As the feminists tell us. The reversion is noble, instead of our current emphasis on the herd and collective action, this axiom stresses individual action and initiative. A good feminist, according to dicta, does not simply argue the politics of "women's issues" but makes a point to live recalcitrant to levelling social mores. The strategy is effective (the decline of the feminist movement is hardly the fault of this) and ought to be examined. Social power operates using what I call "spheres of influence". Culture, for example, is a large sphere. A couple or a family is a smaller sphere, the individual is the smallest and most concentrated sphere of all. Her control of herself and acceptence or rejection of social mores is paramount. The smaller the sphere, the more visible is the control excercized therein. The smaller the area, the greater the pressure. The family was the essential unit once. Acceptance of and deviation from social expectations was reinforced by the family. As the control the family has over the individual declines, the unit increasingly becomes the individual. This fragmentation does, paradoxically, increase the hold society has on the individual. With no set of ancestral traditions, the individual becomes increasingly defined by popular culture, which is inherently trend-based. Few standards are left by which a person can define themselves, thus they cling stridently to those which are left - money, possessions and fame. Ideology, a collective force, quickly becomes a form of self-definition. By making the personal political in our current cultural climate, one ends up with a culture of vacant shells fighting for vacant ideals. In the end, only the noble and truely self-rooted can thrive in such a regimen. Being a movement that aims for the many, the strategy could not concievably work for the feminists but has promise for those who seek to net the few.
While I like to think that I understood what I read and I am hoping I did could you clarify this for me Is this your own work? Do you relate this observation with every culture or just Western?
sargentlard: Uh, yes. Dislike the thing about "eastern" and "western" culture, but I think it applies across the board. Look at China. spookz: What in the hell are you talking about? Damn, I need drugs to sound that moronic and out of touch with reality. By no means am I proposing a road to the "ubermensch" through feminist axioms, get your head out of your ass (it's distended enough as is). Rather, I'm playing with ideas of social vs. individual action. Jesus, you moron.
Abusing your mod duties huh? Deleting all the posts that challenged your crap? I saved the first: I am going to enjoy showing the illogics, predominantly non sequiturs, that plague this thread. Where is the reference for what these feminists "tell us"? There is a reversion from an emphasis on the collective or herd you say, by the feminists? Whatever. This does not equate to an abandonment of the collective. What are you talking about? How is the "strategy" effective? Where is the decline of the feminist movement? Fine. Fine. Fine. Paramount to what? Fine. This is utter nonsense. How does the family unit acquire its traditions? On what are the social traditions based? Your argument is circular as it that the family unit is a group, and the society a group; inflencial people affect the family, and the society. What standards were there originally? Every definition of the self/individual is based on the individual, which is based on the family, which is based on the society. Every question in the form of "how do you reach this conclusion means said conclusion cannot be reached from the premise or by the argument. How do you reach this conclusion? Also, where does ideology come in place when one discusses money, fame and possesion? What ideal? Ideals as decided by whom? Why are they vacant? When was the personal not the political climate? Nonsense. The self rooted have always thrived. What regimen? An imganined new epoch of the personal? How do you reach this conclusion? The feminist ideal is the self preservation, freedom, and self realization of the female. In the success of the "few", the many benefit. In the environment of the democratic, the one cannot realize this success without the many achieving the same. One female does not demand a right to vote, equal pay, and the like. There is no feminism in nation states where the ideal has not been realized. You spew nonsense, and your post is not fully realized.
heh i too saved but deleted when it remained for a while. i will post my take again and this thread will move to site feedback if she persists 3 posts deleted. she had also responded to them what a pathetic loser
what is a 'her'? only to the members of the sphere. Control is sometimes more obvious in huge spheres. See dictatorships, or Moderators of forums. Nonsense. I totally depends on the culture within the sphere. Sphere size has nothing to do with it. still is. still are There is always a sphere according to your own 'theory'. not paradoxically, since the spheres were always there (bad writing! tsk tsk) There seems to be a big hole between 'noble' and truely self-rooted' and the previous assumption. And both are extremely empty terms. congrats. Almost acceptable for high school.
Congratulations, you've completely missed the point. It isn't an argument (see deleted attempts to make it one). The idea is quite simple, and the WANDERER grasped it quickly. Why can't you boys be as smart as him? What? Now this is a good point. A large group (as Le Bon noted) is easier to control than an individual, the herd-mentality comes to play. Ever been to a baseball game and seen "the wave"? The culture is a sphere, not "within" Not really, at least in western culture. Parents go off to work, they leave their kids' ideas to be formed by t.v and school and mass-media. Family rarely picks your spouse, and one is much less dependant on the validation of the patriarch. For instance, my dad wants me to be pursuing my Masters l rather than...doing what I'm doing now. I don't want that. I'm not doing it. This would have been the cause of a serious rift 100 years ago. Now it's not. Then again, I couldn't be pursuing a masters back then anyway. Another thing. Women are finding increasing social recognition as human beings in their own right. The power of - ahem - patriarchial society is declining, but it is being replaced. By? Mass media. I'm sorry? Do you have any idea what I'm saying, or are you just trying to look smart by criticizing it? I like criticism, but unintelligent criticism wastes my time.
And again, you delete a post of mine. A power trip? An ego trip? I know you are insecure, but this is quite frankly pathetic. You are abusing your authority, and I do not know why Porfiry allows you to retain your position. Were our objections moronic, you would not have responded to them. Also, in their stupidity, they could have stood as a representation of our ineptness, no? You deleted the posts because they showed your original to be moronic. You are abusing your authority and such, you should resign.
This comment was referring also to the previous comment. An influence that suddenly appears but always has been there by removing another influence is hardly a 'paradox'. Do you get it now?
I wrote of course an extremely bad sentence. But i don't care. edit: na ja, delete or ignore all this crap. I am not interested in this amateur philosophy.
This is more sociology. But philosophy includes all disciplines. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"This is more sociology. " lol. The most laconic post I've ever seen from you, and one of the more truthful-- with one modification. The comment should've been: this is more like bad sociology.
Xev, It's been a while since I've existed intellectually - hence functioned - within the context of academic freedom proper. I now exist intellectually - hence function - in the context of reality proper. Quite the dichotomous struggle to reconcile...... Anyhow.... I think I get what it is you're saying. The "feminist" struggle for "equal" recognition, within the context of "societal norms", is doomed at the outset because of the context. Am I anywhere near your train of thought??? If not, disregard the following. I think your proposition minimizes the effectiveness, and power, of individuality by emphasizing the influence of external factors on the individual via method that intellectually challenges the worth of those external factors. It appears to me you are discrediting the very basis of your argument by disproving its logical worth.
Is it possible for you to illustrate the above with an example? There have always been strong, assertive, determined women who seemed to defy social and cultural mores in the interest of their own self-development and actualization. They didn't need feminist ideology because they harboured the necessary qualities to use or gain power, even if is just power over their individual life). They are few for sure, but aren't such personalities always in the minority? I see modern feminism as becoming increasingly irrelevent. What need is there for feminism when women have the choice to marry or not, bear children or not, explore their sexuality and achieve their own ambitions? Feminism was a goal of practical rights to opportunity and privilege, once these have been gained the ideology itself has no more use except to hold on to those rights. Once those rights are available to all it is only the individual who can take advantage of them. I hear women complaining about the failure of feminism to revolutionize men ie: Many work all day and have to come home and care for children, house and husband (more work). There are those who would love to stay home and care for children but cannot afford to because the economy demands a family have two incomes to live comfortably. I know of some who complain that men still leave them with the responsibility of children because its they are their problem. In short many have decided that they cannot do it all and feminism made them believe all was possible ie: get an education, climb the ladder of success. Gain success. Discover at thirty that they want a husband, make the mad dash to secure long-term mate. Now biological clock kicks in and they begin to notice how cute babies are, makes appointment at fertility clinic due to pre-menopause. Being free means increased responsibility. It means making choices and there are so many choices for women, especially as you pointed out that family expectations plays an increasingly smaller role in shaping decisions. How can a woman be an individual if the media spoon-feeds her her needs (as it does to everyone)? She has to be strong enough to withstand the demands placed on her by society but a woman who knows who she is (self-defined) and what she is after in life is never daunted by the massess. One can see the same dynamic with minorities who after having earned their civil rights realize that only through individual discipline and determination can any goal be reached. They too had members who reached levels of distinction when overwhelming obstacles were in their way. The revolution of the mind, principles adhered to, fortitude of character isn't something that can happen within an ideological box it can only happen within the individual.
I'm not a feminist, I hate women, they make more humans and I hate humans. Men suck too but they at least design weapons best efficiant at killing humans, plus they look and smell nice so I semi-tolerate them. Actually, kill them all too. fireguy: I've completely forgotten my train of thought. But that sounds like a good statement - the feminist movement (or any other social movement) just suceeds in modifying social norms. I'm not even arguing, really. Lucysnow: Why would you want to revolutionize men? Unless in the sense of a return to things as they were in say, pagan Scythia or Scandinavia. Precisely.
I think feminists are fucking lesbian trolls or those meek little ivory tower cretins. Women have it pretty hard in the third world, what with having their clits butchered and everything, but its not really that great for the men anyway, so lets just say that the third world is a shithole and it has nothing to do with gender. In the west if you have nothing better to lament than the 10% pay disparity between the genders youre really a fucking tool of the most profound kind. The "domestication" of women was bunk from bored bitches to begin with. Apparently they felt a little oppressed by the "expectations" that women confine themselves to the domestic sphere...wow gee..that I makes a whole lot of sense now doesn't it because man have NEVER had ANY expectations levelled at them. I suppose having to work 40 hour weeks and go to war and get your balls blown off is just one of those benefits the poor house wives having to sit at home and clean the house in between daytime soap operas were never privy too. Feminists Rullzzz rock.
Quote: Why would you want to revolutionize men? Unless in the sense of a return to things as they were in say, pagan Scythia or Scandinavia. Well I did not say I wanted to revolutionize men I wrote something to the effect of "I hear women saying that feminisim failed to revolutionize men". Revolutionizing men is only relevent if a woman feels burdened with the expansion of her role. If a woman does not have a mate who takes on half of the responsibilities of managing home and children, or if she feels besotted by sexual innuendo at work, double standards and the rest of it, it's because feminism was a single gender revolution to the exclusion of men, some feminists even attempt to 'de-masculanize' the male (like andrea fat-fuck dworkin). Not that feminism didn't change culture or society or roles, but that men do not see women's issues as necessarily being there own.
