'Empowering to women'?

[Kopikatsu]

Empower - Give or delegate power or authority to;
Empower - Endow: Give qualities or abilities to.

So...yeah. I fail to see how pole-dancing, stripping, prostitution, or having images of attractive women everywhere falls under either definition.

Besides, I treat women as I treat men, then they get pissed off when I expect them to pay for half of everything we do together. Is it really that unreasonable? It's kind of like how women feel that they're entitled to raise their child (As in, getting custody after a divorce), regardless of how bad of a parent they were and how good the husband was.

Feminism, as mentioned, is supposed to be looking for equality. So, it should also mean that feminists reject reverse discrimination, but I've never seen it. Hypocrisy!

 

[Hitman Dread]

Society is equal now

No. It isn't. At all. In any reguard. Women still get payed less. Women still can't express their sexuality without being labeled a bad person.

The reason women earn less on average turns out to be because women don't work as many hours over their life, in high-stress jobs, at awkward hours and are less willing to put work before their life.

This isn't true in the slightest. Women are the most trained for our modern day economy. Last year the majority of doctor degrees were awarded to women, and women have dominated 4 years degrees before that. Their high school graduation rates are also much higher than mans.

http://management.about.com/od/womenminorities/a/MenEarnMore2005.htm

Yes pointing to an out of date and single source really proves your point.

Clearly this entire issue shouldn't be discussed on these forums.

 

[ChocoFace]

it's a stupid,sexist , misguided ideal and all those who use it should be ashamed. i have alot to say about it but using these words will get me banne so let me conclude by asking if women really need empowering. They already have equal rights to men and now those feminist swine are just being greedy

this is a pet peave of mine, in case you didn't realise

People, including women of course, never want equality, but supremacy. Sad truth is sad.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The key thing about the whole empowerment issue (as said above) is motive - if a female wishes to dress seductively/scantily/whatever because she wishes to do so, that's her business. To oppose that would be repression of female rights. To create an environment whereby a female feels she HAS to dress that way to be accepted/successful is an environment of objectification.

Exactly.

And now for a dozen more pages of condemning feminism and women in general.

 

[Hitman Dread]

snip

I could have pointed to any number of sources but I don't trust the people here to read one source, let alone every source ever. I note you don't present a source though, so I'll take you're "no they're not" as not being worth a lot. It is not my responsibility to exhaustively research and present sources for everything I say, this is a forum and I doubt most people would read them. On any less anally-retentive site this wouldn't be an issue but lolgamers.

Besides, different kinds of doctors. The whole point of this set of findings is that men will tend to gravitate towards the high-stress jobs within a field. Bear in mind a GP, a neurosurgeon and a paediatric specialist are all doctors but their jobs aren't the same at all.

Oh my goodness you don't even know what doctorate degree means???

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-09-15-womenphd14_st_N.htm

If you want to talk about modern labor, at least know up to date information about it. I'm out.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Clearly this entire issue shouldn't be discussed on these forums.

Because...? You didn't find a few hundred people who scream 'Society is like Athens! Women are treated like property and have no rights! Outrage!' I apologize, but that isn't what the word discussion means.

Discussion: An extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic;
An exchange of views on some topic

This is, by the very definition of the word, a discussion. You may not like the direction the discussion is going on, but that doesn't make it less valid.

In addition, you're aware that more women hold higher positions and have more education then most men...so there's that. If you were looking for TRUE SUPER EQUALITY, then women would have to be rejected until the number of graduates equaled men so it's an equal 50-50 split. (I don't think anything like that should be done, for the record.)

 

[GraveeKing]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

You just summarized my thoughts perfectly and saved me writing my own post. Thank you muchly - you deserve a crumpet.

 

[Ferrious]

I think there is a second sense of the question, one that might be harder to answer, namely if the activity itself is exploitative/empowering, regardless of the dancer's attitude or (perceived) agency in the situation. To answer this you would need to look at other facts, like to what extent the show is pandering to a sexist audience (e.g., whether the dancer acts vulnerable and submissive, or otherwise non-threatening), who has economic control (how much does the strip club owner get compared to the girls, are the customers obliged to pay a certain amount), and the broader ramifications of the action (an ignorant customer might develop/keep disgusting views about other women, as a result of watching an empowered stripper. We might consider any activity that promotes such attitudes as exploitative to all women, not just the stripper).

This is a good point, and very difficult to answer. The suggestion is that a subject can feel empowered but actually be being exploited in society's view. Whose view holds true? Can both?

I'm not entirely sure that can be answered. Just for example we'll take strippers as our case. If just one member of society finds that demeaning to the stripper, does that make it intrinsically exploitative? The question hints at a much bigger debate about moral relativism, in that we are asking if an act is inherently exploitative. As I don't believe acts carry inherent moral coding, but are informed by the situation and intents at hand, I would say that stripping is not exploitative by its nature. If I strip for my other half, that's not exploitation.

As you say, the decision is informed by the setting, the motive, even the attitudes of the clientèle. However, I would posit that if you were to have a negative view of women as objects when enjoying a strip-show, you were already primed to hold such a view. I very much doubt that the existence of strip clubs creates such a view, but it does allow people to spread the view to those receptive to it.

Opps, I kind of wandered there a bit. Short answer: Acts are not inherently one thing or another - if the intent was to show women as objects, that's exploitation, if the intent was to allow a person with a talent for erotic dance to make a living from their talent, that's not.

 

[Woodsey]

Maybe if we stopped talking about them as if they were children who needed someone to come in and draw a line for them, the problem would go away.

Likewise, if we stop assuming that all non-male, non-white, non-straight people can be represented by one single character in media, there'd also be less of a problem.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is a good point, and very difficult to answer. The suggestion is that a subject can feel empowered but actually be being exploited in society's view. Whose view holds true? Can both?

Ah...this is one of the more divisive questions that feminism deals with at great length. No satisfactory answers tend to be forthcoming, but the debates/arguing rage on and on.

 

[Spaloooooka]

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/helen_fisher_studies_the_brain_in_love.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html

I'm not sure which one is the right one, I'm currently on a computer which doesn't have an up to date flash player! Both worth watching though.

 

[Hitman Dread]

In addition, you're aware that more women hold higher positions and have more education then most men...so there's that. If you were looking for TRUE SUPER EQUALITY, then women would have to be rejected until the number of graduates equaled men so it's an equal 50-50 split. (I don't think anything like that should be done, for the record.)

This doesn't even apply to what I said. No where did I state that all fields should be equally represented by women, but instead that our pay should be effected by modern day reality, that reality being that women are and will continue to be at current rate, the most well suited for our information, technology, and service economy.

 

[BabyRaptor]

it's a stupid,sexist , misguided ideal and all those who use it should be ashamed. i have alot to say about it but using these words will get me banne so let me conclude by asking if women really need empowering. They already have equal rights to men and now those feminist swine are just being greedy

this is a pet peave of mine, in case you didn't realise

We may have equal rights, but look at how hard certain people (at least in the US, where I live) are trying to take said rights away. See the abortion debate. See the effort to defund Planned Parenthood. See the religious groups that push for laws that make it harder for women to do anything but stay at home and cook/raise the kids, like their religion says they should. See the TeaBaggers demanding that women only be allowed certain jobs in the military because we "effeminize" it.

I don't see anyone out there demanding that Viagra be illegal, or that men be taxed higher if they purchase insurance plans that pay for their reproductive decisions, or...Well, insert the word "men" into my examples.

And then there's the double standard with which society views the two sexes. I'll spare you my rant on that...

Edit: Oh, hey....I'm a "Pulitzer Laureate" now...

 

[loodmoney]

This is a good point, and very difficult to answer. The suggestion is that a subject can feel empowered but actually be being exploited in society's view. Whose view holds true? Can both?

I'm not entirely sure that can be answered. Just for example we'll take strippers as our case. If just one member of society finds that demeaning to the stripper, does that make it intrinsically exploitative? The question hints at a much bigger debate about moral relativism, in that we are asking if an act is inherently exploitative. As I don't believe acts carry inherent moral coding, but are informed by the situation and intents at hand, I would say that stripping is not exploitative by its nature. If I strip for my other half, that's not exploitation.
[...]
Opps, I kind of wandered there a bit. Short answer: Acts are not inherently one thing or another - if the intent was to show women as objects, that's exploitation, if the intent was to allow a person with a talent for erotic dance to make a living from their talent, that's not.

The natural upshot of the distinction would be that it can be both. And it doesn't have to be a case of moral relativism, either. An individual's sense of empowerment is a good, and sexual equality is another, sometimes incompatible, good. If empowerment of the individual contributes to exploitation in society generally, then we find ourselves weighing the good of the agent with the harm to society, which is a more general problem of moral philosophy.

So there will be, if you accept my distiction, no question of whether something is exploitative simpliciter, but there can still be disagreement about whether it is good or bad overall. It doesn't have to be moral relativism, either. Relativism normally entails disagreement between cultures or between individuals, whereas here there is just disagreement between a conception of morality that emphasises the choice of the individual and a conception of morality that emphasises the well-being of society.

In conclusion I am agnostic on the issue--typical philosopher--but I'm too much a feminist to flat-out claim that anything, if it is indeed freely chosen by a woman re: her own sexuality is that great a threat to society.

 

[willofbob]

it's a stupid,sexist , misguided ideal and all those who use it should be ashamed. i have alot to say about it but using these words will get me banne so let me conclude by asking if women really need empowering. They already have equal rights to men and now those feminist swine are just being greedy

this is a pet peave of mine, in case you didn't realise

We may have equal rights, but look at how hard certain people (at least in the US, where I live) are trying to take said rights away. See the abortion debate. See the effort to defund Planned Parenthood. See the religious groups that push for laws that make it harder for women to do anything but stay at home and cook/raise the kids, like their religion says they should. See the TeaBaggers demanding that women only be allowed certain jobs in the military because we "effeminize" it.

I don't see anyone out there demanding that Viagra be illegal, or that men be taxed higher if they purchase insurance plans that pay for their reproductive decisions, or...Well, insert the word "men" into my examples.

And then there's the double standard with which society views the two sexes. I'll spare you my rant on that...

Edit: Oh, hey....I'm a "Pulitzer Laureate" now...

look, I'm not saying that there aren't bigots out there who believe women to be inferior, I'm just sayin that they're in the minority. The sad truth is that people, all people, are greedy and that while feminist groups had a noble goal in mind in the 50s and 60s, now that the government (at least the Aussie one) views women as equal, all they need to do is MAINTAIN the current level of power, not seek out more and try to push men into the sidelines.

 

[willofbob]

it's a stupid,sexist , misguided ideal and all those who use it should be ashamed. i have alot to say about it but using these words will get me banne so let me conclude by asking if women really need empowering. They already have equal rights to men and now those feminist swine are just being greedy

this is a pet peave of mine, in case you didn't realise

'Feminism' is to believe in equal rights between men and women. Feminism isn't a dirty word and it's quite strange a lot of people seem to think it is.

Also, men and women are not equal in all rights. Just look at who makes the laws in most Western countries and employment levels of men and women in large office environments: they are not nearly the same. Please don't try to make out that men are the worse off in society right now because that comes across as simply not looking outside your own viewpoint.

I could accuse you of eactly the same thing! Feminism once did mean equal rights, now it does not. Now, I believe in equal rights. I believe in equality between all races, colours, creeds and genders, but many people out there don't. To quote Commander Vimes: "just because you're an ethnic minority doesn't mean that you're not a small minded jerk."

also, Women DO get equal rights most of the time! Sure there are some exceptions, but these are equal in number to the number of white men not getting hired because we are white men. I can't speak for all nations, of course, but I think that Equality has already been achieved an that,half the time, people "looking out for ____ rights!" are actually just trying to get a handout

 

[Saelune]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

Can't it be both? Or a misguided idea?

An example is a car advertisement where it showed a woman walking through her home, hurling her clothe of as she went, breaking her jewelery, then getting into a car fully nude and driving away to represent freedom. Obviously, many people interpreted it as a rather empowering advertisement, but when they were asked "Do you think this advertisement would ever work if it showed an overweight/unattractive woman" most people seemed to change their idea.

Just because women have a certain intent behind it, doesn't mean it's empowering. How many unattractive/overweight women are in advertisements that are supposed to be 'empowering'?

The problem is, there is no one end all empowerment method. Early women empowerment involved rejecting what was considered femininity. But does that make femininity oppressive? As the first person says, it all comes down to why and for who. If women want to wear dresses and make up and have long hair, because they LIKE IT, its not wrong. If women want to wear pants, fix cars, and fight proffessionally, because they LIKE IT, its not wrong. (vice versa for men, but thats a different subject)