Feminism...

VictoryGin · August 2008

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

Collin · August 2008

scb wrote:

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.

Collin · August 2008

scb wrote:

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.

Westernsky · August 2008

Collin wrote:

My point is, if they are fighting for women's right(s) perhaps one of the main focuses should be that they don't trample on men's rights.

It would seem they already have a focus, no?

Collin · August 2008

Westernsky wrote:

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.

CorporateWhore · August 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

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?

CorporateWhore · August 2008

scb wrote:

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.

angelica · August 2008

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

decides2dream · August 2008

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

angelica · August 2008

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

NMyTree · August 2008

In my opinion, and to simplify, I peceive the problem as this.

Feminists took Feminism to unrealistic, dilusional extremes.

Of course a woman can survive/exist without a male and live a happy, fulfilling life. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's what they choose.

I have always and completely believed women have every right to do and choose what they want. Just as males. I have never understood how anyone could think otherwise.

But as Corporate, Angelica and a few others have mentioned; many feminists pretty much became men-hating militants who operate in this extreme and absolute hatred towards men which segregates their own existence.

In terms of individuals, women can get along without men just fine.

They can even raise and lower the toilet seat all on their own, without us. Which makes me wonder why they can't do it when they live with us. But I regress and that's another question and subject matter for another thread.

In terms of species survival, they need us. They don't exist without us, as we don't exist without them. It is, we are.....a symbiotic existence.

Any notions or idealisms claiming otherwise are silly, misguided and I suspect driven and rooted by some emotional scars manifesting as hatred.

In the same way that there are men who hate women for similar reasons.

I know I have a very difficult time without a woman in my life. Women .....dare I say it....I know it sounds corny, cliche and just downright cheesey; but women...a woman...completes me. It's the truth.

I've learned more from the women (mom, grandmother, girlfriends and friends) in my life...through out my life; than I have ever learned from any men.

And I believe (because a few have told me so) that many of the women in my life have learned a lot from me.

Corporate, good stuff!

Angelica, as usual, you're brillaint and beautiful!!! Speaking of women who have thought me a few things....that is.

NMyTree · August 2008

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 for the record, I thoroughly and completely believe Angelica is absolutley accurate with this. I see it happening.

Collin · August 2008

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

Should women have the choice to stay at home to raise their children?

"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Simone de Beauvoir

edit: compare this view of egalitarian feminist de Beauvoir with the view of conservative feminist (a branch of feminism that many feminists seem to have forgotten or simply ignore) Clare Boothe Luce:

"It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature--a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women's nature to do they will do, and you won't be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won't be able to make them do it."

angelica · August 2008

NMyTree wrote:

And for the record, I thoroughly and completely believe Angelica is absolutley accurate with this. I see it happening.

Where there is the beautiful blend of the masculine and the feminine...and I see you blend these, my friend....there is understanding of this!! By integrating the two, we develop whole brain perception. Which brings SYNTHESIS, or understanding of the Whole. Attunement to natural life principles. Seamless integration wtih life!

It's a beautiful thing!!

VictoryGin · August 2008

NMyTree wrote:

In terms of species survival, they need us. They don't exist without us, as we don't exist without them. It is, we are.....a symbiotic existence.

not quite so true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17937813/

angelica · August 2008

Collin wrote:

Should women have the choice to stay at home to raise their children?

"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Simone de Beauvoir

edit: compare this view of egalitarian feminist de Beauvoir with the view of conservative feminist (a branch of feminism that many feminists seem to have forgotten or simply ignore) Clare Boothe Luce:

"It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature--a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women's nature to do they will do, and you won't be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won't be able to make them do it."

it's clear the first woman is operating under a patriarchal mindset herself, by using language structures such as "authorized" to make her point. And by the use of "should" she shows her lack of alignment to Nature as She is, which is typical of the linear, external symbolic male intelligences. In this dominate-nature mindset, we are not harmonious with it but seek to impose our will upon it.

I've known many women (myself included), who in their womanhood yearned for children, had them, and did their best to honour their inner natural dictates in caring for them, hands on, only to be met with a major social force in rampant messages that told them/me that they are inadequate in choosing the inner calling. These messages, created by feminism, advocate following the patriarchal structured socially sanctioned dictates, such as being working mothers, or superwomen, which actually ask us to be slaves to symbolic-male dominated systems rather than support us in honouring the inner (symbolically feminine) voice.

NMyTree · August 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

not quite so true.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17937813/

yeah, I'll wait to see how this all turns out. We'll see what kind of results they can acheive and what kind of unknown, long-term side-effects or defects could occur with such a thing.

For the mean time you still need us:D

We'll see who you turn to when that large, hairy, ugly spider walks into your living room:D Or when the car needs an oil change:D

VictoryGin · August 2008

Collin wrote:

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).

it doesn't have to work like that.
http://www.aahperd.org/NAGWS/titleix/pdf/DebunkingTheMyths.pdf

VictoryGin · August 2008

NMyTree wrote:

yeah, I'll wait to see how this all turns out. We'll see what kind of results they can acheive and what kind of unknown, long-term side-effects or defects could occur with such a thing.

For the mean time you still need us:D

We'll see who you turn to when that large, hairy, ugly spider walks into your living room:D Or when the car needs an oil change:D

oh please! i've battled far worse than spiders.

cincybearcat · August 2008

VictoryGin wrote:

oh please! i've battled far worse than spiders.

If women didn't have men, who would they complain about to their girlfriends? Who will tell them that that shirt doesn't make them look fat?

Feminism...

Comments

Categories