Ok, I will try even though the article explains everything very clearly, definitely more clearly than I could put it. If you read it, it will immediately become clear what it is I have a problem with.
But if you really want I will try to give a summary of the points I have a problem with. It'll take some time, however, because there's a lot of information that I think is important if we want to discuss this.
I have to go right now so you'll have to wait. I really suggest you read the article, scb.
I read the first article very clearly and thought I summarized it well.
Since you posted the 2nd article later, I haven't had a chance to read it. I will if I get a chance, but I'm warning you: you're tempting me to post my entire library to have you read.
This is not the only issue I have with feminism. But let's address this one first, okay?
Sure. But I think it's a frustrating waste of time to discuss one minor example of an issue ad nauseam as has happened in past discussions on feminism.
Even if this is a minor representation of feminism, it certainly is an extremely influential fraction of feminism. The consequences of their feminist actions are huge. I think it's these feminists who overshadow the "real" feminists, whom I mentioned in my first post.
I'm not sure we're understanding each other here. You seem to be talking about the people. I'm talking about the issue, which doesn't seem to be one of the major ones in my book.
Feminism started out as bullcrap and it still is. Ideologies like Feminism, Marxism, Homosexualism, Psychoism, BackwardsHatism, etc are all born from imprecise calculations of human nature. I know a guy who is an anarcho-black studies transsexualist. :-P
When anyone tells you that they can give an ideology that will solve all of your problems, they are lying to you.
Feminism, by its very nature, among other things claims that women have everything they need within themselves. Feminism argues that women can be like men. This is why you see rabid feminists who cut their hair like men. They act fiercely in public demonstrations, raising fists and showing how "powerful" they are.
To feminists, women do not need men to live fulfilling lives. They don't need a family or children to be fulfilled. They have everything within themselves.
In fact, family life is an institution of enslavement meant to hold the woman down. Abortion and contraception are a way out of these problems. Hence, why many feminists adopted these as the true means of independence from a male-dominated society.
All the while, the basic premise of feminism is absurd. Women are not humans in and of themselves. They need men and men need women. That need is what society is based on - otherwise, mankind will not exist.
Kant argued that you can make a good moral choice if you base that choice on one standard: would it be acceptable to make this choice a universal code for everyone? Feminism has produced pathetic universal codes. Feminists signal the death of mankind by discouraging mothers from having children through a variety of means.
What follows from an absurd premise? A false conclusion. So we must reject feminism's assertions about the role of women in society.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
What I don't understand is, how can one not agree with feminists' definition of feminism?
Ideologies like feminism can mean whatever the leaders of that ideology want them to mean.
What do "feminists" encourage in terms of policy? Their ideological presumptions could argue that the sky is falling for all I care. Why does it matter how they define feminism? This is about what feminists do, not their ideological niceties.
You could get 12 feminists in a room together and get 12 different definitions of what feminism is. That merely shows stupidity of their ideology in general. The meat of their ideology contains an aversion to the interests of men though.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Feminism started out as bullcrap and it still is. Ideologies like Feminism, Marxism, Homosexualism, Psychoism, BackwardsHatism, etc are all born from imprecise calculations of human nature. I know a guy who is an anarcho-black studies transsexualist. :-P
When anyone tells you that they can give an ideology that will solve all of your problems, they are lying to you.
Feminism, by its very nature, among other things claims that women have everything they need within themselves. Feminism argues that women can be like men. This is why you see rabid feminists who cut their hair like men. They act fiercely in public demonstrations, raising fists and showing how "powerful" they are.
To feminists, women do not need men to live fulfilling lives. They don't need a family or children to be fulfilled. They have everything within themselves.
In fact, family life is an institution of enslavement meant to hold the woman down. Abortion and contraception are a way out of these problems. Hence, why many feminists adopted these as the true means of independence from a male-dominated society.
All the while, the basic premise of feminism is absurd. Women are not humans in and of themselves. They need men and men need women. That need is what society is based on - otherwise, mankind will not exist.
Kant argued that you can make a good moral choice if you base that choice on one standard: would it be acceptable to make this choice a universal code for everyone? Feminism has produced pathetic universal codes. Feminists signal the death of mankind by discouraging mothers from having children through a variety of means.
What follows from an absurd premise? A false conclusion. So we must reject feminism's assertions about the role of women in society.
I can never tell if you're serious. But I'm impressed that you quoted Kant, so I have a good feminist quote/saying for you:
"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
I can never tell if you're serious. But I'm impressed that you quoted Kant, so I have a good feminist quote/saying for you:
"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
That's a perfect quote in understanding feminism. Like most ideologies, it asserts itself in relation to exterior forces. In Marxism, the poor assert themselves against the rich. In Anarchism, the individual asserts himself (OR HERSELF ;-)) against the group.
These ideologies require a "bad guy." That's one of their greatest pitfalls. In requiring the capitalist to exist, Marxism fails because its adherents cannot imagine a world without a capitalist enemy to oppose. It simultaneously requires that someone, anyone take on the role of the capitalist. Otherwise, there's nothing left to fight for.
Feminists cannot imagine a world without men, and so they have their perpetual nemesis. The person that their struggles can be blamed on.
Looking at the world through the lenses of ideology is dangerous. You must make a massive number of assumptions order to force the world to fit what feminism purports. Such as: women are completely equal to men in every way, left to themselves men would oppress women, the government must have the power to enhance women's role in society, a woman should never have children if she can help it, marriage enslaves a woman to her husband...etc.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
That's a perfect quote in understanding feminism. Like most ideologies, it asserts itself in relation to exterior forces. In Marxism, the poor assert themselves against the rich. In Anarchism, the individual asserts himself (OR HERSELF ;-)) against the group.
These ideologies require a "bad guy." That's one of their greatest pitfalls. In requiring the capitalist to exist, Marxism fails because its adherents cannot imagine a world without a capitalist enemy to oppose. It simultaneously requires that someone, anyone take on the role of the capitalist. Otherwise, there's nothing left to fight for.
Feminists cannot imagine a world without men, and so they have their perpetual nemesis. The person that their struggles can be blamed on.
Looking at the world through the lenses of ideology is dangerous. You must make a massive number of assumptions order to force the world to fit what feminism purports. Such as: women are completely equal to men in every way, left to themselves men would oppress women, the government must have the power to enhance women's role in society, a woman should never have children if she can help it, marriage enslaves a woman to her husband...etc.
Very nice!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I refer to the deeper meaning of 'objectification'. Objectification comes from that in our cultures, we are taught to disidentify with our emotions and emotional intelligence. When we do so, we lack the filtering to perceive the emotions of others and we therefore treat them as our desensitization dictates, as objects, rather than attune with and harmonize with them as sensitive beings we are connected to in human experience. We are taught that science, and the objective, logical view is the only "real" view, and therefore the vast majority of the population denies their base connection in their own experiences (which creates the base of codependency which is currently epidemic). The average person is ensnared within the tribal mindset, unable to be whole and individuated.
The consequences are very serious. The cycles continue.
yes you seem to be full of deep and meaningful observations that go beyond the physical. however it is the patriarchal hegemony that we live under within our western culture that dictates what it is we see as 'acceptable' and what because it is not pleasing to the eye, according to some warped sense of aesthetics. it is commodified and shoved down our throats so that we as parents are forced to undo all the damage our so called society does to our childrens psyche. tis a shame it is ingrained that what we see is what is right. that is the way we gauge a persons worth.
it would be great if it were only down to our own change in attitude, but it is not.
yes you seem to be full of deep and meaningful observations that go beyond the physical. however it is the patriarchal hegemony that we live under within our western culture that dictates what it is we see as 'acceptable' and what because it is not pleasing to the eye, according to some warped sense of aesthetics. it is commodified and shoved down our throats so that we as parents are forced to undo all the damage our so called society does to our childrens psyche. tis a shame it is ingrained that what we see is what is right. that is the way we gauge a persons worth.
it would be great if it were only down to our own change in attitude, but it is not.
I see things differently. I see our power. We may be unconscious of it for the most part. And yet there it is...in all its glory. I'm about looking beyond limits, to empowerment. It's way more empowering than undoing damage and then finding empowerment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I see things differently. I see our power. We may be unconscious of it for the most part. And yet there it is...in all its glory. I'm about looking beyond limits, to empowerment. It's way more empowering than undoing damage and then finding empowerment.
no doubt. i disagree that we are unconscious of it. it will take a monumental hegemonic shift for this to be made right. i dont think it will ever be made right. the admiration of the perfect form goes so far back through ancient times that to call it unconscious is to disavow the power we do have. we see the impact form has on society. the ancient greeks idolised the male form in both mind and body. in these modern times the female form has become the examplar of perfection however her mind has been disassociated from any consideration when we speak of the ideal of perfection.
no doubt. i disagree that we are unconscious of it. it will take a monumental hegemonic shift for this to be made right. i dont think it will ever be made right. the admiration of the perfect form goes so far back through ancient times that to call it unconscious is to disavow the power we do have. we see the impact form has on society. the ancient greeks idolised the male form in both mind and body. in these modern times the female form has become the examplar of perfection however her mind has been disassociated from any consideration when we speak of the ideal of perfection.
Monumental shifts are happening as we speak.
We're coming into a phase of sythesis. Of synthesizing the male/female intelligences. This way, we complete the circle of whole-brain intelligence. When we do so, we get a synergistic effect, awakening to our potential. To potential. Unawareness of potential is due to lack of ability to perceive it, all the while it sits there within and before us.
The male/female intelligences...the metaphorical right/left brain intelligences are a synthesis of logic, intuition and emotion.
When we synergise God/Goddess, and recognize them as one whole, then we see that which stems from the All.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
We're coming into a phase of sythesis. Of synthesizing the male/female intelligences. This way, we complete the circle of whole-brain intelligence. When we do so, we get a synergistic effect, awakening to our potential. To potential. Unawareness of potential is due to lack of ability to perceive it, all the while it sits there within and before us.
The male/female intelligences...the metaphorical right/left brain intelligences are a synthesis of logic, intuition and emotion.
When we synergise God/Goddess, and recognize them as one whole, then we see that which stems from the All.
however it is the patriarchal hegemony that we live under within our western culture that dictates what it is we see as 'acceptable' and what because it is not pleasing to the eye, according to some warped sense of aesthetics.
One could argue that women dictate what is pleasing to the eye just as much as men do. Explain the incarnation of the "metrosexual." Many many fine art forms have female influences. We are steeped in sensitivity training and gender preferences.
If anything, men are being smacked around by women these days. Sallyboys who take orders from their wives.
it is commodified and shoved down our throats so that we as parents are forced to undo all the damage our so called society does to our childrens psyche. tis a shame it is ingrained that what we see is what is right. that is the way we gauge a persons worth.
it would be great if it were only down to our own change in attitude, but it is not.
Speaking as a person who has changed his attitudes, I can tell you that many things come down to changing one's attitude.
Clearly you would not consider yourself an existentialist, by what you say here.
You seem to be saying that society does things that we simply cannot remedy ourselves. Simply by changing our perspective, we cannot create a better life for ourselves.
A woman who is oppressed, who cannot find a job because of our male-dominated society, who cannot look beautiful because she doesn't weigh 100 lbs, who is not pleasurable to be around because she is "opinionated"....these are all examples taught to me by my women's studies major friends.
But, how can those attitudes ever change if women relegate themselves to the combative roles that feminism designs for them? In the past, women were considered beautiful in artwork even if they were overweight. Opinionated women were valuable to the Spartans, who allowed them to speak in public. And women's work was the essential cog in society - without it, men could not do what men do.
Feminism places women in roles that do not offer them any position to change these attitudes in our society. They separate them into the "extreme" role.
If you want a movement to succeed, you must make it mainstream. Communists found that out the hard way, but clearly they are learning (Barack Obama). If feminists seek to change attitudes about women, they must work within the system.
Women who want to change men's attitudes toward women must get to know men and understand what "makes them tick." I've met many a feminist girl who was treated very poorly by men simply because she tried to take on his roles and he didn't feel comfortable with that.
If there is to be any reconciliation between men and women, both must make efforts at understand the other side without excessively generalizing.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
stonedpony put me in a category with Plato....I take that as a compliment!!
You seem to be doing mighty fine, my friend...
In truth, if stonedpony is not understanding me, then I'd like to uncover the why...is it hostility..is it lack of communication on my part...lack of understanding on stonedpony's part...
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
stonedpony put me in a category with Plato....I take that as a compliment!!
Ehhhh I don't know if I would. I'm more of an Aristotle man myself. Plus I side with him because he didn't get to take over the academy and I like the underdog.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Ehhhh I don't know if I would. I'm more of an Aristotle man myself. Plus I side with him because he didn't get to take over the academy and I like the underdog.
Four words dude: Allegory of the Cave.
Most are in the cave watching shadows on the wall...learning to understand them well...and taking them to be real.
I like the underdog too!
By the way...check my signature...in terms of profound truths, in this glorious Universe, there is room for the views of Plato and Aristotle, harmoniously.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Feminism started out as bullcrap and it still is. Ideologies like Feminism, Marxism, Homosexualism, Psychoism, BackwardsHatism, etc are all born from imprecise calculations of human nature. I know a guy who is an anarcho-black studies transsexualist. :-P
When anyone tells you that they can give an ideology that will solve all of your problems, they are lying to you.
Feminism, by its very nature, among other things claims that women have everything they need within themselves. Feminism argues that women can be like men. This is why you see rabid feminists who cut their hair like men. They act fiercely in public demonstrations, raising fists and showing how "powerful" they are.
To feminists, women do not need men to live fulfilling lives. They don't need a family or children to be fulfilled. They have everything within themselves.
In fact, family life is an institution of enslavement meant to hold the woman down. Abortion and contraception are a way out of these problems. Hence, why many feminists adopted these as the true means of independence from a male-dominated society.
All the while, the basic premise of feminism is absurd. Women are not humans in and of themselves. They need men and men need women. That need is what society is based on - otherwise, mankind will not exist.
Kant argued that you can make a good moral choice if you base that choice on one standard: would it be acceptable to make this choice a universal code for everyone? Feminism has produced pathetic universal codes. Feminists signal the death of mankind by discouraging mothers from having children through a variety of means.
What follows from an absurd premise? A false conclusion. So we must reject feminism's assertions about the role of women in society.
Wow. I'm starting to think you may actually intend to be taken seriously with all this. I don't have the slightest understanding of where you're coming from with these caricatures of feminism. Did a feminist divorce you or refuse to marry you or something? :(
I agree that feminists generally believe that they don't NEED to have husbands and children to lead fulfilling lives. (This isn't a uniquely feminist idea.) But what's wrong with that?
And how do you make the huge leap from that to family life being an institution of enslavement and feminists killing off mankind by discouraging mothers from having children?
Feminists cannot imagine a world without men, and so they have their perpetual nemesis. The person that their struggles can be blamed on.
Men are not the perpetual nemeses of women/feminism. Oppression, injustice, objectification, patriarchy, etc. are. Men and women can choose to support these socially-constructed nemeses or not.
You seem to be suggesting that feminists just want to struggle for no reason, so they have to find something to struggle against. To the contrary, they are struggling to create a day when there is no more need for them to struggle. (Seems like if you want to get rid of them, you should fight on their side to hasten the end of their necessity.) This reminds me of another quote I have for you:
"I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy."
Looking at the world through the lenses of ideology is dangerous. You must make a massive number of assumptions order to force the world to fit what feminism purports. Such as: women are completely equal to men in every way, left to themselves men would oppress women, the government must have the power to enhance women's role in society, a woman should never have children if she can help it, marriage enslaves a woman to her husband...etc.
I seriously don't understand where you're getting these extreme ideas from. I don't know any feminists who believe that women are completely equal to men in every way - that doesn't even make biological sense. I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by "left to themselves men would oppress women". Obviously not every man would oppress every woman, so I hope you don't think feminists believe they would. The governement must have the power to enhance women's role in society? What exactly do you mean by that? I would say the feminist belief, for those who believe the government should be involved, is more about protecting women's rights than enhancing their role. And, as I've already stated, the belief that people can live happily without a husband or children does not equate with a belief that no woman should ever have children or that marriage is comparable to slavery.
But, how can those attitudes ever change if women relegate themselves to the combative roles that feminism designs for them? In the past, women were considered beautiful in artwork even if they were overweight. Opinionated women were valuable to the Spartans, who allowed them to speak in public. And women's work was the essential cog in society - without it, men could not do what men do.
we're never going to agree on feminism, so i'll stick with this for now:
1. overweight women in artwork of the past that you speak of was done because it glorified and symbolized wealth, not gender equality or acceptance. the men were "overweight" too.
2. spartan women were educated, unlike athenian women. but they still could not be a part of politics or government. and they were breeding machines for a spartan army.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
You seem to be suggesting that feminists just want to struggle for no reason, so they have to find something to struggle against. To the contrary, they are struggling to create a day when there is no more need for them to struggle.
The governement must have the power to enhance women's role in society? What exactly do you mean by that? I would say the feminist belief, for those who believe the government should be involved, is more about protecting women's rights than enhancing their role.
Applying Title IX to science education has nothing to do with women's rights. Title IX say not to discriminate on the basis of sex, well, today it does just that. Right now, it's only been applied to sports causing the cancelation of countless men's sports programmes. This means a great number of male athletes can not get sports scholarships and great sport teams are being cut (some that have produced Olympic winners many times). Arizona State, which already has more women on their sports teams, is considering a women's rowing team in order to comply with Title IX. In order to be eligible for a scholarship you don't even need any experience in rowing. All you need to do is be female. There is of course no men's team.
Now, I don't have a problem with equal opportunity but you can hardly call it that, can you? It's statistical proportionality. It means that if a college has 50% female students, 50% of the athletes must be female, regardless the actual interest in sports among women. So it could very well be that out of the 50% female students only 20% has an interest in sports, while 30% of the male students has an interest in sports. If were talking about a 50 000 student total, it would mean that 2500 male students simply aren't allowed to sport (or five male student won't get a scholarship).
I think I don't have to tell you how detrimental this could be to science education.
And it's quite funny that the feminists who claim to be so concerned with gender discriminations have not asked to apply Title IX to the fields of study in which women are the majority; education, English, art history, biology (whoa a science, right?) and psychology (again).
In the US 77% of veterinary medicine students are women (compared to 8% in the 1960s). It's quite surprising, isn't it, how women have managed to "take over" a once male-dominated field of study, that without the help of government initiatives.
There's more about this in the article I posted. I will try to summarize it for you when I have a little more time.
My point is, if they are fighting for women's right perhaps one of the main focuses should be that they don't trample on men's rights.
I believe I previously stated that people can comment all they want about outcome. All I am saying against a so-called objective view is that no one but me can know what's in my heart & mind, and therefore have no basis to argue with me about my own intentions.
Whether or not anyone commenting about anything really has a more objective view than anyone else is up for debate.
Side note: Do you happen to read much Marianne Williamson, A Course in Miracles, and such?
I never mentioned your heart or mind, not even your intentions.
And I believe I can say and I have the right to say what I think feminism is. If you have a problem with me not adding "I think" or "in my opinion" so be it. I doubt many people do this all the time.
Either way, if women's rights is their focus. Fine. But it seems to me that many feminists are talking about equality and justice. They create inequality and injustice, though. They create an injustice towards men and don't strive for equality (they only strive for women to be more represented in a field in which they are underrepresented). Equality would mean they strive for men and women to be represented equally across the board.
So, I have no problem with women saying they fight for women's rights, but the minute they start talking about equality and justice and support Title IX or similar initiatives they've lost all credibility with me. Then they are just being hypocritical.
we're never going to agree on feminism, so i'll stick with this for now:
1. overweight women in artwork of the past that you speak of was done because it glorified and symbolized wealth, not gender equality or acceptance. the men were "overweight" too.
2. spartan women were educated, unlike athenian women. but they still could not be a part of politics or government. and they were breeding machines for a spartan army.
So, perhaps, even back then women were not capable of the goals of feminism. I suppose you proved me wrong.
I guess we must conclude that for as long as there is written history, women have not been equal to men in most ways. Why start now?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Men are not the perpetual nemeses of women/feminism. Oppression, injustice, objectification, patriarchy, etc. are. Men and women can choose to support these socially-constructed nemeses or not.
Those are all man-made constructions designed to benefit men, according to the feminist worldview. Feminists wish to tear them down by creating gender preferences for themselves, a wholly artificial means of attaining true accomplishment.
You seem to be suggesting that feminists just want to struggle for no reason, so they have to find something to struggle against. To the contrary, they are struggling to create a day when there is no more need for them to struggle. (Seems like if you want to get rid of them, you should fight on their side to hasten the end of their necessity.) This reminds me of another quote I have for you:
"I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy."
It's not clear that there will ever be a "post patriarchy." Will it happen with an ERA? Will it happen when the whole world has an ERA? Will it happen when women make the same incomes as men?
There are so many ways of saying that women are being discriminated against by a male-dominated system, the discrimination never ends. It's purely ideological - that is, feminism is in the mind of the believer. It is similar to a mental illness in that regard. Everything is seen through the perspective of whether it hurts or helps women.
I could make a convincing argument saying that I'm a Masculist. That men are being discriminated against. But the failure of that ideology would be that it ignores discrimination against women. That is the failure of any ideology: it is imprecise in its perception of reality.
I seriously don't understand where you're getting these extreme ideas from. I don't know any feminists who believe that women are completely equal to men in every way - that doesn't even make biological sense.
I've heard this from feminists: "gender is a social construction." They refer to their boyfriends as "partners." So yes, it doesn't make biological sense to argue that men and women are equal, but that is what feminism seeks to do.
Men have inherent biological qualities that cause them to act differently than women. We can talk about exceptions, but generally, the whole "men are from Mars" theme is true. The women I've met and formed relationships with like men who are assertive, dominant figures. It's all well and good to claim you're a feminist, except when you have to start mowing the lawn.
I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by "left to themselves men would oppress women". Obviously not every man would oppress every woman, so I hope you don't think feminists believe they would. The governement must have the power to enhance women's role in society? What exactly do you mean by that? I would say the feminist belief, for those who believe the government should be involved, is more about protecting women's rights than enhancing their role. And, as I've already stated, the belief that people can live happily without a husband or children does not equate with a belief that no woman should ever have children or that marriage is comparable to slavery.
Well, you don't seem to be one of the feminists I am describing, but make no mistake: the feminists that drive the movement forward believe that marriage is enslavement for women, that children are the shackles of that enslavement.
Margaret Sanger argued that until women have control over their reproduction, they will not have control over anything else. So, having children is viewed with sincere skepticism, and many of the feminists that I have met viewed me and my girlfriend's plans (of having a family someday) as laughable. I've met feminists who were proud to say that they've had abortions. That is the instrument through which they can achieve true freedom, purportedly.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I've met feminists who were proud to say that they've had abortions. That is the instrument through which they can achieve true freedom, purportedly.
When we see it as evolutionarily sound to terminate our existing offspring, who exist with their own individual DNA, we're overlooking some major evolutionary problems that beg resolution. To our great detriment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Margaret Sanger argued that until women have control over their reproduction, they will not have control over anything else.
I did not want to get involved in the whole feminist debate b/c overall i find it becomes a circular arguement that i have no desire to exhaust myself in. i just had to address this one point. of COURSE this statement is true, absolutely! birth control, especially BC that women can control...such as the pill, the diaphragm, thre sponge, the dep shot, etc.....probably THE most 'liberating' thing for women, period. it has nothing to do with being anti-children, pro-abortion or any such thing. it is about OPTIONS and CONTROL...as in being able to PLAN when and if you want to have children, not be enslaved to your particular biology of being the child-bearer and thus have no choice over when/how it happens. BC is the BEST thin for women's freedoms and choice. you look throughout history and having children was IT...THE most controlling factor in a woman's life, and she really had zero choice or control over the matter unless she never, ever engaged in sexual intercourse. and hey, women sadly don't even always have control over that, even today. however, with BC, at least there is some degree of control, some options....and yes, that is a GOOD thing.
how can a woman have control over anything else in this wolrd if she cannot even control her own body/reporduction? it makes absolute sense to make the statement above, and that is most certainly NOT anti-family, at all. having the choice to have a family, and WHEN to have one, and hoew large or small, etc...makes ALL the difference in OTHER options in living your life. men always had that 'freedom'....with BC, so can women.
It's not clear that there will ever be a "post patriarchy." Will it happen with an ERA? Will it happen when the whole world has an ERA? Will it happen when women make the same incomes as men?
It's absolutely clear to me. It's a natural part of our evolution. Many of us have a scope of vision that hinges on the past 2000 years of patriarchy. Given our attachment to ideology, many think our past dictates what happens now. It does not. What we do now dictates now. Granted, the vast majority are entrenched in ideology and are unempowered in the now. Still, there's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. We're being evolutionarily 'forced' to resolve our inner issues, and get aligned, or fall by the wayside in varying ways. The segue will be seamless, give or take the usual evolutionary fallout for our choices.
In order for individuals to evolve, we eventually hit levels of existence that depend on integration and synthesis, and then holism. As long as one sees through the splits/dichotomies (edit: ie: male/female) it is a clear sign they are not integrating or seeing the whole of it. So in order to come into ourselves, we will naturally move towards whole-awareness. Nothing can stop evolution. When we resist, we create our own pain.
In my own personal view of holism, The man in my life is to be honoured as though he is Sacred. And I am honoured back as though I am Sacred. And our roles are divided based on our unique traits and the best utilization of them in practicality. The icing on the cake becomes Sacred Sexuality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I read the first article very clearly and thought I summarized it well.
Since you posted the 2nd article later, I haven't had a chance to read it. I will if I get a chance, but I'm warning you: you're tempting me to post my entire library to have you read.
Sure. But I think it's a frustrating waste of time to discuss one minor example of an issue ad nauseam as has happened in past discussions on feminism.
I'm not sure we're understanding each other here. You seem to be talking about the people. I'm talking about the issue, which doesn't seem to be one of the major ones in my book.
When anyone tells you that they can give an ideology that will solve all of your problems, they are lying to you.
Feminism, by its very nature, among other things claims that women have everything they need within themselves. Feminism argues that women can be like men. This is why you see rabid feminists who cut their hair like men. They act fiercely in public demonstrations, raising fists and showing how "powerful" they are.
To feminists, women do not need men to live fulfilling lives. They don't need a family or children to be fulfilled. They have everything within themselves.
In fact, family life is an institution of enslavement meant to hold the woman down. Abortion and contraception are a way out of these problems. Hence, why many feminists adopted these as the true means of independence from a male-dominated society.
All the while, the basic premise of feminism is absurd. Women are not humans in and of themselves. They need men and men need women. That need is what society is based on - otherwise, mankind will not exist.
Kant argued that you can make a good moral choice if you base that choice on one standard: would it be acceptable to make this choice a universal code for everyone? Feminism has produced pathetic universal codes. Feminists signal the death of mankind by discouraging mothers from having children through a variety of means.
What follows from an absurd premise? A false conclusion. So we must reject feminism's assertions about the role of women in society.
-Enoch Powell
Ideologies like feminism can mean whatever the leaders of that ideology want them to mean.
What do "feminists" encourage in terms of policy? Their ideological presumptions could argue that the sky is falling for all I care. Why does it matter how they define feminism? This is about what feminists do, not their ideological niceties.
You could get 12 feminists in a room together and get 12 different definitions of what feminism is. That merely shows stupidity of their ideology in general. The meat of their ideology contains an aversion to the interests of men though.
-Enoch Powell
I can never tell if you're serious. But I'm impressed that you quoted Kant, so I have a good feminist quote/saying for you:
"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
That's a perfect quote in understanding feminism. Like most ideologies, it asserts itself in relation to exterior forces. In Marxism, the poor assert themselves against the rich. In Anarchism, the individual asserts himself (OR HERSELF ;-)) against the group.
These ideologies require a "bad guy." That's one of their greatest pitfalls. In requiring the capitalist to exist, Marxism fails because its adherents cannot imagine a world without a capitalist enemy to oppose. It simultaneously requires that someone, anyone take on the role of the capitalist. Otherwise, there's nothing left to fight for.
Feminists cannot imagine a world without men, and so they have their perpetual nemesis. The person that their struggles can be blamed on.
Looking at the world through the lenses of ideology is dangerous. You must make a massive number of assumptions order to force the world to fit what feminism purports. Such as: women are completely equal to men in every way, left to themselves men would oppress women, the government must have the power to enhance women's role in society, a woman should never have children if she can help it, marriage enslaves a woman to her husband...etc.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
yes you seem to be full of deep and meaningful observations that go beyond the physical. however it is the patriarchal hegemony that we live under within our western culture that dictates what it is we see as 'acceptable' and what because it is not pleasing to the eye, according to some warped sense of aesthetics. it is commodified and shoved down our throats so that we as parents are forced to undo all the damage our so called society does to our childrens psyche. tis a shame it is ingrained that what we see is what is right. that is the way we gauge a persons worth.
it would be great if it were only down to our own change in attitude, but it is not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
no doubt. i disagree that we are unconscious of it. it will take a monumental hegemonic shift for this to be made right. i dont think it will ever be made right. the admiration of the perfect form goes so far back through ancient times that to call it unconscious is to disavow the power we do have. we see the impact form has on society. the ancient greeks idolised the male form in both mind and body. in these modern times the female form has become the examplar of perfection however her mind has been disassociated from any consideration when we speak of the ideal of perfection.
We're coming into a phase of sythesis. Of synthesizing the male/female intelligences. This way, we complete the circle of whole-brain intelligence. When we do so, we get a synergistic effect, awakening to our potential. To potential. Unawareness of potential is due to lack of ability to perceive it, all the while it sits there within and before us.
The male/female intelligences...the metaphorical right/left brain intelligences are a synthesis of logic, intuition and emotion.
When we synergise God/Goddess, and recognize them as one whole, then we see that which stems from the All.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
and i thought plato was out there.
One could argue that women dictate what is pleasing to the eye just as much as men do. Explain the incarnation of the "metrosexual." Many many fine art forms have female influences. We are steeped in sensitivity training and gender preferences.
If anything, men are being smacked around by women these days. Sallyboys who take orders from their wives.
Speaking as a person who has changed his attitudes, I can tell you that many things come down to changing one's attitude.
Clearly you would not consider yourself an existentialist, by what you say here.
You seem to be saying that society does things that we simply cannot remedy ourselves. Simply by changing our perspective, we cannot create a better life for ourselves.
A woman who is oppressed, who cannot find a job because of our male-dominated society, who cannot look beautiful because she doesn't weigh 100 lbs, who is not pleasurable to be around because she is "opinionated"....these are all examples taught to me by my women's studies major friends.
But, how can those attitudes ever change if women relegate themselves to the combative roles that feminism designs for them? In the past, women were considered beautiful in artwork even if they were overweight. Opinionated women were valuable to the Spartans, who allowed them to speak in public. And women's work was the essential cog in society - without it, men could not do what men do.
Feminism places women in roles that do not offer them any position to change these attitudes in our society. They separate them into the "extreme" role.
If you want a movement to succeed, you must make it mainstream. Communists found that out the hard way, but clearly they are learning (Barack Obama). If feminists seek to change attitudes about women, they must work within the system.
Women who want to change men's attitudes toward women must get to know men and understand what "makes them tick." I've met many a feminist girl who was treated very poorly by men simply because she tried to take on his roles and he didn't feel comfortable with that.
If there is to be any reconciliation between men and women, both must make efforts at understand the other side without excessively generalizing.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Stonedpony is being mean
-Enoch Powell
You seem to be doing mighty fine, my friend...
In truth, if stonedpony is not understanding me, then I'd like to uncover the why...is it hostility..is it lack of communication on my part...lack of understanding on stonedpony's part...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ehhhh I don't know if I would. I'm more of an Aristotle man myself. Plus I side with him because he didn't get to take over the academy and I like the underdog.
-Enoch Powell
Most are in the cave watching shadows on the wall...learning to understand them well...and taking them to be real.
I like the underdog too!
By the way...check my signature...in terms of profound truths, in this glorious Universe, there is room for the views of Plato and Aristotle, harmoniously.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Wow. I'm starting to think you may actually intend to be taken seriously with all this. I don't have the slightest understanding of where you're coming from with these caricatures of feminism. Did a feminist divorce you or refuse to marry you or something? :(
I agree that feminists generally believe that they don't NEED to have husbands and children to lead fulfilling lives. (This isn't a uniquely feminist idea.) But what's wrong with that?
And how do you make the huge leap from that to family life being an institution of enslavement and feminists killing off mankind by discouraging mothers from having children?
Men are not the perpetual nemeses of women/feminism. Oppression, injustice, objectification, patriarchy, etc. are. Men and women can choose to support these socially-constructed nemeses or not.
You seem to be suggesting that feminists just want to struggle for no reason, so they have to find something to struggle against. To the contrary, they are struggling to create a day when there is no more need for them to struggle. (Seems like if you want to get rid of them, you should fight on their side to hasten the end of their necessity.) This reminds me of another quote I have for you:
"I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy."
I seriously don't understand where you're getting these extreme ideas from. I don't know any feminists who believe that women are completely equal to men in every way - that doesn't even make biological sense. I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by "left to themselves men would oppress women". Obviously not every man would oppress every woman, so I hope you don't think feminists believe they would. The governement must have the power to enhance women's role in society? What exactly do you mean by that? I would say the feminist belief, for those who believe the government should be involved, is more about protecting women's rights than enhancing their role. And, as I've already stated, the belief that people can live happily without a husband or children does not equate with a belief that no woman should ever have children or that marriage is comparable to slavery.
we're never going to agree on feminism, so i'll stick with this for now:
1. overweight women in artwork of the past that you speak of was done because it glorified and symbolized wealth, not gender equality or acceptance. the men were "overweight" too.
2. spartan women were educated, unlike athenian women. but they still could not be a part of politics or government. and they were breeding machines for a spartan army.
cross the river to the eastside
Applying Title IX to science education has nothing to do with women's rights. Title IX say not to discriminate on the basis of sex, well, today it does just that. Right now, it's only been applied to sports causing the cancelation of countless men's sports programmes. This means a great number of male athletes can not get sports scholarships and great sport teams are being cut (some that have produced Olympic winners many times). Arizona State, which already has more women on their sports teams, is considering a women's rowing team in order to comply with Title IX. In order to be eligible for a scholarship you don't even need any experience in rowing. All you need to do is be female. There is of course no men's team.
Now, I don't have a problem with equal opportunity but you can hardly call it that, can you? It's statistical proportionality. It means that if a college has 50% female students, 50% of the athletes must be female, regardless the actual interest in sports among women. So it could very well be that out of the 50% female students only 20% has an interest in sports, while 30% of the male students has an interest in sports. If were talking about a 50 000 student total, it would mean that 2500 male students simply aren't allowed to sport (or five male student won't get a scholarship).
I think I don't have to tell you how detrimental this could be to science education.
And it's quite funny that the feminists who claim to be so concerned with gender discriminations have not asked to apply Title IX to the fields of study in which women are the majority; education, English, art history, biology (whoa a science, right?) and psychology (again).
In the US 77% of veterinary medicine students are women (compared to 8% in the 1960s). It's quite surprising, isn't it, how women have managed to "take over" a once male-dominated field of study, that without the help of government initiatives.
There's more about this in the article I posted. I will try to summarize it for you when I have a little more time.
My point is, if they are fighting for women's right perhaps one of the main focuses should be that they don't trample on men's rights.
naděje umírá poslední
I never mentioned your heart or mind, not even your intentions.
And I believe I can say and I have the right to say what I think feminism is. If you have a problem with me not adding "I think" or "in my opinion" so be it. I doubt many people do this all the time.
naděje umírá poslední
It would seem they already have a focus, no?
The end justifies the means, eh?
Either way, if women's rights is their focus. Fine. But it seems to me that many feminists are talking about equality and justice. They create inequality and injustice, though. They create an injustice towards men and don't strive for equality (they only strive for women to be more represented in a field in which they are underrepresented). Equality would mean they strive for men and women to be represented equally across the board.
So, I have no problem with women saying they fight for women's rights, but the minute they start talking about equality and justice and support Title IX or similar initiatives they've lost all credibility with me. Then they are just being hypocritical.
naděje umírá poslední
So, perhaps, even back then women were not capable of the goals of feminism. I suppose you proved me wrong.
I guess we must conclude that for as long as there is written history, women have not been equal to men in most ways. Why start now?
-Enoch Powell
Those are all man-made constructions designed to benefit men, according to the feminist worldview. Feminists wish to tear them down by creating gender preferences for themselves, a wholly artificial means of attaining true accomplishment.
It's not clear that there will ever be a "post patriarchy." Will it happen with an ERA? Will it happen when the whole world has an ERA? Will it happen when women make the same incomes as men?
There are so many ways of saying that women are being discriminated against by a male-dominated system, the discrimination never ends. It's purely ideological - that is, feminism is in the mind of the believer. It is similar to a mental illness in that regard. Everything is seen through the perspective of whether it hurts or helps women.
I could make a convincing argument saying that I'm a Masculist. That men are being discriminated against. But the failure of that ideology would be that it ignores discrimination against women. That is the failure of any ideology: it is imprecise in its perception of reality.
I've heard this from feminists: "gender is a social construction." They refer to their boyfriends as "partners." So yes, it doesn't make biological sense to argue that men and women are equal, but that is what feminism seeks to do.
Men have inherent biological qualities that cause them to act differently than women. We can talk about exceptions, but generally, the whole "men are from Mars" theme is true. The women I've met and formed relationships with like men who are assertive, dominant figures. It's all well and good to claim you're a feminist, except when you have to start mowing the lawn.
Well, you don't seem to be one of the feminists I am describing, but make no mistake: the feminists that drive the movement forward believe that marriage is enslavement for women, that children are the shackles of that enslavement.
Margaret Sanger argued that until women have control over their reproduction, they will not have control over anything else. So, having children is viewed with sincere skepticism, and many of the feminists that I have met viewed me and my girlfriend's plans (of having a family someday) as laughable. I've met feminists who were proud to say that they've had abortions. That is the instrument through which they can achieve true freedom, purportedly.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I did not want to get involved in the whole feminist debate b/c overall i find it becomes a circular arguement that i have no desire to exhaust myself in.
how can a woman have control over anything else in this wolrd if she cannot even control her own body/reporduction? it makes absolute sense to make the statement above, and that is most certainly NOT anti-family, at all. having the choice to have a family, and WHEN to have one, and hoew large or small, etc...makes ALL the difference in OTHER options in living your life. men always had that 'freedom'....with BC, so can women.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
In order for individuals to evolve, we eventually hit levels of existence that depend on integration and synthesis, and then holism. As long as one sees through the splits/dichotomies (edit: ie: male/female) it is a clear sign they are not integrating or seeing the whole of it. So in order to come into ourselves, we will naturally move towards whole-awareness. Nothing can stop evolution. When we resist, we create our own pain.
In my own personal view of holism, The man in my life is to be honoured as though he is Sacred. And I am honoured back as though I am Sacred. And our roles are divided based on our unique traits and the best utilization of them in practicality. The icing on the cake becomes Sacred Sexuality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!