Is Radical Feminism a Philosophically Bankrupt Ideology?

Hi old_gobbo. Thank you again for your follow up comments. I appreciate it. :slight_smile: You said, ” You have to remember all of the western philosophy up until the feminist revolution was male based, and operating under a male paradigm.”

Yes, it’s a good point old_gobbo. However, it seems to me that the radical feminist philosophy is very removed from philosophy generally (it’s more like an angry cheerleading squad than philosophy) and it tends to make a mockery out of even the concept of the female philosopher. I know there are wonderful female philosophers out there, but I haven’t found one yet from among the radical feminist throng. Thank you again for your thoughts old_gobbo. I appreciate your input. :slight_smile: Passion

Hi drift. :slight_smile: You said, ” What i dont understand is feminism’s supporting of homosexual marrages/relationships?”

Classic marriage between a man and a woman represents family and kids and, most importantly, it represents heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is something that many (though not all) radical feminists detest. Radical feminists would like nothing more than to see heterosexual marriage curtailed. This is a prime focus among their goals. :slight_smile: Passion

:astonished:
Its just so shocking. I almost have a hard time beliving it. Mind you i am isolated.

It’s a form of sexual/gender-leftism, which extends itself into other leftisms, also.

Femanists are naysayers.

“…yes, but Britney is experiencing anguish which is manifested by her inauthenticity in the consumerist discourse, Simone. While it appears as if she is expressing an individuality…she is in reality conforming to a role. This role is a subversive form of bad-faith and is therefore not a real freedom.”

Hi drift. Thank you for the follow up comments. :slight_smile: You said, ”Its just so shocking. I almost have a hard time beliving it…”

I hear you drift. But not to worry. When all is said and done, the radical feminist theme seems to already be running dry. Educated heterosexual women never really bought into it large scale and, young heterosexual college aged girls have positively rejected it (so far).

You said, ” . Mind you i am isolated”

Isolation can be a blessing at times drift. Voltaire wrote; “The happiest of all lives is a busy solitude.” Thank you for your comments drift. I appreciate it. :slight_smile: passion

Hi detrop. Thank you for the quote. :slight_smile: Very nice wording and interesting old photo too! :slight_smile: passion

Hi Dan. You said, ” It’s a form of sexual/gender-leftism, which extends itself into other leftisms, also.”

I hear you. I’m just surprised that their ideology is held out to be a “philosophy.” I’m also surprised that the radical feminists themselves won’t admit this. Thank you for the comments Dan. :slight_smile: passion

What do you mean by radical though?

Because if you mean it to be hyprocritical lesbian bitching about equal rights , then it by default you’re not likely to find anyone who makes a whole lot of sense within that group.

i thought i knew this years ago, but i’m still finding it out!

You’ll spend most of your years “learning” that what your true-will “thought” was right. The world just sits on its dumb-ass and proves your point.

ITT: Ya radical feminists are just as bad as radical male…ists. On a personal level I’ve just seen fight club way too many times to let anything that bleeds for days and doesn’t die gain too much influence.

Thanks for simply ignoring my last post to you…

To all: If you want a cast-iron example of feminism gone mad then look to Sweden’s Feminist Initiative.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_I … 8Sweden%29

They are a classic example of liberal fascism - they claim to have liberal, freethinking ideas but radically oppose anyone who doesn’t take them at their word. To show just how moronic their philosophy is, consider this, from a webpage article about their attempt to abolish marriage.

Now, the important mistake this is one
whereas it is our aspiration to make the laws as
norm-free as possible…What’s essential is the battle for
norm-free, sex-neutral legislation, and a society without heterosexual
norms.

We see the contradiction clearly. The ‘liberal’ politics of wanting rid of oppressive norms that are maintained by legislation and institutions become a war in favour of a set of other norms, under the guise of being opposed to norms in general.

Of course, before this conversation even starts someone should be pointing out to these complete and total buffons that laws are always based on norms, always have been, always will be. What they mean is ‘we disagree with this set of norms and prefer this set of norms, because it justifies and maintains our sexual preferences’, but that doesn’t sound politically convincing so they make some transcendental (i.e. fascistic in imagination - why do you suppose German transcendentalism preceded Nazism?) claim to being opposed to norms in general, hoping that no one notices that they are simply advancing a different set of norms.

It’s also interesting to note that to them, heterosexual marriage is, regardless of particulars, part of a system that oppresses women. Again, a leap from particular instances to a transcendental rule, used as an excuse and a rhetorical shift that we’re not meant to notice and criticise.

Of course, this sort of feminism (and this same principle of behaviour applies to almost all politics) needs an enemy, and needs to overstate that enemy to the point of becoming ridiculous. Same with the Cold War, same with the response to the terrorist threat, same with bird flu, same with the environmental movement - the list goes on and on. And it’s the same attitude in both mistakes - the leap from the particular (or even just the possible, in the case of antiterrorism and environmentalism) is based on shoddy arrogance in one’s own beliefs, and the total overstating of the ‘threat’ is based on shoddy arrogance in one’s own beliefs.

hey,i honestly read all your posts that i stumble across when i read new threads. and i have a sort of ‘commitment’ to threads i’ve posted on.

i was just in a state of momentary shock. that was yesturday i belive.

Hi old_gobbo. Thank you for the follow up. :slight_smile: You said, ” What do you mean by radical though?”

Essentially, the main theme that runs throughout all of it is a strong anti-male bias. It’s not about equality but about the de-equality of males. More virulent forms of radical feminism are anti-heterosexual, anti-heterosexual marriage, anti-traditional family (dad, mom, kids), and all radical feminists are extremely pro-abortion. At the very foundation of all radical feminism is an utter lust, a downright blood thirst for abortion.

Radical feminists have taken all of their vitriol and they: dogmatize it, doctrinize it, and refer to it as “philosophy" (which I don’t think it is). Thank you for your thoughts old_gobbo. I appreciate it. :slight_smile: passion.

Passion,

I wouldn’t say that radical feminists actually lust for abortions. I’m very skeptical that one woman would say to a feminist, “I’m pregnant”, whereupon the feminist would reply, “great! get an abortion!”

However, I agree with your statement in the sense that radical feminists are violently pro-abortion even in circumstances where the abortion may make less sense. Of course, many on this forum will be divided in their moral views on when abortion does or does not make sense.

A particular story that is much more bothersome to me than radical feminist stances on abortion is this - related to me as if it were a wonderful thing by the fat, ugly, irrational man-hating lesbian women’s studies teacher I mentioned in an earlier post.

A woman decides she wants the stereotypical man’s life, and goes into business. She is a workaholic and works all the time. She is single, but decides that she wants to have a child. Now, normally she would have to suffer the unfair female burden of having to be pregnant, give birth, devote time to the child - but because of the scientific and social advances, and because of this woman’s wealth, she was able to 1) hire someone to get pregnant and give birth, and then give her the child, 2) hire someone else to breastfeed the child, and 3) hire someone to take care of her child full-time, because she was always working and never at home.

This woman should not be allowed to have a child - or more precisely to hire others to give her a child. My teacher explicitly stated that this woman wanted the status of having a child. This is a horrible way to view the responsibility of raising another human, and if this is the feminist ideal, that’s another check in the long tally of “stupid and harmful radical feminist positions”.

I’ve always been a big fan of equality, and even more, of being emotionally open and honest with not just your significant others, but everyone. And incidentally I don’t drink. But I maintain that there are some women out there who need the following…

SMACK.

Woman… bring me a beer.