'Right-wing' feminism?

[user1498662042]

Thought this raises some interesting questions. As a liberal, Cohen ties himself in knots trying to distance himself from this woman and all that she stands for. Obviously, feminists should speak out against misogynistic elements of Islamic culture (or any religious belief system); but is there a line where the liberal crosses over into being another kind of bigot? Can you be on the right (as in be an anti-immigrant nationalist who believes that Islam is incompatible with secular liberalism) and still be a feminist?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/29/bigot-who-would-lead-ukip-is-a-product-of-our-times

Of course British life as we know it now will be completely different to how it is now.

There are many different cultures in the world which come into contact, influence and change each other, and experience change internally.

There are already Muslims in Western culture. There might be more in coming centuries; there might be less. There might be very few Muslims anywhere in the world in a couple of centuries.

We do not know.

'But beliefs and cultures do not arise in a global vacuum'

Nobody has argued that they do.

Thanks for the link.

Sure, we don't know. But I can't see Islam going anywhere soon - but then, there isn't such a thing as Islam. It isn't a monolithic entity but an evolving belief system, just like all other belief systems. As I've said, it could absorb liberal elements. Think of Christianity and its journey from an obscure Roman cult to the ideas of people like Calvin and Luther who laid first imagined the modern capitalist individual.

Of course it isn't a monolithic entity.

Evolving belief systems can go from being believed by millions of people to becoming tiny minority beliefs.

Yes, and that could happen with Islam. In fact, it will, as all belief systems run their course, though they continue in new forms. A common mistake, for example, is to draw a clean line between Christianity and enlightenment rationalism. Key enlightenment ideas of universal rights, free will and progress were Christian inheritances. As Christians believed humankind was on a path to ultimate redemption, enlightenment secularists believed in progress. They replaced the soul with the mind. In truth, the mind and free will are faith based beliefs. There is no basis in empirical science for them. And while things can improve, they can just as easily get worse again. In Buddhist and Hindu religions it is believed history takes place in cycles, which is much more accurate than the western idea of history as linear progress.

Liberal humanism is another religion that places humankind at the centre of the universe. In reality, there is no such thing as human beings as a discrete species, and the universe is indifferent to us. We are just part of an evolutionary process. We will one day evolve into something else, or even become part machine.

Humans are currently a discrete species.

We will one day evolve into something else

Maybe if some really extreme, happens. But - the thing about us humans is that we manufacture survival equipment - like nice warm coats in cold areas - to survive and thrive, rather than wait for genetic drift to select for any given environmental niche's survivable humans.

Also, it better be a slow change - this extreme change - our generation time is at least 12 years or so....and thats pushing it.

Of course we will evolve into something else. We are evolving all the time. I mean, yeah I'm talking millions of years soon. But what could massively increase the rate of evolution is technology.

No. Many species do not evolve into anything else.

Many just become extinct.

Yes, there is that possibility. Though the extinction of the human race is unlikely.

We are evolving all the time.

You maybe right - but turn the 'survival of the fitness' coin up and you will see the other side - genes that aren't making it to the next generation at the same rate as the 'successful' genes; in order to be selecting for a greater propensity of some genes there must be competing genes / traits that decrease in propensity. Is that happening ? I really don't know, so some examples would be interesting - if you know of any ?

But what could massively increase the rate of evolution is technology.

and why would that be - seems to me that genetically we would stay the same if we use technology to exist in new environments.

We are evolving all the time is a tautology.

I had to look that up on Wikipedia - which Tautology did you have in mind ?

The grammar one - like the opposite of an oxymoron.

Sorry, I did not know there were so many meanings of the word tautology.

What I means is that biological evolution is defined as the change in frequency of inherited characteristics between generations. Happening all the time is already within the meaning of 'evolution' in biology.

It does not however follow that we are necessarily going to evolve into something else other than human.

What I means is that biological evolution is defined as the change in frequency of inherited characteristics between generations. Happening all the time is already within the meaning of 'evolution' in biology.

mmm yes, thinking about it, for example with increased screening, we could 'evolve' into a population of humans that didn't say, carry, the cystic fibrosis gene or sickle cell anaemia gene. And of course, those original mutations occurred in the past and spread through the population at risk (read once somewhere that the CF gene confirmed resistance to TB).

sorry..'conferred' not 'confirmed'

Interesting. I didn't know that about CF. Sickle cell is related to resistance to malaria.

We could end up with nobody carrying those genes, but we'd still be human.

To evolve into 'something else' we would have to have a descendent population that could no longer reproduce with humans.

We could end up with nobody carrying those genes, but we'd still be human

Yes, but I took that to be within your meaning, when you wrote that such mutations - and therefore evolution is - 'happening all the time'.

To evolve into 'something else' we would have to have a descendent population that could no longer reproduce with humans

For me, one of my favourite pieces of evidence for evolution is that a whopping 20% of all mammal species are bats - no withstanding that bats are a fairly recent evolutionary arrival, the fact that they can fly means that they can find different ecological niches and individuals separate from the parent group and bred thereby eventually becoming so isolated that they lose the ability to reproduce successfully with the 'mother-ship' - or badly enough for them to be deemed a different species. (then you realise why there are so many species of birds and insects too.)

Capitalism with a conscience

No such thing.

Of course.

I regard myself as somewhat liberal with leanings toward the right.

I believe in feminism as it was originally intended - i.e. EQUALITY not superiority. Third wave feminism is about superiority. An idea that women have been oppressed and "raped" by men since time immemorial - nonsense, basically. Actually quite an offensive view toward women - we have controlled major areas in politics as well as been heavily involved in warfare DIRECTLY. It takes 5 mins to check out the history of females in the army throughout history online or in your local library.

Anyone who is GENUINELY interested can quite easily download the court documents of war crimes in Bosnia and see that men were regularly raped and CASTRATED by the opposition. One man had his brother forced to castrate him with his teeth. But Third wave feminists like to avoid mentioning all of that - they like to say women are the only ones that are raped.

Ultimately, Third Wave nonsense Feminists in the West like to focus on ridiculous things like "rape culture" (doesn't exist - we imprison rapists, we don't glorify them) in America and if you mention things like FGM in African countries - they have no idea. They campaign for nonsense like gender fluidity, etc. instead of things that ACTUALLY matter to women.

Pathetic.

Real feminists look to have equality WITH men, not to EXCLUDE men. That is NOT equality. And a lot, MOST, of us quite like men.

My husband is a lovely man and he has always looked to work with me, never AGAINST me. And to be honest, I quite like it when he holds the door open for me :)

And no, I'm not a house wife, we both work full-time.

I am 3 - 5% Neanderthal, as are most of us who are not African. I love that - that my Neanderthal ancestors were not just wiped out by homo sapiens but instead had a lot of sex and passed stuff on to us humans.