All of us students in 2nd-grade Gymnasium (me included), as in students who are 17-18 years of age got a specific book called "Alla borde vara feminister" [We should all be feminists]
It's originally a TED-talk that got adapted into a short 55-page book. Written by Nigerian feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and was actually a good read. I genuinely thought it was an amazing piece of literatture and while it didn't reflect on the world as a whole, but mostly nigerian or other less equal nations' equality, it was still very thought-provoking. I recommend picking it up if you find it.
And what are your thoughts on a feminist book becoming a mandatory read for us students?
>go to post something misogynistic in reply to this thread
>halfway into sourcing misogyny quotes
>dominant fwb messaging asking me to come over and get her off
If only they could be educated anywhere but here...
If only the liberal left ideology wasn't so pervasive as to disallow the seriously needed political discussions...
A man can dream.
And I dream of the fires rising.
I think I saw that TED talk, it was interesting anon. As far as feminism in general becoming a mandatory read, I think it's a good thing. How often are we made to learn outdated yet influential ideologies by older thinkers (e.g. Freud, Marx, Herbert Spencer)? Curricula leave much room for the historically significant, but much less for the contemporaneously significant. Feminism is a leading, modern ideology, and not only that, but it helps reverse a history that we now recognize as wrong. We spend so much time learning our manners as children, but we ought to learn human respect and compassion too.
>but we ought to learn human respect and compassion too.
If this was really the case, they'd teach ethics and not feminism. What they're doing is helping propagate a single subset of modern ideology while dismissing anything else as wrong. We should teach our children how to think, not what to think.
inb4 it was all just elaborate bait
In all seriousness, there are plenty of other books they could use for teaching instead of that one. And actually good books at that. This is just a symbol of how pervasive modern feminism is in Sweden today.
>how pervasive modern feminism is in Sweden today
Isn't the pervasive form of feminism always "modern feminism"; how could it be called modern if it wasn't currently pervasive? And I don't see what's stopping Timbro from handing out Atlas Shrugged, or whatever.
This isn't really a response so much as what you think is a clever retort, but I will say that I never said anything about older ideas becoming obsolete, but rather that we ought to include, among older ideas, newer ideas as well, for the same reason we include the older ideas (critical thinking, exposure to thought, etc.).
Ethics is not opposed to feminism, though. Feminism is a subset of ethics. If you're teaching feminism, then you're teaching a branch of ethics. Furthermore, you ought not assume that they're not also teaching other ethical works (e.g. John Stuart Mill). Critical thinking (how to think vs what to think) is more important than all of these, I agree, but critical thinking is not so much in the reading list as it is in the teachers, and we're not talking about the ideal school system, just whether adding a feminist book to the reading list is a step in the right direction or not. If you don't think it's a step in the right direction, then why, and what would be a better move?
Elden stiger för varje sekund som går. Varenda gråsosse rasar, borgarna får astmaanfall, Sverigevännerna är i upploppstillstånd, flyktingarna tappar hoppet och tron och allt det blir till en ilska, en ilska som kommer att växa. Snart försvinner snön, och det blir ljusare på himmelen. Dagarna blir längre. Och varmare. Flickorna klär sig i korta kjolar. Männen börjar supa. Där borta, långt därborta ligger en gryning. Och en ny dag väntar. Elden stiger.
The Ego and His Own should be mandatory reading in an attempt to repair the years of liberal cuck brain damage sustained from the government influencing the education curriculum with their own bullshit agendas.
Kulturer har ingen påverkan på kvinnosynen. Män som män. En marxist från Uppsala berättade det för mig. Lägg ned genusvetenskapen! Ta inte tag i hedersvåld, då våld förekommer i alla hem!
>Feminism is a subset of ethics
Of course. And this is the only subset they're teaching. This is in Jr. High.
>Furthermore, you ought not assume that they're not also teaching other ethical works
I don't assume. I happen to know the situation as I live in Sweden. Feminism is literally the only philosophy a lot of the kids will be reading. And discussing feminism critically (unless from a feminist viewpoint) is a major sin here. This is the gravity of the situation.
>and what would be a better move?
Mandatory philosophy class teaching from an as general as possible viewpoint, going through the history of thought and including modern thinkers. And most of all, not being afraid to criticize any part of it.
Vila i frid, Moder Svea.
I agree with this on the term that we read a lot of outdated, useless, trivial shit in school so why not throw more onto the pile. I just wish they taught my darling Dworkin who expressed her ideas in truly pure, unsympathetic terms and did away with conventions like logic that follows through and etc.
Since foreigners might take people's exaggeration seriously I feel like I should mention that at my time in school there was very little -- at first I wrote "close to nothing", but my memory isn't good enough for me to be sure of that -- in the curriculum about feminism.
I'm not too familiar with the situation in Sweden, so thanks for illustrating it for me. In your opinion, what is the worst part about this situation? How are people treated when they try to discuss feminism critically?
I'm not saying that your situation sounds ideal, but to be realistic, the world has never been ideal, and certainly has not been ideal up until women were able to start being treated as human beings, which was commenced around 100 years ago but has still, I think, not been realized (at least not in many countries). The lacking freedom of speech is an issue, but how do you suggest we level that with the pervasiveness of patriarchy and social norms that directly go against women's rights? Here in North America, these ideologies are only criticized academically, but in society/media they are widely accepted. (Many may disagree, but the vocal tumblr minorities only represent a specific, young, usually female demographic--a vocal minority against a pervasive majority. We as a board are only concerned with them because we're college-aged and so are they.) So how do you suggest we undo these norms? Because until we do we still are not going to reach your ideal.
Literally not at all what I was saying.
>we read a lot of outdated, useless, trivial shit in school
I didn't say this.
>so why not throw more onto the pile
I certainly didn't say this.
>thinking I'm a fan of Dworkin
I am not anti-philosophy or anti-intellectual at all. Please address me with something other than a shitpost.
Well that's because you're retarded and uneducated. Every single age recognized "earlier ideology" as "wrong". Feminism to you is as Christianity was to Justinian. And as the pagans were so obviously wrong, he closed the Academy. Why wouldn't he, that place did not conform to the leading, modern ideology and naturally had to be "reversed".
The only consolation about all this is that things are moving really fast these days. It won't take 800 years for Petrarch to show up.
>In your opinion, what is the worst part about this situation?
That there is no critical debate of any kind. There's oversensitivity to the point of censorship.
>How are people treated when they try to discuss feminism critically?
They are generally called racists or sexists without added thought. People are too driven by some ideal of moral righteousness to stop and think about how things actually are. Of course, there is an opposition, most of which is just as awful as the people they are opposing (e.g. actual racists and sexists & c).
>[Other stuff to which I will reply generally.]
I'm sort of confused about some parts of your post (whether they are adressing the situation in Sweden, the first world, or the third world (all of which differ quite greatly w/r/t the topic, even between individual countries)) so I'll give you my take on what I know i.e. the situation in Sweden.
I'll admit that there are social downsides to being a woman. But this is equally true for being a man. We all have problems and that's just life. (There might be solutions, but they definitely aren't third wave feminism.) The situation here is that the only "legitimate" narrative is the feminist one. Step outside and criticize and you will be personally attacked and slandered. Some people (of which the vocal minority is scum) object to this. But because of the situation any attempt of actual discussion is promptly shut down. Added to this we have a flood of migrants that we are failing to integrate in to our society (as well as a massive shortage on housing), which we cannot criticize in fear of being labelled racist.
In all honesty, I have no solutions to solve this whole situation. Future generations being more widely critical could help a lot, though. Whether or not education is the key to solving this clusterfuck, I have no idea, but it's a good place to start.
The way things are going now we are not looking at a bright future.
>There's oversensitivity to the point of censorship.
The editorial pages of several newspapers have spent a large time cashing in on the negative feelings about immigrants. Like saying that you shouldn't make a connection between having a party rooted in neonazism in the parliament and the burning of refugee camps, though they themselves blamed the Husby riots on anti racists.
But do go on living in your self-imagined martyrdom, I'm sure it's comfy.
>party opposes large scale immigration
>instantly gets labeled as a group of devils because of it
Progressiveness quick to call everyone an extremely bigoted nazi who even slightly goes against their ideology, and in many occasions as far as being intrusive to private life to hazardous lengths.
They are the nazis, ignorant to reason and stuck in self affirming hugging sects
You greatly mischaracterize me. I do not think of feminism, or any ideology, as a religion. I understand that every generation recognizes its predecessors as wrong, but that does not mean that there can be no right or wrong. Now, certain tenets of (the vastly different varieties of) academic feminism may conflict with one another, or may commit a number of logical sins, and we can question those forever. I am not arguing for that sort of feminism. But the basic view that women are to be treated as equal to men is, I think, something that is more socially ingrained than anything. It's an aspect of learned morality, like murder or thievery, that is better learned as a social norm than as a specific philosophy that is open to criticism.
Now, why? Do not think that I want to stunt critical thinking through indoctrination--do you think we stunt critical thinking when we teach children that murder is wrong? Murder may not be wrong, and it is still open to a number of philosophical investigations (as is feminism), but by teaching it at a young age our society is still more peaceful and, I would say, not the worse for it. Equally, I think that a society where men and women are treated with the same human respect is better than a society where men are treated with greater human respect than are women; we would therefore benefit from teaching our children the basic idea that men and women should be treated equally (instead of teaching them, as we always have, to treat men better than women). This is not a call to indoctrinate, but rather to change the prevailing social teaching (that men are better than women) into something more equitable (that men and women are equal). If we do not teach this sort of basic feminism, then it is not as if we are maintaining neutrality--on the contrary, by not teaching it, we implicitly support the status quo. I'm unsure of what the status quo is in Scandinavia, but there's still much progress to be made in the rest of the world, where the status quo is still in favour of men.
I knew I should have added figurative before censorship. Media will always be sensationalist, this is nothing new. You also completely ignore the general outcry against these reportings of opposing bias. But of course, you were only actually in this to insult me at the first best chance. Congratulations, big guy, you've completely disproved any argument I may have had and I'm sure you've got a far better understanding of this situation than I do.
And here I thought we could actually have a nice discussion.
Now, why? Do not think that I want to stunt critical thinking through indoctrination--do you think we stunt critical thinking when we teach children that murder is wrong? Murder may not be wrong, and it is still open to a number of philosophical investigations (as is Christianity), but by teaching it at a young age our society is still more peaceful and, I would say, not the worse for it. Equally, I think that a society where people behave piously (and proceed to go to heaven) is better than a society where pagan beliefs cause people to act sinfully; we would therefore benefit from teaching our children the basic idea that that Christianity is the one true faith (instead of teaching them, as we always have, to give credence to idolatrous pagan cults). This is not a call to indoctrinate, but rather to change the prevailing social teaching (that Christ is not our savior) into something more holy (that Christ is our savior). If we do not teach this sort of basic Christianity, then it is not as if we are maintaining neutrality--on the contrary, by not teaching it, we implicitly support the status quo. I'm unsure of what the status quo is in the Eastern Roman Empire, but there's still much progress to be made in the rest of the world, where the status quo is still in favour of obscene pagan gods.
>women and men are equal
Maybe as apples and oranges are.
Saying they are equal is ignoring natural tendencies both commit. In a more practical society people recognize these tendencies and in turn live where women had a lot of benefits solely by being women, men have benefits in different fields by being men. Some attempts were greater than others throughout history, and I don't believe there was or ever be perfect attempt at harmonious society. But I hold that believing women are men are equal leads to complete unnatural jumble.
Of course, this being 4chan, you're going to get a lot of backlash.
As it is written by a Nigerian feminist, I would presume it isn't batshit insane, but actually pretty reasonable. Given the state of Nigerian culture, it probably corresponds to what we in the west call 1st or 2nd wave feminism.
Why Swedes should take the time to learn about the state of Nigerian feminism however, is beyond me. Especially as Swedish feminism currently can hardly even be described as 3rd wave, but more aptly as castration-wave, which has absolutely nothing to do with the reasonable waves of thought in the history of feminism.
This is all conjecture. I haven't read the book. It might be insane.
For you OP, was there any reasoning as to why you had to read this particular piece of feminist writing?
Since others have brought your account of the situation in Sweden into question, I won't address those parts of your post. I will still try to engage with the aspects I am familiar with, though.
My posts address the situation as I see it in most of the world, but since I'm from North America they mostly reflect first-world concerns about pervasive attitudes towards women rather than, say, female genital mutilation. I am not advocating for a specific doctrine of feminism (e.g. sex-positive vs. anti-pornography); I believe that those details can, and should, still be argued. However, I do think that a basic belief in the equality of women and men ought to become part of the status quo. Critical discussion should take place, but it should be more along the lines of, "How can we create equality between two different groups?", "To what extent should we define men and women as distinct categories?", etc. rather than "Do women /really/ deserve to be treated with the same human respect that we already extend to men?", which I consider an ignorant question that, indeed, lacks critical thinking.
What sorts of criticisms do you think it's important to extend towards feminism? Where do you ultimately think/want these criticisms to lead us?
>dominant fwb messaging asking me to come over and get her off
I take it she must at least be plain. Sexually dominant women are such a rarity. If she's hot as well, my jealousy will bother me significantly.
Why do people on the internet have this idea that first and second wave feminism was calm and respectful and only with the third wave did people get radical and "rabbid". The stereotype about bra burning man haters is *based* 2nd wavers.
Why do you assume that by "equal" I mean "identical"? By equal, I mean the same thing that the Americans meant when they said "All men are created equal", which is not that all men are the same, but that they are to be seen, and treated, with the same basic respect. By saying that women and men are equal, all I am doing is saying "All men and women are created equal".
The extent to which gender is performative, biological, or some combination thereof is still a matter of debate, as it should be, but that does not mean that there is no room for discussing how we can create an equitable society that takes into account these possible gender differences. All we must do is be sensitive to them, and sensitive to the individuals who do not exhibit these differences. What do you believe this society would look like, anon? What would this society be aiming for, overall?
Eastern Roman Emperor, big on Christianity and big on anti-pagan/anti-jewish policies.
He was actually late to the game, most of the serious anti-pagan stuff had started with Constantine, 2 centuries earlier, but Justinian closed Plato's Academy which has symbolic value.
Nice appropriation, but are you sure that you're doing my original post justice? And what are you arguing for, exactly? My point was that basic human equality ought to be a social norm, and through parody you are implying that my point is ignorantly dogmatic. What are you trying to say? To me you just seem a fallacious fool. If you want me to take you seriously then please engage my ideas rather than shitposting.
Of course people are to be treated equally regardless of gender. Questions like "How can we create equality between two different groups?" aren't all that important in the first world anymore as (so far as I can see) we've already achieved an as equal state as possible. What we are now getting here in Sweden is people asking "How can we make the situation better for women?" which I hope you can see the problem with, given the current socioeconomic positions of the genders.
The biggest problem I have with this (I guess) is identity politics, as it subdivides and classifies based on superficial traits, further adding labels where none are needed, and in turn shattering any idea of uniformity. It's the focus on what divides, rather than what unifies. It's applying structural problems to individuals and blaming them. And resting all of this on an appeal to emotion.
The criticism I would like to bring is simple. "Why?"
"Why do you wan't this?"
"Why is this good?"
It shouldn't be about dividing people in to groups and asking "How do we make these people equal?"
We should be presenting people through what we have in common.
Most (if not all) problems in society these days are a matter of economic class anyway.
Sorry if I ramble.
I'm trying to say that your ideology isn't special. People in the past who disagreed with you believed equally (or more) fervently in their ideology, and the stuff that came along with it. There's nothing special about theirs exactly as there is nothing special about yours.
Your appeal to equality is nothing but a circular argument. Your ideology says equality is good, therefore your ideology is good since it supports equality. It is un-engagable by design.
What I'm arguing is that you should forget all this shit and operate on a meta-ideological level instead. Ask: how does it affect what thoughts are possible? What do different ideologies prioritize and why? How does it spread? How does it change? How does it fail? What are the practical effects? How did dominant ideologies of the past operate? How are people convinced that their own ideology is special?
These questions (e.g. "How can we make the situation better for women?") are still very relevant in the first world I'm familiar with. Again, I'm unsure of the situation in Sweden, but Western society is still very much behind. We could make the situation better for women by offering them more (and paid) maternity leave, and even better by offering the same to male parents. These sorts of things are already law in Sweden, but you need to understand that they're far from even being dreamt of in many Western countries. Women are sexually harassed on a regular basis (e.g. catcalls, stalking, rape, assault, unwanted dick pics), partially as a result of their being so objectified in the media. In America especially, where commodification is already much more prolific than in, perhaps, any other country in the world. It is still much worse to be a woman, across the world, than it is to be a man, and this is not due to pregnancy or other biological impediments but issues of social inequality that can someday be fixed. There is an overall ~$0.25 difference between men's and women's wages, but even when time, maternity leave, education, etc. are all taken into account there is still a ~$0.10 difference. Now, I am not saying directly that this is sexism, but if $0.15 has already accounted for differences in education, ability, experience, awards, willingness to ask for raises/promotions, and every other variable, then one of the only factors left is the gender difference, which sexism is a part of.
I agree that equality should not be about division, but understand that the divisions we're dealing with are ones that (at least in a lot of countries) are taken for granted and need to be gently incorporated into a more equitable view of humanity. We still need to ask "How do we make these people equal?" with regards to essentially all minority groups in the U.S., and we will still need to act on these divisions until they are no longer a part of society. You cannot be colourblind in the U.S. without defaulting to a "white" view of the world; likewise, you cannot try to be gender-blind without defaulting to a "male" view. This is because the prevailing status quo is divided and one-sided /itself/, and only favours the most predominant, rather than most equitable, worldview.
Could you be more specific with your questions? What sorts of specific tenets of the feminism that I'm aiming for do you think are up for criticism?
I don't advocate for equality just because it's "good", though, and I do take into account the meta-ideological concerns you mentioned and more. Before I go into my personal foundations, though, could you tell me what you believe and why? I'm having trouble understanding whether you're saying that meta-ideological analysis can help you arrive at your own beliefs or whether you only use it as a tool to criticize others' beliefs. That is, it's unclear to me whether you have any beliefs of your own, and if you do, I'm curious to know them and see how you arrived at them meta-ideologically.
Thanks for talking to me, by the way.
>implying men don't have catcalls and provocations(literally got unwanted sexy snaps from a girl today)
>unironically bringing up wage gap when statistics, all thing taken into account, show women have better pay in many fields
Some societies believe that women showing her naked body parts and sexually dressing is already commiting reverse rape on men.
I imagined you would have assumed from reading my post that I don't see perfect societies, but my preference lies within one where differences between women and men are recognized and not, as today, ostensibly pushed where they both are to be considered identical.
Oh my, I didn't expect such a long response. I'm gonna have to adress things quickly as I need to sleep soon.
Yes. This is bad. (Although some things are not as bad as they are portrayed, e.g. some women enjoy catcalls, it's a matter of taste.) Some of this could be improved, but generally this is mostly to do with somen being the fair sex. It's part blessing, part curse. The flip side of this is men (far more than women) feeling undesired & c.
The most recent (US) studies show that a 5-7% difference is unaccounted for taking in to account the things you have mentioned. A difference which can be largely explained by men being more willing to negotiate for a better salary (i.e. women being more satisfied with their earnings). Interestingly, a reason for women being more satisfied could be because they expect to get paid less as they are constantly told so by mainstream media. (I could also argue that the male dissatisfaction points to a larger problem in the "male experience," but I won't today.)
>It is still much worse to be a woman, across the world, than it is to be a man, and this is not due to pregnancy or other biological impediments but issues of social inequality that can someday be fixed.
This definition of worse is highly subjective. If men had it strictly better than women they wouldn't account for >60% of suicides, but they do.
I can agree that it is silly to turn a blind eye to the situation. But making these issues solely about gender isn't the answer. The problem with rape isn't that women are raped more than men (which actually isn't even the case in the US due to prison rape) but that people are raped. Likewise, the problem with suicide isn't that more men kill themselves, but that they kill themselves at all. There's a lack of admittance that all people suffer, as if I as a man am obliged to be happy and thankful for my lot in life. We are all in this together, no?
As for my questions, I guess I can make them more pointed. But even the most general ones are critical enough.
"What is the goal of feminism and why are its methods good for reaching said goal?"
Is about as pointed I can make it without pecking at individual pieces of that oh-so-fractured ideology.
I was going to respond to this, but since you said you're going to sleep soon, it may be better to continue this over email. If you do, then I'm email@example.com, feel free to just say hi so that I can get your info.
What does it matter? I never said you should follow or copy what I do, and I never would. One thing is for sure though: you will never arrive at anything resembling normal ideology (especially the conviction in its self-evident truth) with meta-ideological thinking. That's all gone.
I will only quote my good old pal Fred:
>It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
>"How can we make the situation better for women?")
simple. in telling men even more that they need women to live and validate their lives. men will be more providing for women, thru sex and gifts FOR FREE. in such a that women have easier lives than men.
but, wait! this has been happening for centuries.
reminder that if you lift, girls will notice you and let you eat them out. you will finally be happy !!
>ut this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
only betas find that women are not great creatures, because those men feel fleeced and they are indeed so. the more men hate women, the more they understand that women are better than them since women manage to use men to get what they want.
There's a difference between teaching objectively and didactically. Feminism and women's liberation has always been taught as a part of ideological history, but "why we should all be feminists" is edging very close to propaganda.
Obviously, ideology is often taught in schools, and it's accepted. To kill a Mockingbird defends equal treatment under the law. The difference is, that's a dead issue. Almost everybody in or out of academia supports To Kill a Mockingbird's iddeology. the merits of intersectionality, however, are still very much a live issue, and shouldn't be argued in school curriculums.
You don't mean Ronald Dworkin do you?
Surely he's the most famous of the two in regards to philosophy.
I read some of his stuff on contractualism and how Rawls theory of justice could be adjusted or how the intuitions involved could be finetuned through his thought example of a free auction.
Thus using the freemarket as the means to a just distribution, which is very good thinking, good job Dworkin
>I don't see how it could be wrong to give someone a book
It's not, as long as they've been given more essential books in the past and actually know how to think. If someone doesn't know how to think, why give them this book at all? As propaganda?
Yeah, because clearly the problem here are white misogynist men on the internet. Meanwhile Sweden has no problem with muslim immigrants who have killed and raped countless times in their homelands and now live with their 13 year old wives in their new swedish apartment.
If 8000 foreigners were trying to enter my country and I knew that one of them was a rapist, I would have no qualms about sending them all back to whatever fly blown pesthole they came from.
It just seems obvious. The primary duty of European governments is to ensure the safety of Europeans, not to act as some sort of social program for the third world. One rapist is one too many, and unfortunately there are many more than just one. I'm sure many of these refugees are innocent and it would be nice to help them but the safety of Europeans, from a European government policy perspective, is more important. Far more important. I don't want my elected officials trying to look after the whole bloody world, just me and my people, thanks.
>more (and paid) maternity leave
Not Swedish, and we have that.
>Women are sexually harassed on a regular basis (e.g. catcalls, stalking, rape, assault, unwanted dick pics), partially as a result of their being so objectified in the media
The causality between the media and these things happening are dubious at best, and it's also an narrative that easily gets superheated. Superheated meaning that the narrative is perceived as having far greater influence or importance or occurrence that it has. Whether or not women are xzy negative things to a statistical degree (regular basis) is an empirical question, besides the obvious problem as putting rape and assault together with stalking and dick pics. These are not relatable. Empirical questions needs empiri, and it's easy to superheat these fields with non-facts, e.g. whims, intuitions, opinions, indignation.
>There is an overall ~$0.25 difference between men's and women's wages, but even when time, maternity leave, education, etc. are all taken into account there is still a ~$0.10 difference¨
Surely the American wage system has problems that are much bigger than just the equality discussion. Meaning, we should priotize A and B both getting 10$ more an hour, instead of getting A(8,9) up to B(9). Besides, equality does not mean equal distribution.
>then one of the only factors left is the gender difference, which sexism is a part of.
I don't think this is valid in any way. Surely there are sexist problems that needs attention, but the wage gap itself doesn't justify assuming that women are subject to sexism in itself. How about shorter people? If we find some other demographic that has less wellfare, are they oppressed as a logical consequence of that? I dont think so.
My own opinion in the department of "women problems" is to take care of the inherent inequality, which mostly is the fact that women have to be pregnant for 9 months, which is completely set in stone. This needs attention, as you mentioned about maternity leave.
Critical Theory as formulated by Horkheimer and the Frankfurt school and so on are deeply set in Marxism. Marxism has some empirical problems (which are severe), but the importance lies in its ideological rigidity. Since Critical Theory and some feminism lies in the wake of this, it inherents the same problems, yet people don't realize it.
All this is not so important (my points), not the subject), but an important point is that the equality principle is simple stagnant and not something we believe in. We think we do, because it's guised behind intuitions. What we do care about, is the priority principle. We care more about the people who have less wellfare (e.g. women compared to men), not because they have less than men, but because they have little. Would we rather give 1 wellfare to women, and not to men, or 100 to both? Surely we want the last. That type of thinking entails a type of unity and goodfeel about the fellow human. No more space :(
This is the problem. It happens here in Denmark too, even from politicians.
You imply that not helping people by letting them into your scandinavian utopia, is punishing them.
I can give you my paypal account, if you don't transfer me 100$ today, are you punishing me? You could help me, but you're not.
Except that I have a duty to care for my own native citizens, but I do not have a duty to look after foreigners. Why is it my job to help all these refugees? Who decided I had to pay billions of euros to settle these people, AND put my own countrywomen at risk? Why don't the Chinese take them? Why me? There are a lot of needy people in the world, all this batch of "asylum seekers" did was show some initiative and basically gate crash an entire continent.
but you could help me too, and since I'm currently jobless and posting from a library computer I need your money a lot more than you need mine, primarily because I have none
look faggot I don't care about whatever spooky duty you're haunted by, you either look at suffering people and help them or you say 'fuck them lol' and you're clearly doing the latter.
I just find your attempt to twist your tribalism into being a good thing distasteful. Just say 'I think those foreigners will negatively impact my quality of life and I don't like that.' I won't like you but you'll at least be honest and then everyone will know where you stand without a bunch of pointless arguing.
>but you could help me too
But that's literally my point. It's so arbitrary.
This whole debate, thread, and so on suddenly seems arbitrary. The right thing would be to just live life perhaps
>We think we do, because it's guised behind intuitions. What we do care about, is the priority principle. We care more about the people who have less wellfare (e.g. women compared to men), not because they have less than men, but because they have little
only because you have been trained to care about people having little. oddly enough, you have not been trained to wonder why you care about giving furniture to people. you do know that hedonism is choice, right ?
why do you care so much about bodies, feelings, tastes when you do not even control them ?
>lol just live life
that's fine until, after everyone tells the refugees to fuck off, you suddenly have a bunch of homeless people looking for a place to stay.
Nobody wanted this to happen but it happened anyway, so the question is how to make the best of a bad situation. And in my mind, helping the needy makes a more preferable world to live in than telling them to fuck off until they're forced to become illegal immigrants to survive does.
Women have always wanted to be fucked, but only by men from whom they expected the best pleasure in bed AND after their orgasms. of course, they eventually get bored in bed, but never with men who give them gifts and pay their bills.
because sex always never lasts is why it is better to be a provider for material goods, rather than for sex. The real relationship with women is when you give them money: they become free from the constraints of life. they are free to do what they want. It is called compassion.
The best relationship is when you give them money so that they agree that you make them cum. this is called kindness.
I think those foreigners will negatively impact my quality of life and I don't like that because they're literally not my problem. What's more, they rape and steal.
Why is the middle east so fucked up? Maybe because it's full of middle easterners. So yes, fuck them. They can apply for visas and residency permits like everyone else or they can be deported. Also my "tribe" spans the entire western world. My "tribalism" is a far cry from the vicious sectarianism endemic to the middle east and africa.
If you want to help these people than go for it but don't try to force everyone else to go along for the sake of your fee-fees, faggot.
Authentic can be understood as phenomenologically attentive. If we focus on the phenomena around us now alone, there doesn't seem to be a problem. When we divert our attention to the refugee events, it seems like it has little do to with our lives, that we should help the people in need after our normal human standards. So, some should be helped, but it seems needlessly ideological to paint a picture of refugees being welcome or not. They can both be not-welcome and not-shunned.
I should get back to meming instead of this thread
I think every manifesto that is mandatory reading 'as is', is bad. By 'as is', I mean that it is not placed in a context like a writing class or a lesson where you analyse arguments or a class about how different arguments are made about something. Just telling students to read (and get punished if they don't) a manifesto is propaganda and indoctrination.
>A non-profit organization is giving the book away for free
>it's mandatory reading they are forcing on us!!!111!!!!
It's a shame that we have this internet, this greatest network ever created, and all we do with it is to is make up shit and then influence others so that we can collectively wallow in the shit
Willing to bet that there isn't going to be a lot of discussion in the classrooms about whether the arguments in the book are good or bad. Just propaganda from the officially feminist government of Sweden.
>So if they had to pay for it, it would be a problem?
You're misunderstanding (probably willfully since this is the 4chins) - OP and a bunch of other posters pretends like this is now mandatory reading in school, "becoming a mandatory read" etc. - while it's just a non-profit giving the book away to schools, students don't have to read it. It's not on the syllabus.
>people think Swedish schools are full of sjw indoctrination
>think back to högstadiet
>our social science teacher was a liberal, but in the European sense
>would frequently rant about how government interference to help the shipbuilding industry failed, obviously implying that such attempts always fail
>we lived in a place where the largest employer -- not counting the public sector -- was saved by such a program and is now going strong
>didn't mention that it was a right wing government trying to bailout the shipbuilders
>would say "the government should do only what it's good at" as if Social Democrats would disagree with that statement rather than just disagreeing about what the government is good at
>would never acknowledge class struggle as a reason for the right-left continuum
>think back to gymnasiet
>history teacher was probably a liberal too, but he never said so explicitly
>he did write a paper about gender stereotypes when he studied Swedish, but also described patriarchy theory (or however you translate "könsmaktsordningen") as "controversial"
>claimed that it's always the middle class that starts revolutions and would answer with non sequiturs when given counter examples
>claimed that the U.S was the only example of a colony shaking off it's rulers ignoring Haiti
You have zero self-awareness. All of those complaints are impossible to remedy. With time they will only naturally get worse.
All of these ideological battles are merely the media cashing in on morons wasting their time - with the added benefit of dividing the lower classes and halting any chance of unification with the eventual goal of combating the vile nature of our elitist class.
Read this vacuous anecdotal piece of shit three weeks ago. Didn't give any insight into feminist theory nor did it prompt me to re-evaluate my position as a male. Author should've localised it to niggers in Africa, I reckon their reading of it would be more fruitful.
Awfully inflammatory title aswell - borderline propaganda when handed out by Skolverket.
Not giving someone asylum isn't a punishment, though. It's just not letting someone who has nothing to offer into your country and giving them free shit. Why do so many people seem to think foreigners have a right to our land?
>he wrote a paper on gender theories
>but he said patriarchy theory was controversial (a statement of pure fact) so that makes him not a lefty!
Swedes are so far gone it's terrifying.
>>but he said patriarchy theory was controversial (a statement of pure fact) so that makes him not a lefty!
It depends on how you're saying it. My point was that he definitely didn't present it as fact or even a mainstream opinion. I also didn't say he wasn't a lefty, learn to read.