Feminism...

_

Collin wrote:

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.

_

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin wrote:

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.

CorporateWhore

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.

CorporateWhore

scb wrote:

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.

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

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."

CorporateWhore

scb wrote:

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.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

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!

stonedponey

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

stonedponey wrote:

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.

stonedponey

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

stonedponey wrote:

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.

stonedponey

angelica wrote:

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.

and i thought plato was out there.

CorporateWhore

stonedponey wrote:

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.

angelica

stonedponey wrote:

and i thought plato was out there.

"out there" in what sense?

CorporateWhore

angelica wrote:

"out there" in what sense?

Stonedpony is being mean

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

Stonedpony is being mean

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...

CorporateWhore

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

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?

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

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."

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.