Modern Feminism/Feminism Problematic Merge

[RaBind]

I always thought that feminism was a movement in support of gender equality. Taking a closer look at it has been interesting and left with me a bit confused. The problem is that the modern feminism is not similar to Suffragettes movement of the late 19th century, in that they don't really have a clear goal nor a lot of injustice to tackle. Instead modern feminism seems to be against patriarchy. I could go on but I'll let videos do the explaining.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/channel/HCScSDQeMkd4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc&list=TLfOa4Tf9m4yE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxNhYY6EvfQ&list=TLrwAn1dLAQZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km6yaGS0leE
“ Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so... And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. Richard ”
—Couth as always, - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

So I want to hear the views of you guys. I'm aware that not all women are feminists and the majority of feminists are probably moderate in their thoughts and actions. This is also an issue that I would be unaware of, if it wasn't for some incidents raised by atheist speakers.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: Modern Feminism

So I want to hear the views of you guys.

^

I agree that's it's gotten out of hand in that it's taken a turn against the patriarchy, at least in developed countries. I believe a lot of issues like salary and hiring rates are due to personality traits and social backlog, i.e. a woman who's been in the workforce 20 years likely has a lower salary than a man today because of the policies that were in place 2 decades ago, not because of current policy.

 

[RaBind]

Re: Modern Feminism

^

I agree that's it's gotten out of hand in that it's taken a turn against the patriarchy, at least in developed countries. I believe a lot of issues like salary and hiring rates are due to personality traits and social backlog, i.e. a woman who's been in the workforce 20 years likely has a lower salary than a man today because of the policies that were in place 2 decades ago, not because of current policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo
Ooh sorry I forgot to include this as well. It talks about the same thing your saying, and yes I agree.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Modern Feminism

I think the "atheists" are doing what the religious like to do to the atheists, ie locating bad apples and crying for someone to get the whole tree chopped down before more of them start growing.

But meh, I'll get back to this. Will have an excellent opportunity to educate myself on this matter tomorrow when I shall be out walking for 3 hours.

 

[Absurdity]

Re: Modern Feminism

I had to take a class on it. Some lady at the University of Minnesota likened Beethoven's music to rape. Another blamed the Challenger space shuttle explosion on masculinity.

When I come to power it will be off to the gulags for these hacks.

 

[Puffy]

Re: Modern Feminism

I had to take a class on it. Some lady at the University of Minnesota likened Beethoven's music to rape. Another blamed the Challenger space shuttle explosion on masculinity.

When I come to power it will be off to the gulags for these hacks.

I'm not sure that's specific to feminism itself, as much as there's a kind of "maybe you're overthinking it" tendency to the Humanities as it stands today academically. Saying a rocket exploding is a failure of masculinity would perhaps make a great reading of a metaphor in a book, while when it translates in RL terms sometimes it's a little

I wouldn't let that be the judge of modern feminism though. We're not in the 19th century anymore, but there are still genuine cultural cling-ons and stereotypes that persist, as well as violence, sexism, etc. I've been involved with our student union's feminist society and most are quite moderate and make good points, where some just want to see men burn and are typically their own enemy.

Spoiler

Sorry to be that "guy" but this is, ironically, a dagger fest so far.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Re: Modern Feminism

Feminists are generally the most miserable of women.

It shouldn't be any surprise.

One can't debase their other half without debasing themselves.

Its the yin yang thing: generally women are one or the other and men are one or the other.

A stable, mature man and woman in a long range commitment are generally going to be happier than the typical militant feminist and/or misogynist.

Its about synergy (whole greater than the sum of the parts).

There are always going to be the bitter old bettys who let their souls be burnt by bad life experiences (jilted at the alter), jealousy (they are ugly but can't be satisfied with what life dealt them), etc etc etc

What is interesting about this time period I am mired in is the number of younger women who are jaded towards masculinity and what it would otherwise afford them were they not so full of man-hate.

I imagine a lot of the rancor comes from:
-television/ hollywood programming toxic to otherwise healthy familial relationships and gender roles (e.g. miley cyrus the other night)
-sexual abuse by fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers of vulnerable young women who then grow up hating men
-too much premarital sexual activity, which predisposes a given society of females to feel that much less interested in maintaining long term relationships with those of the opposite sex
-many young women growing up in single mother households being given the message by their man-hating mother that men are evil/ bad/ repulsive creatures
-abortion, which hardens a woman's soul against life itself and esp. men who are the other ingredient in its propogation.

By the way, its not difficult at all to prove that all of this has been deliberately engineered and foisted upon America and Europe. It just takes a little bit of digging to find out exactly what was done, who did it, and why.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Modern Feminism

men are obsolete

 

[Puffy]

Re: Modern Feminism

men are obsolete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

"Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex."

One of my favourite opening sentences to an essay; it's serious but it's also a parody that I found quite funny.

That said, I think posts such as @DrGregoryHouse are maybe confusing radical feminism ( ^) with feminism as: Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

Saying feminists are miserable seems particularly odd in that sense.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Modern Feminism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

not sure i like to make it that dramatic but yeah

what i dislike about feminism is self-proclaimed gender egalitarians calling themselves feminists for no apparent reason other than desire to belong to a historical movement.

i have decided to be a feminist because i have concluded that the male sex has served its purpose as a technological facilitator of transhumanism and is soon to be redundant.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Re: Modern Feminism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

Every humanoid is a little off now and then. And then there are nutjob whackos like this.

what an idiot whoever wrote that thing. A whole lot of rabid man hate right there. Some people are so far gone in their anger/ whatever/ have a major screw loose not sure anything any decent man might do to prove them wrong.

Don't know why such humanoids don't have the decency/ honesty/ integrity to just rid planet earth of themselves, instead of wanting to take everyone else with them. (ridding the earth of men would eventually do exactly this. And no, freezing sperm perpetually for artificial insemination to propagate the female component of the species will not work. Why/ because mothers of baby boys (ahhh their so cute...) would never allow it)

 

[RaBind]

Re: Modern Feminism

[B]Feminism[/B] is a collection of ...p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlSh6wBXePM[/ame]

 

[~~~]

Re: Modern Feminism

Everyone has a different perspective on the matter which would explain the lack of unanimity.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Modern Feminism

Everyone has a different perspective on the matter which would explain the lack of unanimity.

Well, not only that, but you have to qualify exactly what you mean by feminist, among other things, or otherwise it comes across as a broad-brush smear of a particular demographic. Femininsm has gone through a number of time periods and "waves," each with its own goals and each under its own particular context and constraints, which of course means that the culture you're discussing also impacts how both healthy and unhealthy flavors of feminism manifest themselves. It can look rather different from country to country.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Modern Feminism

Every humanoid is a little off now and then. And then there are nutjob whackos like this.

what an idiot whoever wrote that thing. A whole lot of rabid man hate right there. Some people are so far gone in their anger/ whatever/ have a major screw loose not sure anything any decent man might do to prove them wrong.

Don't know why such humanoids don't have the decency/ honesty/ integrity to just rid planet earth of themselves, instead of wanting to take everyone else with them. (ridding the earth of men would eventually do exactly this. And no, freezing sperm perpetually for artificial insemination to propagate the female component of the species will not work. Why/ because mothers of baby boys (ahhh their so cute...) would never allow it)

Do you ever do anything besides the "pundit rant" approach? It gets old.

I don't even think you read all of the wiki article (and you could at least manage a 5-10 minute wiki article read, couldn't you?) before blathering through yet another post, and I'm fairly sure you've never read the book, so... that's pretty much all your post is.

At the very least, you would have seen various views presented in the overview, including that the book is satire of Freudian femininity. And have you ever considered the setting in which that book was written, which was an extremely patriarchal society where typically the first waves of US feminists had to be pretty radical in order to get any traction? I think the contents sound rather absurd today, of course, but for myself I think it's silly to judge a book out of context of its writing until I have a better understanding of it and why the author was suggesting what she did (if she wasn't nuts). None of us grew up in that world (well, except maybe for BAP and Editor).

As a side issue, it's interesting to see those studies floating around of INTP women during the 70's, who necessarily had to be more radical femininists due to trying to be part of the "men's culture" at the time (since they seemed to most desire occupations that were traditionally male, and they seemed to overtly reject the social female role at the time), and all the negatives that were applied to them in these personality studies. It seems clear to me though that, to be the type who could persist in the face of such adversity, these women had to be fairly hard-edged in approach and were likely to be more defensive, assertive, and push back harder against the culture. So it really wasn't that they were INTPs, it was more about the setting. It was a very different world.

 

[Puffy]

Re: Modern Feminism

Do you ever do anything besides the "pundit rant" approach? It gets old.

I don't even think you read all of the wiki article (and you could at least manage a 5-10 minute wiki article read, couldn't you?) before blathering through yet another post, and I'm fairly sure you've never read the book, so... that's pretty much all your post is.

At the very least, you would have seen various views presented in the overview, including that the book is satire of Freudian femininity. And have you ever considered the setting in which that book was written, which was an extremely patriarchal society where typically the first waves of US feminists had to be pretty radical in order to get any traction? I think the contents sound rather absurd today, of course, but for myself I think it's silly to judge a book out of context of its writing until I have a better understanding of it and why the author was suggesting what she did (if she wasn't nuts). None of us grew up in that world (well, except maybe for BAP and Editor).

Aye, I felt slightly guilty for the way I quoted it initially, which is why I edited the post. It's actually a very clever book, all the stuff about "men being incomplete women" is an obvious parody of Freud's penis-envy, the whole Biblical construction of Eve deriving from Adam, etc. I'm pretty sure she meant a lot of parts literally too, but it's partly why I find even the worst exploitation films interesting, as so much radical material is born out of a deep frustration with the way things are that it's often quite revealing.

Do you believe that men also have societal disadvantages, in the first world, compared to women?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlSh6wBXePM

Like Jenny said, we need a context. I'd say that a heterosexual, middle-classed male is probably the least disadvantaged in general though in a first-world country (I say that as one.)

 

[RaBind]

Re: Modern Feminism

As a side issue, it's interesting to see those studies floating around of INTP women during the 70's, who necessarily had to be more radical femininists due to trying to be part of the "men's culture" at the time (since they seemed to most desire occupations that were traditionally male, and they seemed to overtly reject the social female role at the time), and all the negatives that were applied to them in these personality studies. It seems clear to me though that, to be the type who could persist in the face of such adversity, these women had to be fairly hard-edged in approach and were likely to be more defensive, assertive, and push back harder against the culture. So it really wasn't that they were INTPs, it was more about the setting. It was a very different world.

I understand this, it's obviously true and was necessary at the time. As I said in the OP I do support the suffragettes movement and other similar feminist movements that allowed females to have the same rights that men have.

However there's feminism that says "well women aren't men and society should not attempt to make feminine characteristics any less important than masculine characteristics."

And feminism so fucked up that I don't even know what it is. Basically women being too feminine is sexist/patriarchy, because they are not living their full potential in their lives by taking on opportunities. All the while women being too masculine is sexist/patriarchy, because it attempts to erase femininity and degrades feminine characteristics.

 

[The Gopher]

Re: Modern Feminism

That said, I think posts such as @DrGregoryHouse are maybe confusing radical feminism ( ^) with feminism as: Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

Saying feminists are miserable seems particularly odd in that sense.

Why females in particular? Why not humans, or aliens! (Just wanted to be in the argument for no real reason)

 

[Meer]

Re: Modern Feminism

I really like feminism, and I spend a likely unusual amount of time reading and watching videos about feminism and sex/gender bullshit and so on. I think I just like women in general. Weird.

I don't understand the hostility that a lot of young men display towards feminism. It seems to rise from feelings of insecurity and a perceived threat from women. Super creepy. I wish that there was a movement aside from feminism that was opposed to sex/gender bullshit in general, so people would talk more about these fucked up male attitudes.

However there's feminism that says "well women aren't men and society should not attempt to make feminine characteristics any less important than masculine characteristics."

And feminism so fucked up that I don't even know what it is. Basically women being too feminine is sexist/patriarchy, because they are not living their full potential in their lives by taking on opportunities. All the while women being too masculine is sexist/patriarchy, because it attempts to erase femininity and degrades feminine characteristics.

Where are you getting this information from? You should probably seek out sources beyond "Feminism is evil OMG!" videos on youtube.

Feminists usually think that women and everyone else should be able to choose how they express gender and stuff without being shamed or scorned by others. Furthermore, they are generally opposed to binary ideas about gender.

Here is a giant image for you to read.

Spoiler

 

[RaBind]

Re: Modern Feminism

I wish it was only the one or two videos on YouTube, but I can probably post more with substantial views, discussions and rating, for each video. I wouldn't have even noticed it though if it weren't for thunderf00t and the Amazing atheist who brought it up, both of whom I have a lot of overlapping views with and listen to frequently. It basically caught my attention when a group called atheism plus was formed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95LG9crl3yo

Why does this bother me? because it's almost trying to hijack what atheism means and what it's about. Before this I was basically subconsciously supporting feminism, thinking it was just a movement for women's rights. And I still do support feminism that only supports women's rights, but only if it doesn't oppress any other group. Because then it seems for complected that just a movement for giving women equal rights to men.

Another problem is that there seems to be a dismissal of the opposing groups views and freedom of speech or generally a refusal to engage in a fair debate, when there is an opposing group(important because there normally isn't when it comes to giving women equal rights).

Also nice comic, it was certainly big. I want to ask if that is an actual misogynist propaganda comic or if it was made by feminists to illustrate the sort of propaganda misogynists are using?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Modern Feminism

Meer's is a good post, but I doubt many will respond well to it. I was thinking about posting that comic myself, but I changed my mind because I dread dealing with tiresome, blusterous individuals.


I'm going to go hide in cave, and I'm not coming out til the rest of humanity is dead.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Modern Feminism

Women are bitches and men are dicks.

 

[RaBind]

Re: Modern Feminism

Meer's is a good post, but I doubt many will respond well to it. I was thinking about posting that comic myself, but I changed my mind because I dread dealing with tiresome, blusterous individuals.


I'm going to go hide in cave, and I'm not coming out til the rest of humanity is dead.

"inside every cynical person there is a disappointed idealist" - george carlin

 

[Meer]

Re: Modern Feminism

Okay, I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that you should look for information that isn't from the viewpoint of "feminism is bad". It's very ignorant and irrational to make up your mind about something after only exploring one side of it. As an atheist, this should be obvious to you.

Let me put it into terms of atheism.

Spoiler

Person 1: God is real, look at this video from godisreal.com!!
Person 2: You should seek out other viewpoints.
Person 1: Look at this video from jesuslives.co.uk!!!

If all of your knowledge about feminism comes from the amazing atheist and ilk, you will not understand feminism.

So, it seems like this thread isn't really about feminism, but about the tarnishing of the sacred cow called atheism. To be honest, both sides are wrong, but I still agree with the A+ on all (I think) issues they've umbrella'd underneath atheism.

The point is that atheism is not a good platform, movement or umbrella. It's a position on one issue, and nothing more. Usually, people assume that it is also the methodologies and philosophical things underlying how people come to this position, buuut it isn't. If you believe that it is, then atheism is poisoning itself. Especially douchebags on youtube.

Atheism has become this snooty, better-than-thou exclusionary circle jerk that's more about telling people how stupid and evil they are than actually helping people to live better lives. Atheism+ was formed largely to do the latter, but it would probably be better to call it humanism.

Also, I hate it when people use the word modern when contemporary would be better.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: Modern Feminism

I don't understand the hostility that a lot of young men display towards feminism. It seems to rise from feelings of insecurity and a perceived threat from women.

It is not a perceived threat from women. They're responding to an actual threat which is manifest in modern social institutions. These institutions demonize young men or boys for being male and not having the same behavioral predispositions as young women or girls.

Super creepy.

You're creepy.

---

My experience with feminists, ones my age, was that they felt like they should be able to act how ever they feel and not be judged by others based on their actions. Then there're the socialism for women ones...

 

[Duxwing]

Re: Modern Feminism

Have you any examples of such demonization?

-Duxwing

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: Modern Feminism

Have you any examples of such demonization?

-Duxwing

What type of evidence are you looking for? Books, presentations, reports, etc.?

 

[Cognisant]

Re: Modern Feminism

Everybody, everybody calm down, I have a solution!

We build a machine that turns all the men into hot women

Hot lesbian sex for everybody, who's with me!?!

I just need some money for the R&D.

 

[Duxwing]

Re: Modern Feminism

What type of evidence are you looking for? Books, presentations, reports, etc.?

An illustrative anecdote or two and some reports would be great. Thanks for asking! E.g., study finds that 83% of employers disfavor masculine character traits + "My boss fired me after I made a joke about the big game last night".

-Duxwing

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: Modern Feminism

An illustrative anecdote or two and some reports would be great. Thanks for asking! E.g., study finds that 83% of employers disfavor masculine character traits + "My boss fired me after I made a joke about the big game last night".

-Duxwing

'War Against Boys' is a good read. Here is there author presenting her work:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80

'The Myth of Male Power' and 'Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say' by Warren Farrell are good reads.

'The War on Kids' documentary highlights many issues.

Girl Writes What is an eloquent speaker: http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat?feature=watch

 

[kvothe27]

Re: Modern Feminism

Feminism is great for women who don't want to be culturally feminine. It's not so great when it causes women who were culturally feminine to become self-loathing. It's also not so great when it causes men to experience self-loathing and shame for being what they were raised to be. Nonconstructive. Frustrating.

I would think there are healthier ways to alter identities without telling men they're unwittingly oppressing women by, for example, opening car doors for them. Self-concepts will rebel.

The gender war is so bizarre to me. So much of it is the result of socialization. So, we get women alienating "masculine" capacities and projecting it onto men where they love or hate it. Males obviously do something similar.

A better way to approach this is to dissolve these social roles and let men and women be as "manly" or "womanly" as he or she likes. Self-acceptance and general mental health would go a long way towards promoting egalitarian thinking. Inflammatory articles, defensiveness, on the other hand, fan the flames and increase the strength of such controversies.

This, unfortunately and obviously, isn't an easy task.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Modern Feminism

Feminism is a recent movement aimed at abolishing an oppression of the female sex that's been going on since the dawn of mankind. Of course it's going to take its cause too far in many instances, it's reactionary in nature; people fueled by causes tend to do that. It is not sufficient a reason to write Feminism off.

 

[Polaris]

Re: Modern Feminism

I just wish it wouldn't be called by that name; the name itself seems to spark heated emotions which is no great start to a detached, analytical discussion.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Modern Feminism

People who are greatly annoyed at the name because of the bias of it needn't be payed much heed to. Language in general is biased in favor of men in a immeasurable plethora of ways. I personally find the term feminism quite natural; after all the direction which things need to take in order for there to be an equilibrium is in the direction of the feminine.

Other than that getting hung up on one term that really doesn't matter is also quite pathetic, there are greater things at work.

Edit: Seriously, if in the face of all that women suffered some men are upset because of the word feminism, those men are not ready to discuss it anyway.

 

[Polaris]

Re: Modern Feminism

Well, you are right, but the men who are upset about feminism are often the ones that speak the loudest and thus appeal to other such persons. The most emotionally worked up are the ones that are heard, simply because they appeal to emotion.

People are not interested in fact or truth, just whatever feeds their anger/fear more. As such, I have no faith in humanity; men or women in general.

Oh well, that goes for anything I suppose...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Modern Feminism

Then they are the same as the feminist extremist ^^
The same brand of people really, bitter and with a perpetual sense of injustice directed towards them. They are just unable to come to terms with the fact that world ain't perfect. I say simply ignore the fuckers.

 

[Polaris]

Re: Modern Feminism

^ Mhm. It's funny, I admit I used to be just as spiteful towards feminists. I realised when I started reading literature through a university course that it was because I only had been exposed to one biased view in my environment. Extreme feminists are just as bad as any misogynist; for some reason I was told about this type of feminism only, which is why I held this view.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Re: Modern Feminism

Do you ever do anything besides the "pundit rant" approach? It gets old.

I don't even think you read all of the wiki article (and you could at least manage a 5-10 minute wiki article read, couldn't you?) before blathering through yet another post, and I'm fairly sure you've never read the book, so... that's pretty much all your post is.

At the very least, you would have seen various views presented in the overview, including that the book is satire of Freudian femininity. And have you ever considered the setting in which that book was written, which was an extremely patriarchal society where typically the first waves of US feminists had to be pretty radical in order to get any traction?...

Its the paternal instinct. LOL.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Modern Feminism

Its the paternal instinct. LOL.

no, not "lol".

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Modern Feminism

People who are greatly annoyed at the name because of the bias of it needn't be payed much heed to. Language in general is biased in favor of men in a immeasurable plethora of ways. I personally find the term feminism quite natural; after all the direction which things need to take in order for there to be an equilibrium is in the direction of the feminine.

Other than that getting hung up on one term that really doesn't matter is also quite pathetic, there are greater things at work.

Edit: Seriously, if in the face of all that women suffered some men are upset because of the word feminism, those men are not ready to discuss it anyway.

the term feminism is misleading, polarizing and counterproductive if it simply serves to denote gender egalitarian views. you really don't need more than anarchism in these cases since it's incoherent to limit ones egalitarian ideals to the question of sex (unless you can point out a specific benefit to this within an otherwise hierarchical/totalitarian framework, which i doubt), and egalitarianism is nothing but a naïve statistical representation of anarchist utopia.

if you are of the opinion that elimination of the male sex, or some of its core characteristics, is a prerequisite for said anarchy - then on the other hand it is appropriate to call yourself a feminist, because then you consider the future of politics and humanity a necessarily and predominantly feminine business.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: Modern Feminism

Sure, but what I'm against is it being viewed as proof that feminism is crap, a roadblock that cannot be passed without rendering all that lies behind it defect.

It doesn't seem all that improbable to me that the term reads the way it does out of the kind of necessity Jennywocky spoke of in her post.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Modern Feminism

Its the paternal instinct. LOL.

no, not "lol".

^^ Thank you.

Also, I didn't think House was known as a happy-go-lucky idealist, wasn't he a hardcore growsing realist? Getting mental whiplash here; this username is false advertising and I want my money back.

I just wish it wouldn't be called by that name; the name itself seems to spark heated emotions which is no great start to a detached, analytical discussion.

Yeah, the term has changed so much over the years that it no longer points to the same concept -- depending on one's generation, culture, exposure, etc.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Modern Feminism

Sure, but what I'm against is it being viewed as proof that feminism is crap, a roadblock that cannot be passed without rendering all that lies behind it defect.

i am upset by the name "feminism" when it's applied lazily, without critical thought, in pursuit of conformity.

i also happen to think that an egalitarianism/anarchism which prioritizes certain injustices and neglects others is contradictory.

i get what you mean though.

It doesn't seem all that improbable to me that the term reads the way it does out of the kind of necessity Jennywocky spoke of in her post.

while that was a valuable and informative post, i disagree with the gist of it: i think propositions should be judged by their content, not their tactical value in past context. the latter approach would be an implicit approval of the aggressive territorial power play and structural inertia which we should seek to abate - and which is more prevalent in the male sex, hence the relevance of (actual) feminism.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Modern Feminism

Feminism is great for women who don't want to be culturally feminine. It's not so great when it causes women who were culturally feminine to become self-loathing. It's also not so great when it causes men to experience self-loathing and shame for being what they were raised to be. Nonconstructive. Frustrating.

I agree. Identity is an interaction between what you're given and what you perceive of yourself and want to be, and it's cyclical meaning that what you want to be is often driven by what you've been given which is driven by what people wanted to be which is... well, you know.

In any case, I think you shouldn't be restricted regardless of how much or little you meet the social ideal. Just because you happen to align with the social standard for your gender is no cause for recrimination, the issues happens when those expectations are dumped on another person without regard for who they are.

I would think there are healthier ways to alter identities without telling men they're unwittingly oppressing women by, for example, opening car doors for them. Self-concepts will rebel.

Yes, I think it's easy to denote social expectations that are designated by gender, but it's also easy to overemphasize them. Some people seem to accentuate any small item into some overarcing signifier of oppression. Maybe particular concepts of courtesy did arise based on certain assumptions about how genders should react, but I tend to see multiplicity in motivation, and there's something to be said about just taking an action at face value, not as some signifier of gender suppression. If someone wants to do something nice like that and it seems like a personal act of courtesy (rather than some automaton responding out of programming), I'll go with it. And women can do the same things for others -- opening doors, etc.

Basically I see it as the signs haven't changed but the significance has; and people try to read meaning into them based on origin of a particular custom and then start misapplying motivation. I think a society where every little detail is planned and mandated, locking people in specific roles, is burdensome; but that is no longer typical of Western culture, we possess much variety in our customs at this stage and we have to read individual -- not cultural -- intent into an action.

A better way to approach this is to dissolve these social roles and let men and women be as "manly" or "womanly" as he or she likes. Self-acceptance and general mental health would go a long way towards promoting egalitarian thinking. Inflammatory articles, defensiveness, on the other hand, fan the flames and increase the strength of such controversies. This, unfortunately and obviously, isn't an easy task.

Socialization is a bitch.

And maybe the meaning behind some specific customs has changed, but yes, there are still some broad concepts of what it means to be a "man" vs a "woman" that are alive and well, and people stress out over their inability to fulfill them.

i think propositions should be judged by their content, not their tactical value in past context. the latter approach would be an implicit approval of the aggressive territorial power play which we should seek to abate - and which is more prevalent in the male sex, hence the relevance of (actual) feminism.

What about in the actual context of the post I was replying to, which was passing judgment without substance on something that had only been given cursory examination?

In any case, with the example we're discussing, one of my issues WAS that the motivation was being summarily judged whereas the actual motivation might have been more ambiguous or multi-pronged. And I really don't think you can judge content without context.

For example, if someone suggests to "kill all your enemies" in a piece written years back and you read it today, you might assume it's a sign of insanity or immoral aggression based on your own values, content-wise. However, it makes a huge difference whether it's spoken by someone in power who is murdering protesters outside his opulent palace or whether it's spoken by an oppressed victim who has just watched his entire town butchered by invaders. It's a huge difference in motivation and character; context changes perception of content.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Re: Modern Feminism

Lots of "feelings" in this thread.

Where did all the "rationality" go?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Modern Feminism

What about in the actual context of the post I was replying to, which was passing judgment without substance on something that had only been given cursory examination?

In any case, with the example we're discussing, one of my issues WAS that the motivation was being summarily judged whereas the actual motivation might have been more ambiguous or multi-pronged. And I really don't think you can judge content without context.

For example, if someone suggests to "kill all your enemies" in a piece written years back and you read it today, you might assume it's a sign of insanity or immoral aggression based on your own values, content-wise. However, it makes a huge difference whether it's spoken by someone in power who is murdering protesters outside his opulent palace or whether it's spoken by an oppressed victim who has just watched his entire town butchered by invaders. It's a huge difference in motivation and character; context changes perception of content.

maybe i read too much generalization into your post. i agree that drgregoryhouse probably isn't knowledgeable enough to pass judgment.

however, regardless of how well- or misdirected my criticism was, i think the point that i made, taken by itself, is an important one - to try and evaluate a text based on the accuracy and righteousness and universality of its propositions rather than admire it for its alleged causal influence in a past stage. to try and avoid being bogged down by historical reverence. how would one progress otherwise?

if the SCUM manifesto is all theatrical hyperbole in favour of what really boils down to a bland egalitarianism - how respectable and important is it, really? i'm fine with a phrase like "kill all men" being read as "men ideally shouldn't exist", but if the same phrase should be taken to mean "women are oppressed by men" then it ceases to be a sound form of discourse and takes on the shape of subversive, machiavellian, egotistical aggression. that's my issue. it's an issue that pervades much of feminism in that quite often, "claiming rights" as a woman means adhering to masculine values of cold rationality, individuality, athletic prowess etc. which is clearly backwards, no? the problem is that masculinity is norm. we should challenge that norm and not confirm it by playing by its rules.

now i'm not saying there's a clear-cut line between sound discourse and power play. i'm just saying the distinction is worth making and especially acute in this context since it pertains to the very core issue of sex and oppression.

and yes (just to clear things up) i think that biological secondary sex characteristics are pronounced enough to warrant fundamental categories of "masculine" and "feminine" independent of social construct. i also don't consider patriarchy to be a social construct but a natural mode of collective organization which is no longer beneficial in artificially regulated environments and thus has become superfluous, obstructive and problematic.

i hope this makes sense and i hope you understand that i'm not trying to accuse you personally. also i hope you don't take offense at this excessive concern. etc. etc.

 

[JimJambones]

Re: Modern Feminism

There seems to be a "thinking" and a "feeling" side to feminism. By thinking I mean those men and women recognize that while men and women are physiologically different, certain traits (such as intelligence) are not sex dependent. Even typical traits like strength, while normally attributed to males, have overlapping distributions; the strongest females are stronger than the weakest males. So while most men are stronger than females, not all are, hence women can serve in traditionally male institutions where strength and endurance are a prerequisite. I think as a society we've learned to recognize individuals by their ability rather than their phenotype, although there is still room for improvement.

By feeling, I mean that there are women who make an emotional appeal to gender equality and may be unrealistic in their pursuit of it. Much of the time it is ideology and not rationality that is a motivating factor. These types of feminist movements(like bra burning) often receive significantly more press coverage than the more rational ones, often in an effort by right ideologues to discredit feminism as whole.

If being a feminist means to appeal to equality in a rational manner, then by all means I am a feminist, otherwise, I am not.

 

[crippli]

Re: Modern Feminism

Feminism is great for women who don't want to be culturally feminine. It's not so great when it causes women who were culturally feminine to become self-loathing. It's also not so great when it causes men to experience self-loathing and shame for being what they were raised to be. Nonconstructive. Frustrating.

I would think there are healthier ways to alter identities without telling men they're unwittingly oppressing women by, for example, opening car doors for them. Self-concepts will rebel.

The gender war is so bizarre to me. So much of it is the result of socialization. So, we get women alienating "masculine" capacities and projecting it onto men where they love or hate it. Males obviously do something similar.

A better way to approach this is to dissolve these social roles and let men and women be as "manly" or "womanly" as he or she likes. Self-acceptance and general mental health would go a long way towards promoting egalitarian thinking. Inflammatory articles, defensiveness, on the other hand, fan the flames and increase the strength of such controversies.

This, unfortunately and obviously, isn't an easy task.

I like it. Do you think a start could be to update the language and get rid of some of the third person pronouns specifically she and he(or he and she). 10 days in jail if that law is broken?

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Modern Feminism

however i think it's an important point to make - to try and evaluate a text based on accuracy and righteousness and universality of its propositions rather than admire it for its alleged causal influence in a past stage.

I think you need to replace "admire" with "understand." Cause/Effect is the focus -- understanding something's place in that chain of change and treating it fairly in that light.

if the SCUM manifesto is all theatrical hyperbole in favour of what really boils down to a bland egalitarianism - how respectable and important is it, really? i'm fine with a phrase like "kill all men" being read as "men ideally shouldn't exist". however if the same phrase should be taken to mean "women are oppressed by men" it ceases to be a sound form of discourse and takes on the shape of subversive, machiavellian, egotistical male aggression. that's my issue.

Well, to make a side note, that time period of the United States IS a time period when women were more actively oppressed by men. We didn't even get the right to vote until 1920 or so; even black men got the right to vote before women did -- about 50 years before. (And we all know how the US viewed black people.) And women's roles were very very rigid; women were stuck in particular circles and men were stuck in theirs, and while perhaps men were also limited by their social role, at least they had the role that had power for individualism. I don't think there's much of an argument there.

So if you were a woman who just thrived on her role in society at the time, I suppose you were good to go; otherwise you were screwed, and not only does this create a lot of building anger but you need a lot of aggression to shatter the wall. I would have been a lousy first-wave feminist, to be honest; it's just not my personality style. I would have probably written essays and poetry lamenting my station in life and trying to evoke change through wooing/creating identification, not smacking people in the face.

And I will concede/clarify that I haven't read her book, I just read the overview enough to see that things are more complex than they would appear at first glance, so I can't really comment in detail on this particular person. (After all, she shot Andy Warhol. I can't say I condone shooting people. Well, maybe Carrot Top and a few other choice picks, but not in general.) Just thought it deserved more than a cursory glance before writing it off; it's apparent that at the time, the critics were taking it seriously enough to review in extensive detail... well, at least after she shot Warhol.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Modern Feminism

I think you need to replace "admire" with "understand." Cause/Effect is the focus -- understanding something's place in that chain of change and treating it fairly in that light.

understanding and approval are different things and you're moving the goalpost; i got the impression you couldn't allow disapproval of the message, content and delivery of something historically important and sufficiently understood.

the admiration/reverence is what keeps something in the minds of people by merit of its past influence rather than its own quality (its utility, its potential for future influence), but circumstances change and we don't have to appreciate and condone things because of their previous causal roles. on the contrary, i think the really pregnant and urgent messages tend to be overlooked because they don't possess a convenient niche.

i understand descartes, and i think he shouldn't be taught at all, no matter how many philosophical theories "wouldn't exist" without him. you could remove a coca cola bottle cap in 1957 and maybe i wouldn't exist. that doesn't mean it was a good bottle cap. it's modal realism. it's never relevant to our world and our decisions.

so, SCUM being historically important is different from SCUM being a good text with a sound message. drgregoryhouse's criticism was about the latter while your defense invoked the former. now, from what i can tell, SCUM actually contains some genuinely good material. but that's another matter.

Well, to make a side note, that time period of the United States IS a time period when women were more actively oppressed by men. We didn't even get the right to vote until 1920 or so; even black men got the right to vote before women did -- about 50 years before. (And we all know how the US viewed black people.) And women's roles were very very rigid; women were stuck in particular circles and men were stuck in theirs, and while perhaps men were also limited by their social role, at least they had the role that had power for individualism. I don't think there's much of an argument there.

indeed no arguing about this. it's straight forward facts. i see no reason to question the claims you've made here. i don't think we're arguing at all. we're brushing past each other.

haven't read the entirety of SCUM myself either.