The victimization of feminism

Here is somthing that is going to perpetuate some arguments and conflict on this website but nonetheless I feel the need to address it.

If women were equal to men or deserve every advantage of men why does feminism exist at all?

Why does a sexist social political doctrine exist out of guilt, resentment, and out of the status of victimization if women are truely equal to men?

It would seem to me in the matter of historicism that a state of being equal wouldn’t need a sexist political doctrine like that of feminism in defense as such a thing would be self evident.

A true chauvinist veiw of feminist idealism. Yes, feminist claims are bullshit. Feminists try and seperate themselves from nature, which often brings about psychological conflict. Though I suppose some feminist may overcome this internal struggle, these maybe CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) cases.

Regardless, your accusations are incorrect. There really is no standard of equalization to be had between sexes. Neither is greater than the other. Different is perhaps a better word than unequal.

Feminism was spawned out of how women were treated in society. Though their evolutionary roles may of required them to be submissive, that does not mean they were less great. While man’s flaw is to want to be in control of the most power and status held over several subjects, a women only have need to control a single man.

This nature can be trancended as the origanal feminist trancendentalists, like Wollensccraft struggled to acheive. They did not want to change nature, but change awareness.

It is clear to me that you have a great deal to learn about human psychology, and feminism. I suggest you enroll in psych101 and perhaps open your mind with a reefer. Also I suggest you be objective and step outside of your own mind. Try and counter your own arguments and answer your own questions, and then maybe you can see how absurd they are. Furthermore, why must you use wooden dummy arguments, flase dillemas and keep begging the question?

Because it was created and supported by a group whose sole aim was to commodify women into work, destroy the widespread acceptance of the family as a unit and pitch men and women against one another competitively.

It has next to fuck all to do with gender equality.

The most common justification for this is ‘redressing the balance’, which is of course utter nonsense. One cannot redress a balance by further imbalancing things. Repeating past mistakes and putting a spin on it will only result in the same problems over and over.

But like I said, the endgame of feminism is not gender equality.

It is self evident. Women are equal to men. Just as stupid. Just as prone to self doubt. Just as weak and confused. But also just as imaginative, just as ambitious and just as capable of enhancing themselves and others.

It’s a mixed bag, humanity.

Ad hominem.

Sarcasm.

See what I mean about feminism being a doctrine of separation? Of pitting sexes against one another?

Fuck that for a game of chess on a cold day, I don’t want the most power available to me. And I’m as male as people get. In that I’m male.

Wollensccraft? Never heard of her. I’ve got a book by an author with a similar name though.

Psychology is just as corrupt a philosophy as feminism, and neither are in the slightest bit progressive.

Any other cliches you’d like to roll out?

As you’ve used spurious analogies, ad hominem and sexist generalisation, I’d hold back on telling other people how to argue if I were you. Just a suggestion. I’m not, like, trying to suppress your entire gender or anything…

someoneisatthedoor wrote:

Unless I have missed the mark, I think Joker has all but admitted his chauvinism. If I have accessed him wrong, then it is just a misinterpation of his ideas on my part. I in no way meant his view was less valid beacuse it was chauvinist.

shhhh…

Why are you on this forum? Why do you want chess on a cold day? Why would you tell me this?

this isn’t my tidiest post ever. I am sure you realize I meant Wollstonecraft.

I guess it depends on what you mean my corrupt and progressive and the scales you use to measure them.

Shit… i didn’t know that had been cliched already…

I didn’t catch the spurious analogies or ad hominem, though I did get a little pendantic at the end. Just giving him some friendly advise. I know you are afraid that I will open myslef up for attack and judgement, but I really don’t care, as I am not offendable and readily admit to my mistakes, especially if one is pointed out. I expect others to scrutinize me.

As for sexual generalization, which I did use, I do not feel that it was fallicious in this context. As with an argument about the equality of the sexes, generalizatons are inherent. I believe I did not try and hide it as a generalization either, as I readily named two types of women that clearly do not meet this generalization. Just going with the Shopen-nator here…he could be wrong…but in my experience he was right. Though I have been scorned by love in the past (does that count as a cliche?) so I could have a skewed, biased view of the matter.

By the way thank you for ruining my fun! (sarcasm)
Also, you have the best avatar ever!!!

It really does not exist that much anymore except to continue to try and get womens rights as a valid ammendment and to supply support for women that have had sexual harrassment on the job, or declined jobs because they are women.

Other than that there really is not a large feminist group anymore. It is merely a supportive function now. The majority of women here in the states have no need of it and would not classify themselves as feminsts, they would classify themselves as either taxpayers or Americans. Big jump from just being able to classify yourself as a wife and mother.

Women’s Lib was proved bankrupt when they rejected the ERA.

Zeus, Women’s Liberation movement is not the same as feminists.

Really?

LOL yes really, Feminists sprung from the Womens lib but, the two are seperate. Feminists are like a radical group breaking off from the main group. They are more harsh and radical in their aproach to equality. They kind of take the attitude of superiority, not equality.

Kriswest:

I generally don’t get involved in these dumb ‘feminist’ discussions, but since you’re not only giving out misinformation but also offering up your personal opinion as though it’s some sort of fact, then I’m disinclined to let it go without comment.

And why is it that “women here in the states” are special in this way? It doesn’t sound as though you’re claiming that they have no need of it because it was never necessary in order for them to lead the lives they do now. Perhaps you’re claiming this as a way of stating that because it’s been so successful that they have no need of it anymore?

I’d suggest some women may be sadly uninformed of such a need, but that doesn’t mean that the need doesn’t exist. It’s one of those deals where you can evaluate accomplishment at any point along a continuum, but to have decided it ‘worked’ and is therefore officially over, then you’d have to be at an end point. Hence, it goes in ‘waves’. Certainly women have much greater access to education, employment, wealth and power (all of which come under the category ‘self-determination’) than they did prior to the advent of feminism. Of course ‘greater’ is relative when measured against a value close to zero, and we’re still a distance away from ‘equity’, meaning equal access. As well, there’s been little cultural shift toward men taking on their fair share of household duties and childcare. Many do more now than they used to, but cultural resistence is still a factor. This is an important issue, because it underlies larger debates like affordable, quality childcare or issues like gender equity in family law.

Also, equal employment opportunity was a huge goal, of course, but it was still a means of accomplishing something more fundamental. The underlying philosophy was to change societal values to the extent that one’s sex would not be a factor in getting access to the things I mentioned. Put in simpler terms, any little girl should be able to have the same dreams of what she can do in her life (including being president, an astronaut or a professional athlete) as any little boy can.

In fact, the two are inseparable. However, as I mentioned above, women’s liberation has its ‘waves’, the first being suffrage in the early part of the 20th century, the second being the fight for equal rights begun in the late 60’s and the third, which is considered ‘post-modern’ and spans the decades after the second. (And I agree that there’s a significant ‘supportive’ function in the third wave, along with a more analytic and historical function that arises from the women’s studies departments in many universities.) It was during the second wave that the term ‘feminist’ was adopted for use after ‘women’s libber’ started to be disparaged. And before ‘feminist’ started to be disparaged, as it continues to be. The commonality here is the disparagement, a movement in and of itself, the motive for which I can offer up reasons both social and political.

The majority of women never classified themselves as such, which is neither here nor there when it comes to how they’ve reaped the benefits of the movement run by those who did. I suppose it would take the threat of having those benefits eliminated to cause them to re-evaluate their stance, if not the title.

No, they aren’t separate, as I explained above. The rest is just your opinion (and one that seems uninformed to me). There’s actually another term for the splinter group you’re describing. Do your research.

Joker:
Due in no small part to the gains in women’s employment opportunity as a direct result of feminism, I have a demanding schedule and can often spend only limited time here. But I’ll try to respond to your OP when I get a chance, because I think the question has general merit (meaning I don’t care about the supposed motives of the questioner, lol) and deserves an answer.

Ingenium

Perhaps next we can also envision a day when men also take up some of the burden of pregnancy and childbirth. then ‘equality’ would be complete.

How about being a father, can little girls ever hope to dream of that?

How wonderful that women imagine ‘freedom’ as being that of having equal access to social positions of symbolic power.

Can they not imagine any greater goal, or is their only interest to be appreciated in what they beleive will be equal measure, and to be equally rewarded for their similar loyalty to the whole.

How typical that when some men think of freedom they mean from all that contains them, including social restraints, but that when women think of freedom they only think of it within the context of a sheltering social framework.

Maybe its because women know that any hope of freedom and guaranteed
choice is only possible through social institutions.
Then they can pretend, under the sheltering force of community, that they are above nature and that they’ve overcome their genetic past and that they deserve more.

Particularly ironic when it comes from someone that believes that all is illusion hiding emptiness.
[/u]

By nature, men and women are not equal.

A square and a circle are not equal, but they are equal in that they are shapes.

Interesting comment and thank you.

I said women will classify themselves as Americans or taxpayers now where before it would be mothers or wives. This did not mean they would not classify themselves as other things. Just that a self priority has changed; meaning ; women do not think of themselves as chattel or second class anymore. That is a large step in such a short span of time amazing really. Within in a few generations thousands of years of brainwashing has been removed from mindsets across the world. it shows what we humans can do when push comes to shove.

Look at the women of the middle east. How long do you think it will be until they realize such a thing? Don’t forget, all female subjugation was based upon religious ideals and ego.

IMO if a woman today feels or acts second class or property then it is entirely her fault, unless she is raised in the backwoods of hodunkville and niether reads nor watch TV. I have no pity otherwise.

As far as labels or titles go I may have mislabeled but, the splinter group remains the same, an apple maybe called an orange but, it does not make it an orange. A great number that label themselves feminists now are more hardcore about superiority than any women’s lib or suffregette. They are a pain in the butt. But, at least useful for women that lack means to help themselves.

Yes. The ones who can’t help themselves will always be angry and want more than they deserve.

It sounds as though your question revisits that tired misconception that ‘equal’ means ‘same’. When the women’s rights movement mentions “equality”, they mean it in terms of opportunity and access to the things that result in a person having the chance to self-determine. What that actually means really depends upon each person’s abilities and psychology, but the overall ‘doctrine’ is to create a social structure that at least allows females to have an equal stab at education, meaningful work, property ownership, etc. Not only do feminists not mean equality as ‘same,’ but also I think most would argue that it can’t mean that. The basis of feminism is that these gender role differences that we find in androcentric societal structures arose not, as is simplistically viewed, merely from ‘natural’ causes, but from some blend of our biological adaptive natures and group dynamics within the context of certain historical events, including the onset of the agricultural and, later, industrial revolutions, that influenced how we behave. I addressed this in a lot more detail somewhere in Satyr’s behemoth of a thread, but am not about to try to wade back through the muck of that thing to find it. Just take my word for it or, and this is just a guess, I have no idea…try page 33. :smiley:

I’m not sure what you mean by “a sexist social political doctrine existing out of guilt and resentment”. Maybe you’re suggesting that if one accepts the proposition that women aren’t ‘truly equal’ to men, then it’s not logical in a patriarchal system for men to feel guilty and women to feel resentful if women don’t have the access I described above? I guess that’s logically sound, but the term ‘equal’ is used in the women’s movement the same way that the term ‘all men are created EQUAL’ is used in the Constitution. Anyway, I don’t approach the rationale or explanation for social change in terms of how people ‘feel’ about it, because different people feel differently. There are women in modern times who no doubt long for the 1950’s (or at least their rose-colored vision of how it must have been back then, lol) just as there have always been women who longed for more choices. The point is that this was about one dominant group relinquishing some of its power and wealth. It’s popular to presume that fighting for increased rights for women (just to get somewhere close to a parity, you understand) necessarily means squashing the rights of men. That’s dualistic, ‘either-or’ and a masculine perspective, regardless of what the sex is of the person who holds it. The point is to level the field, remove ‘man-made’ barriers so that there’s equal freedom to seek education (not counting learning from one’s mother how to cook and sew) and to take risks out in the world (meaning beyond home and hearth), and to prosper according to one’s abilities.

Again, I’m guessing at the meaning of this sentence, so please correct me if I’m wrong. I think you’re suggesting that if women were truly equal to men, (as in ‘naturally determined’ equal?), then there wouldn’t be any need for feminism. Or, in other words, since the doctrine of feminism was developed to change the social climate for women, then they must not have been truly equal to men – using some measurement of equal that counts – in the first place. As though feminism is a ‘crutch’ of sorts? That if women needed to start a political movement to gain ‘equality’ for themselves, then they must not truly “deserve” that equality?

Please help me to understand your thinking. Can you explain to me how is it that only men “deserved” the right to self-determination? Naturally speaking, that is.

Oh, it’s okay, you can call me “Bubbles” or “Retard” here, too. Just don’t expect to get a response. And I don’t intend to walk down the ‘male feminization’ path with you here, so you might as well decrease your risk of carpal tunnel and save the overblown rhetoric for your dinosaur thread.

Anyway, you gotta save those hands for the endless changing of diapers and heating of bottles, don’t you? Or do you plan to breast feed? 8-[

Here the specimen reflects the incompleteness of masculine understanding of ‘burden’, as it assumes that said ‘burden’ ends with the birth. Not unexpected considering centuries of androcentric social conditioning that have resulted in male divestment in child rearing.

Well, biologically speaking, they’ve been able to fertilize an egg with a body cell from another female in mice. Can humans be far behind? LOL.

But let’s consider ‘father’ in broad terms, meaning as something beyond sperm-donor. Why would a girl dream of being a father? Should she grow up and reproduce, her natural job will be mother. Just as the natural job of a boy will be father. It seems odd – dare I say ‘unnatural’ – then, how these androcentric cultures evolved in which men determined the primary role for women was to serve men, rather than to serve their children. And where men were primarily focused on serving themselves and their property, rather than serving their children.

BTW, those roles, mother and father, are the only jobs that are actually natural to one’s sex. Unfortunately, until the advent of the women’s movement, women were categorically denied the opportunity to the wide range of other occupations out there available to men. Just as men turned away from the opportunity to adequately perform their jobs as fathers in their neverending quest to keep control of all the stuff they wanted.

Here the specimen displays the typical male androcentric view that there is only an individualistic, self-serving context to the ‘imagining of goals’ (and who oddly seems never to speak of actually accomplishing any). That to seek to glorify oneself at the expense of others is the most noble and supreme achievement…never mind that this leaves precious few on the ground to gaze up at one after one has ascended to the lofty heights. And – you’ll excuse my Zen influence – are they really ‘heights’ if no one’s looking up? Problem is, it’s an interdependent world. Self indulgence (except maybe in one’s ‘imaginings’) only takes one so far.

And, in contrast to the sad specimen only imagining his glory as achieving the vaguely-defined ideal of ‘freedom from social restraints’, there’s the primary Authentic Male, Al Gore, who now has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Lofty heights, indeed.

How typical that when some men think of freedom, they think of it only in their own vainglorious terms. Not surprising, though, since our male forbears had the luxury to self-indulge after they enslaved their women (or other conquered peoples) to handle the practical consequences of all that noble seed-spreading activity.

It seems to me there’s a simple solution: any man who desires “freedom from social restraints” should just stay away from women. Think of all that freedom! It would be absolutely idiotic to consider oneself a ‘freedom-seeker’ and follow any other path.

Maybe it’s because women’s natural impulses are to gather, compile and construct; while men’s natural impulses are to scatter, divide and demolish. Leaving them with precious little to ‘take shelter in’ once they’re done. Problem is, it seems they never really are…

“Illusion is hiding emptiness?” You never did get that concept straight. Had you come close to doing so, you’d see now the irony in your use of it, lol. I suggested to you some time ago maybe it was time to grow up a little and read Nagarjuna.

But, as they say, maturity is as maturity does. :unamused:

Not always, most just want a hand up not a hand out. Sadly within tis society we have females content to pop babies out and get that Gov’t check but, we do have those that want more and are willing to work for it.
Each generation seems a little more self orientated and is demanding of themselves a little more. Can’t change a major social block in just a few decades. we have come along way but, there is still more ground to cover.

I do see reverse discrimination happening more and more. That is not good either.

Nice…I suppose what follows is a non-response…a modern, progressive non-response.
How quintessentially feminine to say one thing while immediately contradicting it with an action.

Bubbles and Retard is implied.

I think you know, that i know, that you know, how over your head you are, here.

Do I?

They say imitation is the purest form of flattery…anyways.

Are you saying that male mammals of most every other species have similarly subjugated the females of their species to an unjust arrangement?

I say that the fact that women have to carry around a baby for 9 months is highly unfair and that mankind should return to a more genuine form of arrangement, as it once was, where males shared in the gestation of their own offspring.
Who the hell invented this system?
God?
A man!!! No kidding.

Voila!!!
Women’s liberty cannot be far off. Let us change the arrangement of things, paternalism has forced upon us all, and correct nature away from her unjust ways using technology.

Hey, maybe next we can save ugly people from ugliness.
We’ll call it beauty a prejudiced cultural construct that produces the illusion of beauty.
No doubt beautiful people invented beauty to keep ugly people down.
Does nature know anything about beauty?

You mean using your culturally defined ideals?

How unfair and biased.
Shouldn’t she hope to be more or, at least, have the choice of becoming a father? Are we to tell a little girl that this last male bastion of prejudice will not fall and that she is forever excluded from this all male club?

Why do males have the monopoly on sperm production?

This, uncomfortably, sounds like a gender role.
I thought we were beyond these, and returning mankind to a previous more genuine state where males and females shared roles.

Nothing like evoking the “good of the children” to bring an emotional cry of agreement from all throats.

I say that it is also unfair that men force bees into slave labor and divert them from their god-given right to produce clean, tasty honey undisturbed.

Unfortunately I don’t think the universe gives a shit.

As far as I know, man didn’t invent women nor did he evolve women to be the way they are…I may be wrong because the Bible says otherwise and we all know how reliable the Bible is.

Here’s another thing that’s unfair: Why do cows have to be so stupid and timid and simple as to be easily domesticated and made into servants to man’s needs?
This doesn’t seem right.

Whew…thanks for letting me know…'cause I was getting worried. There’s nothing like eating your cake and having it for later to make one smile.

And it’s a good thing you called them “jobs”. It escaped the discomfort of explaining the contradiction if you called them “roles”.

It also preserved the cultural notion that males should share in the upbringing of offspring, even though very few male mammals have such a shared burden, and no primates have any such culturally determined responsibility.

I enjoy watching you defend the paternalistic constructs that suit your feminine interests while attempting to do away with those that go against them.
I call it selective reasoning.

Thank God technology came forward to return things back to their original, genuine, more natural arrangements then.
There’s nothing like invention to set things right.

Thankfully your female emancipation didn’t have any dire consequences, like masculine emancipation.
It’s been a win/win for you girls.

Nice personal sideswipe.
Are you saying that there are motives that are other than individualistic and self-serving?
You mean like altruistic ones?
This is getting cute.

All that emptiness and still love reigns.

Are you implying that a victor’s victory is only worth something if there is someone else there to acknowledge and admit it?

This sounds like dependence.

When a wolf eats a lamb, does it require other sheep there to appreciate his kill or does his full belly suffice?

All this need even beneath the illusion hiding an emptiness.

Even cooperation is self-indulgent, or has this also escaped your ‘everything is illusion’ world view?

Let me get this straight.
The value of an individual is only worth something if there is another there to reward him or appreciate him or acknowledge him?

Heidegger, where are you!!!

What a typically feminine perspective. All identity and self-worth flowing from the other.
I guess this is what you call “genuine”.

“Vainglorious”? What a typically sheepish term.

During which war did males enslave women?
I must have missed that class at school.

Too bad nature doesn’t adhere to your moralistic proclamations of justice.

Indeed. Would this freedom include liberty from death?
If not then females remain a means to an end.

But I did enjoy the hidden threat of no sexual access for any male that fails to agree with feminine ‘rights’. It’s what keeps imbeciles turning into defenders of what they know will get them laid.

Is that why males are responsible for almost every human achievement, creation of art =, innovation, and expansion of human awareness, whereas females are responsible for…let’s see…children…sexual satisfaction…homed cooked meals…Ah, but I forget…they’ve been repressed and that’s why they remain childlike and retarded intellectually and emotionally.
Let us not forget those few exceptions to the rule that somehow disprove the rule. It’s like finding an albino black-bear.

All that “gathering, compiling and constructing” and nothing to show for it.

Oh stop it, you’re gonna make me sad.

Imagine a woman proclaiming her equal rights after an end to civilization…Now imagine how long this female will last with those ideals she can neither defend nor justify to an indifferent nature.

All feminine rationality speaks to a moralistic, emotionalism, based on cultural inventions and necessities. Then, these enlightened minds, have the audacity to claim that they are rational or that their artificial ideals have a basis on a more genuine reality or that all that contains them is a human invention.

“Illusion is hiding emptiness?” You never did get that concept straight. Had you come close to doing so, you’d see now the irony in your use of it, lol. I suggested to you some time ago maybe it was time to grow up a little and read Nagarjuna.
[/quote]
Ah yes, I forgot, emptiness is not a thing.
Deep shit, man.

Too bad it has no meaning other than to relieve simplistic minds from the burden of thinking.
A nihilistic excuse.

If you are an example of a mature mind, then God help us all.

It is said that women are men stuck in adolescence.
So far I have found nothing to contradict this simple statement.

Oh, well they’re obviously wrong. No debate necessary.