Are you willing to admit that men and woman, maybe, just maybe, are diferent, from both a physical and physiological level, and that's ok?
Thats certainly true. But at the same its true that our reality is, too a large degree, socially constructed.
Its our job to find out whats biological and whats not and how society and its values and norms can be improved for everyone.
Simple question, do you think there are places where women are "priviliged" in both law and/or societal standards?
Yes, at least in western meritocracies women are met with lesser expectations, which is one of the main reasons why burnout and depression and suicide affect men in higher numbers.
On the other hand, this also means that women's abilities to perform are usually underestimated.
Women also sometimes get an unwarranted benefit of the doubt in legal contexts, especially when it about domestic violence towards men.
There are many more examples, but generally male privilege far outweighs female privilege. Although this also depends on the context.
It actually is not, although not in direction you would expect, e.g. right to "abandon" your (born) child is exclusively female, gargantuan incarceration gap (6+ times larger than racial gap in US)
I don't know what you are referring to here?
The right to abandon a born child is exclusively female? How many single moms are there because fathers abandoned the child?
Does this question even make sense, without specifying which kind of feminists?
Well, in academia and Europe in generally I'd say the term feminism is reasonably well defined, so you don't always have to specify.
In US pop culture and internet debate spaces the term feminism has become a canvas for everyone to project their own concept of feminism onto. So in that case we would need to define it first.
I have a couple of rather concrete questions if you have time.
PM if you like.
I don't see how it's ultimately a difference in worldview. The 2 worldviews you presented are not mutually exclusive and also not the only possible worldviews. So already we are all over the place here.
I'd call that a worldview and I'd consider the difference significant and precise.
I'm a political scientist and in political science we use this to explain the evolution of politics from ancient Greece to today.
In ancient Greece it took several events(wars) for the population to realize their importance and demand democratic participation in return.(Rome saw the same thing happening, but granted economic participation instead of democratic) The fact that they had multiple and fallible gods was also integral. After Greece and Rome we went back to 1000+ years of leaders by gods grace(which makes sense when you believe in one all knowing god) and people being unaware of their ability to steer the ship they are on.
The enlightenment brought back the idea of agency and this idea was the root cause for the past 300 years of political evolution.
So yeah, I think these difference in world view are significant. Bringing this concept over from political sciences to social sciences is not a stretch and I am certainly not the first one to do it. Adam Smith did it hundreds of years ago and thereby shaped this entire planet in a profound way. Karl Marx did it and achieved the same.
Up to a certain point humans ARE at the mercy of circumstances. Usually scarcity. Once a certain level of development is reached we can shape our circumstances but the ability to do that varies across, and within, societies. So it's a bit of both really in varying amounts depending on the situation.
So for a family who is dirt poor, or for a developing nation, the standard "gender roles" that were at least initially influenced by biology might be the support they need to move up to the next level of development.
Once a suitable level of development is achieved and scarcity is less of an issue they can begin to sculpt their own circumstances.
Yes, but we are talking about western nations here. Feminism approach to circumstances in developing countries is entirely different to its approach in western countries.
What you mean is already taken into account.
Now, what modern, first world, third wave feminism appears to be saying is "let's get rid of the step ladder".
It is not.
Feminism is actually very good at not just demanding change but rather setting the stage for change to happen naturally. For example with the help of media criticism.
Media criticism, even though its always met with resistance, falls on open ears with content creators and slowly but steadily changes the landscape.
I personally think this is even visible in gaming. Anita Sarkeesian was met with harsh criticism, mainly by parts of the community, but among content creators she was definitely heard and especially the past few years have already shown substantial change.
Although, its not fair to attribute that to Sarkeesian exclusively, many if not most content creators where already on that track.
Isn't it just a weird coincidence that the main support for modern feminism isn't coming from regular people who just want basic human rights but rather the main "pushes" are coming from the extremely privileged world of academia?
Understanding the ways in which you are disadvantaged by the society you grew up in is not something that comes naturally. In german there is a saying along the lines of "The worst chains are the ones you don't realize are there".
I mean, you don't seriously think that the only "backlash" to Feminism comes from Right Wing sources and you don't seriously believe that any and all criticism of, or opposition to, Feminism is 100% misguided and wrong?
If I would believe I'd have to label parts of my own work "right wing". I'm a political scientist and my work is mainly quantitative(numbers) as opposed to qualitative(words). I regularly go crazy reading social science, because I think it usually neglects the quantitative side of things.
There is lively debate around feminism. Criticism, constructive debate, new ideas etc.
But whats exclusive to the right wing is the "backlash", an aggressive (in its rhetoric) rebuttal of nothing specific, but the idea and the concept as a whole.
1
1.21Gigawatts
Get back on topic please. Tangents are fine, full on derails are not.
I'm done now.
