are feminists hipocrits?

Until we have achieved complete power over the male gender feminism is needed. And if you say otherwise you're a....eh....shauvinist pig?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa:

I don't see why you bother. My hat is off to you, I think it must take some major balls to actually bother with our culture...but I don't see the point in arguing it.

Tyler:
Alls you owe me is the two minutes I spent trying to figure out what your dispute with me is.

Oh, and a bottle of Cristal and a box of Girabelli or Lindt chocalate, but everybody owes me that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bebelina:

I CALL SUPREME PLANETARY DICTATORESS! I CALL SUPREME PLANETARY DICTATORESS!

Edit to add:
"Dictatoress" sounds odd, but "dominatrix" doesn't work for the obvious reasons, and "supreme overlord" just sounds wrong.

Grand High Cristal drinker? All High and Most Excellent Ruler-Type Chick? Supreme Overlady? Most Awesome and Bodacious Absolute Empress of the Cosmos?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) That it's acceptable for men to cry and not women
2) I found it curious that you went back on your car comment
3) I can't see anyone whinning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, the moths ate my hair shirt and feeding lice with my blood is just gross.....hmm, Tyler, I think I will reply to you.

Never said that. Lay off on the glue, bad way to get high and messes with your brain cells.

I made a generalization.

You don't have a mirror near your computer? You've been complaining about my posts for about a week now.

 

A couple of things

Xev

Thanks much. And my hat to you, except that I don't wear hats. And my hair is too frizzy to let down right now, so ... er ... yeah.

Tyler

As unwise as it is for me to continue to stick my nose into this one, I wanted to address two of your three points (Xev, being the only person able to address that other point, has.)

• That it's acceptable for men to cry and not women

I cannot stress enough that this is up to men to fix. It is men, and not women, who set such a standard.

• I can't see anyone whinning

I won't deign to contradict Xev's point, since that one's between the two of you. But I do see an aspect of whining about this whole topic.

I saw it in Washington's I-200 which ended affirmative action at the state level; I see it in modern civil rights discussions; it is still an idea that permeates the American arena, at least.

People don't want to be "held responsible" for the sins of others. This is understandable. But inherent in that is also an unwillingness of those people to fix the errors of the past that continue to plague us in the present. A day of triumph comes when a woman accuses you of "undressing her with your eyes" and you can look back and say, "Nah. I don't think anything I would see could possibly make up for that shitty attitude."

Take for instance an interesting point about pregnancy. A friend's company is very good about this; they know how to keep quality employees, offering them an additional 12 weeks on top of FMLA after having a baby. The company knows, and works hard to accommodate their pregnant employees. None of that, however, explains the mystifying remark made by my friend's boss that this or that was unacceptable because "my wife never did that when she was pregnant". (It is also worth mentioning that his wife did not work forty hours a week while pregnant, either.) This, of course, from a supervisor who approved extra vacation days for an employee who had silicone put in his face (yes, his face) and then had to go back for reparatory surgery after the first implants failed to set properly and sagged in his face. Hmmm ... in this well-intentioned company, it seems that artificial cheekbones are more important than human species perpetuation. What's even more ironic is that cheekboy is one of those who thinks women get too many breaks in the workplace because of their gender.

Look: the whining aspect of this topic, for me, comes from the number of people who seem to be anti-feminist. It would be a little like declaring that the anti-feminists are all just like Rush Limbaugh. Certes, some of them have reasonable points that merely need to be put into context, but right now, the arguments against feminism sound more like Rush than rational thinking.

It's almost like a mass-hysteria when you take all of those among Americans who dislike feminism. It's almost like watching someone who is ashamed of his own actions railing against his opposition in order to redeem himself in his own eyes.

Men "can't cry"? Well, maybe men should have paid their emotions better attention and given them higher priority. Don't hold a macho social standard against a generation that was educated by men to appreciate that macho standard.

In General

So here's the trick question: Why would Mary not want to marry? After all, the country gentleman had goods, land, servants, gold. And why love a soldier boy? As Alice and Christopher Robin remind us,

Alice is marrying one of the guards.
"A soldier's life is terrible hard,"
says Alice. (Flash Girls)

So it seems that Mary was very misguided in her heart. But that's just a woman's way, isn't it?

My question to the anti-feminists is simply, What would we like women to do?

Certes they can roll over and die.

Or, better yet, roll over and offer themselves.

But there is much, much more to life than merely that.

Why would Mary not want to marry the man her father had chosen for her?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Xev;

"Never said that. Lay off on the glue, bad way to get high and messes with your brain cells."

My bad - you said that it's significantly more acceptable for a man to cry.


"I made a generalization."

To rephrase something you said - how can you make such a generalization when you've only lived in Michigan?


"You don't have a mirror near your computer? You've been complaining about my posts for about a week now."

Okay, I apparently missed something then. You made this comment in relation to the thread. At a time when I had only made one post about my distaste for NOW and other such organizations. And I doubt that you came into this thread complaining about my whinning in other threads. So my point stands - the whinning you spoke of in your first post in this thread confuses the hell out of me.


Tiassa;

"I cannot stress enough that this is up to men to fix. It is men, and not women, who set such a standard."

Tiassa you misunderstand. I don't believe this is up to women to fix. You see, Xev claimed that it is quite the reverse; that it is more socially acceptable for men to cry.


"I won't deign to contradict Xev's point, since that one's between the two of you. But I do see an aspect of whining about this whole topic."

About the topic - in society. In this thread I see absolutely none up to the point where Xev made that comment. Do you? Xev will not point it out, but I have no doubt that if you see it you will more than gladly give us a nice long thread on it!

 

Tiassa:
I don't wear hats either....they make me look silly. (And, uh, Xev, claiming the title of Most Awesome and Bodacious Absolute Empress of the Cosmos doesn't?)

As to crying:

In my town, it is normal enough for a man to cry. However, it is rare.

My point was more that outbursts of emotion are looked as signs of deep passion in men. In woman, they are seen as signs of feminine flightiness.

And for anyone who does not think there is an aspect of whining to this, I point to Thor's poem:

I see people - men to be specific - who have created a culture and then proceed to bitch about how horrible it is. I see what should be a serious political discussion becoming a handful of posts on how much dating sucks.

Looking beyond this topic, I see a culture in which, instead of laughing when someone such as Sandra Harding calls the Principia "Newton's rape manuel"*, or hooting Dworkin off the stage when she said that penetrative intercourse was violent per se, throws a wobbly and declares feminism dead.

I call this whining.

Are the "feminist" critiques of porn ridiculous? Hell yes. But more ridiculous is the uproar that is created when Dworkin reviles "The Story of O".

As Nietzsche said "Not with wrath but by laughter do we slay"

So why not laugh? Idiots, like the poor, will be with us always. May at least get a chuckle out of it.**

Instead we have uproar. Why?

*Seeing as the Principia is a book of incomprehensible mathematic and physical principles, and seeing as Newton died a virgin.......it would be more accurate to call the Principia a manuel for hardcore masochists.

**I will confess a temptation to smack Harding with a copy of Principia - or worse, make her read Optiks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit to add:

Tyler, I believe you said you were ignoring me. I would appreciate this more than I appreciate your straw men.

Thanx.
--Xev the suprisingly depillated feminist.

 

About Thor's post; It seemed to me like a joke post. As in one of those things idiots send you in emails.



"My point was more that outbursts of emotion are looked as signs of deep passion in men. In woman, they are seen as signs of feminine flightiness"

Crying = feminine. That was always the maxim I heard (note; I did not say believed). And it's generally accepted that a woman doing a feminine thing is no biggy, nothing worth mentioning. A man doing a feminine thing and I'm sure you know what the conclusion many come to is.


"Looking beyond this topic, I see a culture in which, instead of laughing when someone such as Sandra Harding calls the Principia "Newton's rape manuel"*, or hooting Dworkin off the stage when she said that penetrative intercourse was violent per se, throws a wobbly and declares feminism dead."

Created out of PC idiots.


"Tyler, I believe you said you were ignoring me. I would appreciate this more than I appreciate your straw men."

As you wish. I promise I won't reply, but I would like to know; which straw men? The only thing I can see is me saying you claimed that it's socially acceptable for men to cry and not for women. And when you pointed this out I apologized and corrected myself. Anywhere else?

 

Tyler:
As Tiassa once asked me in regards to Adam - what are you, Thor's lawyer? I think he's capable of defending his own posts, ja?

You excel in missing my points. Or perhaps you do it on purpose.

My point is simply this:

For a woman to express emotion is a sign of weakness, of femininity. For a man to express emotion is a sign of passion.

We live in a culture where the expression of emotion is labelled as feminine, thus weak, and in which a woman's emotions are quickly brushed off as "no biggie", to be expected. Labelled and thus invalidated.

And you either don't see a problem with this or you are frightfully stupid.

If you won't reply, why should I bother?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fine:

Straw man #1:

"1) That it's acceptable for men to cry and not women"

I explain. You return with:

Straw man #2:
"My bad - you said that it's significantly more acceptable for a man to cry."

I honestly don't see why I bother. Because then there's

Straw man #3:
"Okay, I apparently missed something then. You made this comment in relation to the thread. At a time when I had only made one post about my distaste for NOW and other such organizations. And I doubt that you came into this thread complaining about my whinning in other threads. So my point stands - the whinning you spoke of in your first post in this thread confuses the hell out of me."

Of course, the comment was not in relation to this thread, but details details, we couldn't let this get in the way of being a bitchy little twerp now could we, Tyler?

 

"As Tiassa once asked me in regards to Adam - what are you, Thor's lawyer? I think he's capable of defending his own posts, ja?"

I'm not defending, I'm giving what I thought of it.


"For a woman to express emotion is a sign of weakness, of femininity. For a man to express emotion is a sign of passion.
We live in a culture where the expression of emotion is labelled as feminine, thus weak, and in which a woman's emotions are quickly brushed off as "no biggie", to be expected. Labelled and thus invalidated."

Oh I understand your point fine. I just disagree. In all my experience it has been considered a sign of immense weakness and, often, homosexuality for a man to cry.


"And you either don't see a problem with this or you are frightfully stupid."

To quote myself again; "(note; I did not say believed)"


"Of course, the comment was not in relation to this thread, but details details, we couldn't let this get in the way of being a bitchy little twerp now could we, Tyler?"

Obviously not.


Sorry for replying, however you will be assured that I will not post again.

 

Tyler ... and, I suppose, also to the anti-feminists in general

More than what? More than unacceptable? I see it happening; I think it's becoming quite acceptable In fact, it is only among small groups of men that I know crying to be consistently spoken down toward. In fact, the tearless are starting to be regarded as having something wrong with them. And I expect this process to continue, as the suppression of emotions in regard to social standards is a bad, bad idea.

I find the presence of the topic itself to be a little bit toward the whining. I mean, it's just a little bit fundamentalist in its priorities.

There's nothing about the anti-feminist position in this topic that strikes me as innovative. It's all a rehash of a social Bitterness Syndrome (BS) comparable to Angry White Male Syndrome or Oppressed Majority Syndrome.

Remember that if the US was truly a democratic nation and if the feminists were truly that out of hand, the men would know. Because women are the statistical majority. Strange, that. I wonder why they have no political power? Oh, it must be like the Bible says: women blew it because they don't deserve to be equal?

I think all the anti-feminists should stop and think about that. A statistical minority awarded an inverse priority to its statistical position? How did the minority come to rule the society and even leave women out of the Consititution of the United States? How did the minority come to rule the society so strongly that killing female fetuses for economic motivation became a common practice in China? How did a minority become so powerful? Crafty strategies? Hardly. Brute force.

When a statistical minority complains because its usurpation is recognized and is being undermined, I consider it whining.

It's kind of like the "white man's burden", such as when plantation owners used to get together and swap stories about how tough it was to manage slaves.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let me ask you Tiassa; commercial's on tv are a prime example of our culture. Many, many commercials feature a man dumbly not knowing how to do house work and so he needs the 'simple' way that the product being advertised offers (cooking, cleaning generally). Often there's a woman or child the background shaking her head because the man is so dim at not knowing how to do these things.

I am willing to bet you anything I own that at my school more men could tell you who Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Kruschev, Suslov, Andropov and Brezhnev are and their significance than women by at least a ratio of 2:1. In fact, one girl in my grade knows Soviet politics with any depth and she hadn't even read the Manifesto until we became friends (which we did because I learnt of her interest in Soviet and 20th Century politics). I realize this is anecdotal but so is the 'fact' that men just don't know how to do housework. So hows about for some reason we make a commercial where a woman looks down at a book of Soviet history and slaps her head and looks confused and says "what the heck? Who is Greb-esh-y-ma-kov?" unable to even pronounce the names and a man stands in the background shaking his head and laughing. Think many women would appreciate that? Heck, I'd be willing to bet some would be, and rightfully so, downright offended.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the former commercials should be banned. There's just many double-standards in our society; including men being just as stereotyped as women. And yet feminist organizations (note; I said organizations) argue against women being stereotyped. As Xev once said; "grow some balls".

I am not anti-feminist by the way. What I am against is many of the organizations that unfortunatly have power in the feminist movement.

 

Point counterpoint

I'm thinking of a regional advert for Kia which reminds me in a few ways of Almost Live, a legendary local Seattle sketch comedy TV show. Mostly it's the voices and the situation: we make fun of that kind of advertising up here.

But the Kia commercial has a female narrator doing the Kia-versus-the-other-brand bit until we cut inside and see 3 women.

Woman #1, driving, tells Woman #2 (who happens to be the narrator, in the back seat) to shut up, at which point Woman #2 says, "What's wrong, is (#1) upset because (#3) has been dating (#1)'s ex-boyfriend?" And #1 looks really angry while #3 cowers in the passenger seat.

It does, in fact, remind me of real life.

It reminds me exactly of a couple of girls I knew in high school who were devouring gobs and gobs of speed.

It's an awful commercial in general, but it does play on very typical concepts assigned to women: stealing boyfriends and so forth. Or tampon commercials: women should worry because they might get their period while being a bridesmaid, or while shopping, or while clubbing with her other female friends. It's never that women should worry because they might get their period while riveting a beam, setting a compound fracture, or rescuing a child from a well.

One of the biggest tragedies I know is related to the Power Puff Girls. As the movie approached, the network pushed a song called That's What Girls Do that sounds somewhat catchy in the candy-pop way. Of course, what is what girls do? Change the color of their hair, own 32 pairs of shoes, string your heart along in cruelty.

We need not see an elimination of such ideas, but they should not be the predominant ones.

Fair enough. For my own part, my best and smartest professors in college were women. The smartest person I know is a woman. I am, however, hard-pressed to figure out what the importance of a list of Soviet premiers implies. I mean, I expect men to track the wars they start.

You know, men are subject to some really dumb standards. But why focus on enumerating them because under no circumstances can you establish that men are in the position of disadvantage insofar as the political machine is concerned.

As such, I always wonder why people in your position choose to continue to support what they oppose by giving it much airplay.

Take atheism and Christianity, for instance. An atheist could learn much about the base-level Christian and the stupid political fights Christians often start in the US, and undermine Christian standards of conduct by looking into the deeper aspects of Christianity in history and as a philosophy. By learning from other Christians what the value of the religion is. Think of it that way: you leave behind the cheapest, most superstitious of them and defeat them by knowing more than they do.

Same thing with feminism. Why give NOW or other organizations airplay in the sense of criticizing them? Issues become fixed, and the association between radical organizations and a legitimate movement becomes harder to distinguish. Why not press ahead with the feminism you find legitimate and thereby undermine the political movements you object to?

Fighting against something is one of the least efficient ways to overcome, transcend, or defeat it.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"It's an awful commercial in general, but it does play on very typical concepts assigned to women: stealing boyfriends and so forth. Or tampon commercials: women should worry because they might get their period while being a bridesmaid, or while shopping, or while clubbing with her other female friends. It's never that women should worry because they might get their period while riveting a beam, setting a compound fracture, or rescuing a child from a well."

I've seen those Kia commercial's by the way. And yes, definetly, it is full of stereotypes. Hell, the woman being good at house-jobs is stereotypical in the commercials I described. The point is, both genders are stereotyped in media. I also object to women feminist organizations yelling about all women in the media being skinny. With the exception of older actors (and actresses, actually) and comedians (as well as comedic women. NOT romantic-comedy, actual comedy) the majority of popular actors are all in good shape. Or, at the very least, in significantly better shape than the average male. However, I don't press this because it's obvious women still do have it worse in that aspect.


"Fair enough. For my own part, my best and smartest professors in college were women. The smartest person I know is a woman. I am, however, hard-pressed to figure out what the importance of a list of Soviet premiers implies. I mean, I expect men to track the wars they start."

I don't know or think that women are less intelligent than men. However, at my age there is faaaaaaaaaaaar less women interested in politics, philosophy, history and cultural sciences. I can't speak for older ages.


"You know, men are subject to some really dumb standards. But why focus on enumerating them because under no circumstances can you establish that men are in the position of disadvantage insofar as the political machine is concerned."

I don't focus on them. We're in a debate so I brought up my stance on the issue.


"Same thing with feminism. Why give NOW or other organizations airplay in the sense of criticizing them? Issues become fixed, and the association between radical organizations and a legitimate movement becomes harder to distinguish. Why not press ahead with the feminism you find legitimate and thereby undermine the political movements you object to?"

Every powerful feminist organization is disturbingly business-minded. I don't feel I can make a difference in this situation. I would like to quote a few lines from author Tammy Bruce's book The New Though Police;

- "She replied that everyone was suspicious of me because "I didn't fit the profile" of someone interested in NOW -- I was "professional, smart, aggressive, and offered just way too much." (page 118)

- paraphrased - I had taken the membership of my chapter from 1200 to eventually over 4000... "I couldn't imagine what kind of problem National (NOW chapter) could have with that, but (NOW President Molly) Yard went on: "There seem to be a lot of men in your chapter. How do you explain that?" The question perplexed me...Although clumsily put, the message that came through from Yard was that I must be doing something unfeminist." (page 120 - emphasis was not mine)

- Bruce had previously kicked a Democratic Party meeting that she found in her NOW building (set up by Yard) out..."I laid it on the line that my feminism was going to be a variet that welcome men, Republicans, the religious, and anybody else who was feminist, agreed with us on issues, and wanted to improve the quality of women's lives...At the end of our lunch, Yard said it seemed to her that I wanted to "injure" NOW. She said that ever since my election (as president of L.A. chapter of NOW), there had been concerns about whether or not I was going to be a "team player" " (page 121)

- "Clearly, today's feminist leaders are more concerned with pursuing a socialist agenda than with helping women achieve equality." (page 124)

All quotes were from the chapter; Not-NOW; The Selling out of the Feminist Establishment.

There is little to no hope. Eventually even a crusader such as Bruce was forced out of any power. Her book revealing truths such as these has had no noticable affect on NOW's reputation or authority. Disturbing, no?


"Fighting against something is one of the least efficient ways to overcome, transcend, or defeat it."

Doing nothing is the least efficient. Fighting it may inspire someone.

 

Tyler

Tyler

One of my favorite examples of an equality movement out of control is Dr. Leonard Jeffries, a controversial professor in New York whose infamous declarations include that blacks cannot be racist, that white people are an undesirable genetic mutation, and that the space shuttle Challenger disaster ought to be hailed because it "stopped white people from spreading their filth across the Universe."

Somewhere in there his university fired him for such comments, but he took them to court, got his job back, and won a half-million dollar settlement.

A simple question, though: Do the actions of Dr. Jeffries mean that civil rights workers are hypocrites?

Here's what I'm looking at, for starters:

•_feel free to abuse me all you feminists but i think you are all hipocrits (Asguard, topic post)

• Feminists, like labor unions, outlived its usefulness (Joeman, 8.09.02, 7.58 PDT)

• Equal Oppurtunity is as good a movement as this society has seen. Women have come miles from just decades ago. (Tyler, 8.09.02, 15.54 PDT)

Just for starters.

There is a transfer taking place whereby frustration at the specific is broadened to include the general. And it seems familiar.

I think of Christians, such as Ekimklaw who seem to recognize a condition of being either Christian or else being atheist; I think of the atheists who recognize only the most basic and familiar strains of Judeo-Christianity who insist in arguments that God must be according to this or that image so that it can be disproved this or that way. It seems quite the same to me as presuming that a single organization such as NOW means that all feminists are hypocrites (see topic post). It seems quite the same as allowing one's opinion of Dr Leonard Jeffries to stain the whole of ethnic-equality issues.

And when the effect of such stereotypes on each gender is similarly interpreted, we'll be in a better place.

But in the meantime, women have come miles in the last few decades, so should we tell them to let it go and be thankful? Having come miles, is the journey over?

Fair enough. Runs counter to my own University experience, but such is the nature of experience.

But any comparative sense of how far women have come or how bad men think they have it has no impact whatsoever on the core issue: the equality of human beings. It's a shame that feminism should be addressed from the condemning standpoint. Take a look at the topic post: the sum effect is an anti-feminist declaration: feminists are all hypocrites.

What separates an feminist organization in this case from any powerful lobby or PAC?

Such is the sad result of a culture almost wholly focused on currency and what it buys.

But you can. If you hold your line honestly, if you hold it restricted to the conditions to which you actually object and not to political-arena accretions, you can make a difference just by being alive. If you're sitting with a friend who is telling you about the latest CNN or whatnot on feminism, it's fair enough to say that you reject this or that because NOW said it and you have issues to NOW, but it would be presumptuous to disqualify the point merely because of NOW. There's a difference between NOW and the whole of feminism. It's nonproductive to mythicize one organization as representative of a movement. Demonize the movement, not the broader category it falls under. It's kind of like that stupid notion whereby atheists familiar with Western Judeo-Christianity extend their wrath from Christianity to theism in general, and about as poorly-educated.

Well and fine, but such books are always an embarrassment in the end.

It could simply be that the author fails to realize that women don't get full equality until everyone gets full equality, men included. And at that point, many ideas sound thoroughly socialist. As long as money is so important a measure of one's worth in life, economy will be a vital part of civil rights.

Hope of what? Equality for women?

Well, if the GOP hadn't reacted so poorly to Blinded by the Right, they might not have created the sense of darkness that hangs over such books. Now that one's out blasting the left-wing, the right wing isn't even paying that much attention because this form of exposition has been previously deemed worthless. Strange, isn't it? But after describing a leftist-convert who told dirty secrets about the right as embittered and seeking revenge, what could the condemning right think of Ms Bruce's book?

And those are the only two options?

Think of it like a war if you have to.

Can you negotiate an end to the conflict with PFC Jones? How about Sergeant Smith?

Or what happens if you go around and undermine the support structure of the perceived enemy?

Consider:

• When an atheist and a Christian argue, the issues examined become fixed, less dynamic. As a result, a battle standard calls the legions to arms, so to speak. You can continue and argue the "did-not-did-too" of Creationism, taking part in a massive battle of attrition, or, knowing that the Creationist standpoint is based on this or that bad interpretation, you can go after the higher structure and undermine the deficiency that brings about the Creationist superstition. One need not slay God, for instance, if it can be shown to the theist that the principle one advocates fits according to the described God. Don't just argue heaven and hell, but point out how useless, unsupported, and dysfunctional such myths are; show how the Devil doesn't fit, remind how God willed man's fall and the necessity of redemption, explain how the Creation-myth developed out of biblical and other traditions. Don't just try to knock off the blue-faced debater in front of you but shoot after the vital argument; don't let the simplest, cheapest minds of a movement set the tone and terms of the debate.

•_Likewise with feminism. Don't stand there knocking off this or that feminist in lieu of addressing the whole of feminism. If NOW advocates bad policy, take up the policies and show their failure. Simply blasting NOW and extending that disapproval to any broader sense of feminism is both inappropriate and ineffective.

All fighting inspires is a new generation of fighters with even less reason to do combat.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"It seems quite the same to me as presuming that a single organization such as NOW means that all feminists are hypocrites (see topic post). It seems quite the same as allowing one's opinion of Dr Leonard Jeffries to stain the whole of ethnic-equality issues."

But of course. That's why you'll note I don't take that stance.
- "I am not anti-feminist by the way. What I am against is many of the organizations that unfortunatly have power in the feminist movement."


"But in the meantime, women have come miles in the last few decades, so should we tell them to let it go and be thankful? Having come miles, is the journey over?"

In your opinion, what does the feminist movement have left to do?


"Fair enough. Runs counter to my own University experience, but such is the nature of experience."

That it is. And if women end up being the more politically-minded I will greatly enjoy University. That is, if I get there.


"But any comparative sense of how far women have come or how bad men think they have it has no impact whatsoever on the core issue: the equality of human beings."

Agreed.


"What separates an feminist organization in this case from any powerful lobby or PAC?"

It's my belief that an organization focusing on it's own personal benefit can never fully do good for the majority. When the organization's goals are not those of the people it supposedly represents, it is detrimental in the long run.


"It's kind of like that stupid notion whereby atheists familiar with Western Judeo-Christianity extend their wrath from Christianity to theism in general, and about as poorly-educated."

Of course. Again I point to the fact that I am not against feminism as a whole; rather, the parties which represent it.


"It could simply be that the author fails to realize that women don't get full equality until everyone gets full equality, men included. And at that point, many ideas sound thoroughly socialist. As long as money is so important a measure of one's worth in life, economy will be a vital part of civil rights."

Actually, her point there (I should have quoted more from that paragraph) was about NOW letting Democrats use their buildings and time as a party-base. Which is illegal, according to how they file as a tax group.


"Hope of what? Equality for women?"

As long as NOW is the major party, yes. As long as men are not seen as fitting members of a feminist party, yes.


"And those are the only two options?"

Hardly. You stated fighting was the lowest choice. I tend to disagree.

 

Unions

In theory, like communism unions are a good thing: they give workers a say in how the company treats them. In reality however this is not always the case, sometimes they set stupid demands and if they are not met they strike. I give you the British coal mines in the 80's as an example of this, where wages were the issue. The result: The coalmines closed and the workers were unemployed.
By the way: in a socialist society Unions are illegal. a bit ironic innit.
me thinks i should start a thread on Unions, it has been taking over this thread too much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What's left? Woman is the nigger of the world.

And that's fair enough. I listed the broad sentiments I see bearing a combined effect. I feel that stance is the sum effect of this topic. From the very title to the topic post itself to secondary objections against feminism. If NOW is important to feminism in this negative sense, it is because one ought to look past it. Make it unimportant. Let it go. If, for instance, you spend a thousand hours in your life dealing with feminist issues and social division, would you rather spend them pointing out what's wrong with the movement or trying to fix it and help achieve noble goals?

Feminism is a broad paradigm label that includes both those who see women as being degraded by strip clubs as well as those who see money for flesh as a proper exchange and wish to shore up safety issues in the subculture. I've known women who believe their place is in the home raising children to call themselves feminists. Feminism deals with a socioipolitical gap 'twixt the genders and preserves females' stakes in that argument. For instance:

There are many things:

• Maintain medical rights of women in abortion debates
• Seek to dismantle gender barriers such as found in Christian regard for women
• To help create an ideology in which women are important for reasons other than their sexual prowess and superficial physical attractiveness.
• To help create an ideology in which women are not regularly taught that men are important for money and security.
• To reduce and control the factors which lead to 1 in 4 women in the US being raped in their lifetime.
• To reduce both the occasion and ideology of sexual harassment
• To achieve equal pay between the genders for equal work
• To speak for women in the third world (e.g. "Taliban" women)

That's just a short list.

Which will be a perfect opportunity; at Universities, feminism is constantly in some form of disarray. At the University of Oregon, it got so ridiculous that men were expected to cross the street in order to avoid passing directly by or following a woman at night because they deserved the security of not having to wonder if you're about to rape them. It was a nailbiter, a hair-puller, and based on a campaign called Men Against Rape which, incidentally, was composed of two gay men. It was incredibly infuriating, but people chose to blame "feminism" and not a couple of idealistic men who were trying to turn the campus on its head. But then again, there was also hullaballoo about these little welcome-packs they used to give you in the dorms. The "men's" kits were filled with dorm necessities: shampoo, conditioner, soap, aloe gel, sunscreen, a razor, &c. The "women's" kits lacked anything of a woman's necessities. No razor, no pads or tampons. Did have nail polish remover, a couple of files (no clippers), a men's sport deodorant, &c.

Such are the issues of feminism at University until, like at UO, the fraternities start buying off rape accusers. Or until you hit a party and start counting off the targets. Getting the before and after of a sexual assault, seeing her on Friday night and then coming across her Saturday morning: after a while you just turn it off. Grim, hurt faces just become too much, and when you realize that the leering, evil men aren't somewhere "out there" but living in your dorm with you, and sharing physics notes with you over cheese sticks .... But yeah, one day you're drinking, smoking a bowl or something, and you sit listening to a guy prattle on about how hot that chick is and how he's gonna do her and it doesn't hit you that you're hearing anything any more or less dangerous than you've ever heard until a week later when you find out what he did after you left the party.

Such as we see in this topic, where people transfer that anger at NOW, for instance, onto the whole of feminism, which is the larger idea I'm guarding against.

But such wrongly-focused organizations are pandemic throughout politics. As a direct point, when someone you're debating with raises an issue from a NOW party-line or other such organization, the best negative response is that you don't pay attention to now because they're detrimental to the feminist cause.

Think of it this way: if you open up that degree of separation in people's minds, it will continue to expand their horizons.

Honestly, sir? I would ask then that you help defend that distinction against such generalizations as this topic has suggested. No political fight ends until its issues are definitively answered, at which point the opposition becomes religious in effect.

Fair enough.

My heart breaks for my gender. So long as we break it down to men and women, I have no sorrow in my heart for men in this fight. Our gender blew it. I agree that it's wrong to exclude men from such an organization, but don't worry: in due time that will come back to haunt NOW. In the meantime, pardon me if I take a moment to grin to myself that men are chagrined at being excluded.

Well what works better? It's well enough to say that you think fighting is not the lowest choice, I mean:

• Fighting against something is one of the least efficient ways to overcome, transcend, or defeat it. (Tiassa)

• Doing nothing is the least efficient. Fighting it may inspire someone. (Tyler)

• And those are the only two options? (Tiassa)

• You stated fighting was the lowest choice. I tend to disagree (Tyler)

If you disagree, I would hope you could do more than simply say that. After all, the only other alternative currently involved in this particular vein is when you raised the issue of doing nothing. Since doing nothing bears no regard to overcoming, transcending, or defeating an issue, I thought perhaps you could offer us that option toward overcoming, transcending, or defeating that comes lower than fighting.

I think John Lennon is still relevant:

There's a few things left for the feminists to work on.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!