pretend that men are women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13766062) Please feel free to assuage my concerns by restating your position.

I hope I have clarified things. I tend to argue by trying to reframe other peoples positions and following them through to their conclusions, I think sometimes it comes across as if the position was mine.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/4rGLiUz