[withad]

Yes, men do tend to be highly valued in some countries. And women in such countries tend to be treated as property. What does that have to do with suicide rates of men in the US? And what does any of it have to do with your original point about feminism somehow causing media scare stories?

It's unfortunate that politics can have such an influence on science and psychology and sociology are far from the only fields it happens in. But, again, that doesn't somehow prove feminism wrong or your original point correct.

Did you even read that link you provided about Margaret Mead? Freeman was accusing her mostly of incompetence (taking jokes/lies as fact is the main example) and Freeman's attacks on Mead's work have themselves been heavily criticised.

And even if they hadn't... so what? You're going to condemn the entirety of feminism (and the field of sociology, I suppose) because one person early in its history may have lied?

[coldtea]

>I condemn the parts of it that are transphobic, and I wonder why nobody mentions it

Because it's BS? I know people in politically correct societies wont even consider it (if anything, to avoid being labelled), but mutilating yourself is not exactly, well, alright.

A society has to draw a line at what it considers normal/desired behaviour and what not. Regardless if said behaviour is any harm to others or not.

For example, showing you genitals in a mall doesn't harm anyone, but we still don't consider it kosher. And we wouldn't think twice to say people should not use meth (despite them being able to afford it).

In this sense, this "transphobia" thing is a little too much to take. What's next? Respect for self-amputees-for-fashion?

[ecopoesis]

Slippery slope is a terrible argument.

If folks want to change their gender, then let them. Much like someone being black or gay, it's quite litetally none of my, or nyone elses, business. If people want to chop off their leg for fashion, who cares?

Anyone who says anything else is a bigot.

[coldtea]

>Slippery slope is a terrible argument.

Fortunately it wasn't the only argument.

And I'd say, slippery slope is not a terrible argument by itself, just because there are "fallacy" list saying so. It is quite appropriate as an argument in an awful lot of situations. Matter of fact, the "broken window theory" is an example of the slippery slope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory "Overton Window" is another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

>If folks want to change their gender, then let them.

I did not say "don't let them".

I said labelling those that are not Ok with this "phobics" is taking it too far. Are those not OK with people doing meth, meth-thobics? Are those not OK with women content to be in an abusive relationship abuse-phobics?

>Much like someone being black or gay, it's quite litetally none of my, or anyone elses, business.

Waiving our genitals in public is, by all means and with the same reasoning, none of yours or anyone else's business. And yet, we do (and perhaps you too) frown upon it.

Thing is, we don't base a society only on "whatever rock's one's boat", but also on general principles. That's why it's a society, and not a jungle.

>If people want to chop off their leg for fashion, who cares?

I care. And "who cares" is not an attitude to base a society on. An egotistical dystopia, maybe.

[adrianbye]

Margaret Mead provided the foundation for feminism to advance by "proving" that culture drove society, not genetics.

Unfortunately that isn't true. Genetics shapes culture. One of the interesting things from Mead's "research" was that Samoan women were having a lot of premarital sex in the 1920's. Yet somehow none got pregnant but that was overlooked.

When you force people too far out of their natural roles, bad things happen. There's a whole lot more to this and its fascinating to see how people don't realise it.

I respect that feminism is the moral case. Genetics is the scientific one, which currently is not respected. There's a balance between the two

[withad]

And all that would mean something if (a) all of sociology was somehow based on the work of Margaret Mead, (b) Margaret Mead had been proven fraudulent, (c) proof of bad evidence on one side automatically meant the correctness of the opposite, and (d) you provided any evidence of your claims that genetics somehow drives society towards an ideal that coincidentally lines up perfectly with your preferred gender roles.

Since none of those things are true, I'm left to ask again - what the hell does any of this have to do with men getting weird looks in parks?

[adrianbye]

margaret mead effectively founded "cultural anthropology" which basically means "research which makes people feel good". many people have followed her:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.htm...

this ties into funny looks for men in parks because men as a gender have been devalued into being potentially dangerous, rather than as a source of strength and value for communities.

challenging feminism is a little like investigations into wall street executives after the financial crisis, it just hasn't happened.

things are starting to turn - we have the internet now so we're much better informed...

either that or the USA economy continues its downward slide.. i really don't care either way.

the truth is that as the left becomes too strong, whether it is socialism, feminism or whatever, the economy gets destroyed. this is likely why rome collapsed, too.

the moral case is very important. so too is the economy.

[derleth]

I condemn the parts of it that are transphobic, and I wonder why nobody mentions it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Transphobia_in_femi...

> Radical feminist Janice Raymond's 1979 book, The Transsexual Empire, was and still is controversial due to its unequivocal condemnation of transsexual surgeries. In the book Raymond says, "All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgenderis...

> In 1999, the book the whole woman, Germaine Greer published a sequel to The Female Eunuch. One chapter was titled "Pantomime Dames", wherein she states her opposition to accepting transsexuals who were assigned male at birth as women:[3]"Governments that consist of very few women have hurried to recognise as women men who believe that they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it, because they see women not as another sex but as a non-sex. No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males."

and:

> Gloria Steinem has questioned transsexualism. In 1977, she expressed disapproval that the heavily publicized sex-role change of tennis player Renée Richards had been characterized as "a frightening instance of what feminism could lead to" or as "living proof that feminism isn't necessary." Steinem wrote, "At a minimum, it was a diversion from the widespread problems of sexual inequality."

It goes on. And on. And on. And on. And now watch this issue get ignored again, as it usually is, and me be accused of 'derailing' for bringing it up in this context.