INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

Feminism: boon or bane for women?

1235724

Comments

  • edited January 2015
    Boon ya bane me jawab do. Kya lamba lamba kahaniya suna rahe ho. :P
    haha... whose boons?? your boons?? :D
    image
  • edited January 2015


    Is it really necessary that men should form any official groups for deciding policies to dominate women? It's not a single day process when all men came together and designed various rules for society.
    Being physically superior, males were involved in leadership positions in most of the societies. Hence they took major decisions about society traditions and tried to retain maximum powers in their hands.
    You are constantly assuming that men worked in a group, which is not the case. Though feminism is a group. And in response to feminism masculinism may arise. Then men will be organised for a specific purpose of subversion based on sex, for which they are accused of already. If men will form a group, it will be feminism's fault.


    It's clearly visible from the various practises followed like sati tradition.
    It was a bad tradition. I bet women at that time supported sati, very much like the women in African countries find 'genital mutilation' to be logical. You can not blame tradition onto males or females, both were equally responsible for a good or bad tradition.
    Boss, I am not talking about any group formed within men. I nowhere said men worked together to conspire. When I refer to male group, it includes all the males together. They are a group based on their common behaviour towards females. And feminist is a different group formed within females. I nowhere said that feminist group is similar to the male group. You are assuming it by yourself. Ab ye group ke funde pe aur dimag mat chatna. :) No more explanations from my side.

    Does the restrictions put in the name of tradition look logical to you. Who will like to curtail their own rights when given a choice to decide what they want?


  • Is it really necessary that men should form any official groups for deciding policies to dominate women? It's not a single day process when all men came together and designed various rules for society.
    Being physically superior, males were involved in leadership positions in most of the societies. Hence they took major decisions about society traditions and tried to retain maximum powers in their hands.
    You are constantly assuming that men worked in a group, which is not the case. Though feminism is a group. And in response to feminism masculinism may arise. Then men will be organised for a specific purpose of subversion based on sex, for which they are accused of already. If men will form a group, it will be feminism's fault.


    It's clearly visible from the various practises followed like sati tradition.
    It was a bad tradition. I bet women at that time supported sati, very much like the women in African countries find 'genital mutilation' to be logical. You can not blame tradition onto males or females, both were equally responsible for a good or bad tradition.
    Boss, I am not talking about any group formed within men. I nowhere said men worked together to conspire. When I refer to male group, it includes all the males together. They are a group based on their common behaviour towards females. And feminist is a different group formed within females. I nowhere said that feminist group is similar to the male group. You are assuming it by yourself. Ab ye group ke funde pe aur dimag mat chatna. :) No more explanations from my side.
    Thank you for partaking.
  • I have questions to women
    In what way they think that they are equal to men? I am of the belief that they are not equal but different. They are weak in some areas. Unfortunately for them, these areas dominate the world. Plz share your views..
    Why do girl's cloths are shorter than that of boys? Are not they trying to become an object in this case?
    Plz be civil and no offense meant..
    "I am of the belief that they are not equal but different"
    framed in a very generalized and steretypical way guest bhai... I am sure that Serena Williams can break my wrist with a single serve and Mary Kom can beat me to pulp in 42 secs. Some women are stronger than men some women are weaker than men. So this is, as mentioned, a personal belief based on a limited and narrow experience. No argument possible hence.

    "Unfortunately for them, these areas dominate the world"
    Precisely the point that a few people raise (call them feminists, industrialists or bicyclists whatever). Why is child rearing considered "lowly" and why are domestic duties considered "easy/worthless", when they take more effort than conventional "employments" of men. This is because of culture and its inter generational propagation. We are made to believe that our father does important jobs and our mother "just" cleans the house and cooks. This ideology is so deeply penetrated that even women consider this to be true. That both productive and reproductive functions are equally important is never taught to us. From such attitudes a "culture of domination" emanates.

    "Why do girl's cloths are shorter than that of boys"
    again very generic and opinion based. Some girls wear shorter clothes than boys and some boys wear shorter clothes than even animals (visit my roomies some day), let alone just girls. Even if we compare film stars, per capita the clothes worn by Salmaan Khan seem to be shorter than Mallika Sherawat.

    "Are not they trying to become an object in this case?"
    Is Salmaan Khan becoming an "object".
    If no, then why only scantily clad women are considered as objects by you and not quasi-naked men. This you have to ask yourself.
    If yes, then it is individual specific (irrespective of gender) and just because one woman wears short clothes it does not subject the entire female-race to objectivization. Objectivization has nothing to do with gender or sex in this case.
    There is a basic problem in your argument.. you are a sociology student so would understand.. Any social fact can be accepted or rejected not on anecdotal evidences like that of Serena Williams.. For that you need to do a social survey.. Get any random sample of 1000 girls and boys of similar age profile.. What do you think who would be physically strong?
    Girls and boys are not equal but different - How is this generalized opinion? Do you think thate they are equal in every respect? What evidence have you got to support your argument.. Plz dont tell anecdotal evidences..

    On dress - Yes Salman Khan is objectifying himself.. He is even earning money for the same. He is selling the semi naked image of him.. I dont know how you do not recognize this..
    If a person is naked in the wild just because he does not care like a sadhu, it is not objectification.. But if he wants to expose himself to be seen, attracted and appreciated by others, he is objectifying his body.. Objectification is gender neutral and any men or women can do it.. However as a social reality, girls do it more often even when they are not film stars, but walking on roads, attaining parties - They succumb to the sexual desires of males, make themselves an object to be looked at, desired for, not for their qualities but for their physical features. In this way, they objectify themselves..
  • image
    You have shown girls in pink.. This will be hitting point for feminists to argue for bias and stereotype..
  • @vkk
    You stole the pic I was about to post :-L
  • edited January 2015
    @vkk
    You stole the pic I was about to post :-L
    sorryyyyy :D

  • You have shown girls in pink.. This will be hitting point for feminists to argue for bias and stereotype..
    I didn't even notice the pink versus blue till you mentioned it. Guess I'm on my way towards becoming a value-neutral sociologist.
    Appreciate your perspective in the above post. As a sociologist, I agree with it.
  • @guest bhai... lets tag, not quote... ok...

    no anecdotal evidence accepted... agreed
    Anything not base on a sample survey not accepted... agreed

    On the basis of the above two I reject the following of your/my hypothesis:
    Girls are weaker/stronger than boys.
    Objectification - "However as a social reality, girls do it more often even when they are not film stars,". Due to lack of data it cannot be determined who indulges in more "objectivization".



    They succumb to the sexual desires of males, make themselves an object to be looked at, desired for, not for their qualities but for their physical features. In this way, they objectify themselves..

    regarding this
    1. Even "physical features" are qualities which can be exhibited
    2. Even taj mahal is beautiful but it does not give the right to me to start humping it as soon as I see it.

    as regards to your earlier objections forget everything else I wrote and just read the following part of my earlier post and raise anything you feel is wrong:

    "Unfortunately for them, these areas dominate the world"
    Precisely the point that a few people raise (call them feminists, industrialists or bicyclists whatever). Why is child rearing considered "lowly" and why are domestic duties considered "easy/worthless", when they take more effort than conventional "employments" of men. This is because of culture and its inter generational propagation. We are made to believe that our father does important jobs and our mother "just" cleans the house and cooks. This ideology is so deeply penetrated that even women consider this to be true. That both productive and reproductive functions are equally important is never taught to us. From such attitudes a "culture of domination" emanates."

    on a side note: objectification is not visceral to the unit being studied but rather it is inherent in the observer.
This discussion has been closed.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google