Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 9, 2010 22:19:51 GMT -5
What I find interesting is that the opinions that rate me 100% feminist are exactly those that have modern feminists apoplectic with rage. I see that as vindication that what calls itself feminism since 1980 or so is no more than the conservative backlash against the threat to values even feminists call patriarchal that they seek to inflict on women the same as traditionally on men. Instead, it is men who need liberation from wage-servitude to equality with women just as much as allowing women to participate in traditional men's activities. Original feminism wanted to make those activities as accountable to people having a life beyond their chosen career, (more often job forced upon them), and home-maker a career as good and equal to any other. Modern feminists react with horror at such ideas giving equal value to women's traditional activities for men to share equally.
As far as I am concerned, a feminist is a woman who believes that any other woman who does not feel herself inferior to a man and want to be part of The Patriarchy is an inferior slut grovelling to men as her superiors. The only women who still believe in macho superiority call themselves feminists.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 10, 2010 10:30:14 GMT -5
Took this testYou Are 90% Feminist You are a total feminist. This doesn't mean you're a man hater (in fact, you may be a man). You just think that men and women should be treated equally. It's a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 11:06:01 GMT -5
in fact, you may be a man Aha. I knew it.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 10, 2010 12:22:18 GMT -5
in fact, you may be a man Aha. I knew it. Well, you didn't take the test, and I imagine you might be too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 17:33:36 GMT -5
Are you quite sure about that, Lynne? I have always had my doubts about Joseph on MANY different levels!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 17:41:09 GMT -5
This is the result that I got. I find it almost as hard to believe as the one which Erasmus achieved!
You think "feminists" are just a bunch of radical liberal lesbians that hate all men. You are threatened of the idea of a woman in power and believe that a woman's role should be that which society has established for her. You believe that because women are weaker physically they are inferior mentally as well. You think that women have it fine in today's world and maybe even better than they should. Unfortunately not only are you under educated, but you are also severely uninformed. Contrary to your beliefs a true feminist is not someone who wishes for the destruction of men but actually is concerend only for the betterment of women in her society. A feminist is someone who is sick of the confining roles of society that belittle her every day because she is a woman. She is a woman who is angered that men are chosen for leadership positions not because they are better qualified but because woman might have a baby and employers can't handle that. She hates that she has to choose between being a mother or her work because it is always her and not the father who has to take leave to take care of the child. You need to become more aware not for anyone but yourself. You are being held back by society's constrictions You are a full blooded feminist! There is a strong feminist inside you! Let it out!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 22:20:16 GMT -5
you didn't take the test, and I imagine you might be too The first one was strictly for females only. I'm not sure it's appropriate in that circumstance, either. The second one was stupid but I took it anyway. I answered not sure, because I object to the word should in that statement. Some women handle being economically and socially dependent just fine. Who am I to tell them to live their lives differently? I'm neutral on that too (i.e. "not sure"). The statement is an absolute -- it is always wrong for a man (any man) to be given preference in hiring. Oh yeah? Says who? Not sure on that one too. Why should there be sexual standards at all? Why judge someone based on his/her sexual behavior, particularly if that person is honest and responsible? Again, I object to the word should in the above statement. A woman should? Says who? Why? Again, that should be up to people who date -- gay, straight, polyamorous, whatever. OK, I strongly agree with that. That's just common sense. No, I can't go along with that. I believe in gay marriage but not everyone, gay or straight, ought to marry, nor should everyone have a child simply because s/he wants one. Men should have that right, too. Do they? What's the point of the question? Is anyone in this country truly held back? Actually, no, I don't agree with that. College students are disproportionately female already. It's men that need the encouragement. i"m not sure about that either. Women -- and young girls -- have had legal, easy access to birth control for decades. Are their lives vastly improved? Are the choices women make now better than when character counted? Depends on the woman. I agree with Meg Whitman on some things, but I would vote for a sea cucumber for president instead of that "woman," for lack of a better word. I'm not convinced she's even human. I think she's a reptilian space alien underneath. Based on my answers, I got... The creator of the survey is no feminist, either.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 10, 2010 23:05:17 GMT -5
I want the equality to be free to be her. Sexual equality will exist when men and women stop despising her image and women respect men for being it. That is what sexual equality means, not women making themselves 'female eunuchs' to fit in with a Man's World of eunuchs that doesn't need to account for human interruptions in machine subservience like pregnancy. A woman I respect is one who says that image is equal to any man and expects her man to match her in tht image - it is not a feminist despising everything she imagines feminine even more than male chauvinists do. The women I respect and admire is the one who respects and admires me for respecting and admiring and striving to be that woman.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 10, 2010 23:51:52 GMT -5
Depends on the woman. I agree with Meg Whitman on some things, but I would vote for a sea cucumber for president instead of that "woman," for lack of a better word. Um. I think it's women who are supposed to (sometimes) prefer cucumbers
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 11, 2010 0:01:05 GMT -5
I want the equality to be free to be her. Sexual equality will exist when men and women stop despising her image and women respect men for being it. That is what sexual equality means, not women making themselves 'female eunuchs' to fit in with a Man's World of eunuchs that doesn't need to account for human interruptions in machine subservience like pregnancy. A woman I respect is one who says that image is equal to any man and expects her man to match her in tht image - it is not a feminist despising everything she imagines feminine even more than male chauvinists do. The women I respect and admire is the one who respects and admires me for respecting and admiring and striving to be that woman. You're exactly right, I think. I loved (really loved) being a stay-at-home mom, and we did without some frills for me to do so, but it definitely wasn't a hardship. It never bothered me that many other women preferred another role. But, it sure bothered a lot of women that I made a 'traditional' choice. Funny, it didn't seem to bother men much one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jun 11, 2010 12:34:01 GMT -5
Shut up Lynn.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 11, 2010 22:23:16 GMT -5
I don't think that men should be the modern feminist's (and I have no objection to feminists 1965-80 since I was involved with them) parody of the little housewife - but then I've never known any women who were that except after feminism told them that's how a housewife was supposed to be. What I see happening is that men were taught to value themselves as wage-earners in rotten jobs they would not have done otherwise had they had any choice. Women did not get denied equality to do those jobs - they fought for most of the 19th century to get out of them!
Only the middle and upper classes could really afford not to work, and that applied just as much to the men. Why did anybody employ servants or slaves at all if doing the work themself was preferable? Things have to be done, but the ideal would be that everybody does what they like regardless of financial reward and feels in control of their own home life, not subject to demands they dare not put their own preferences aside for and get the sack. I had a real eye-opener reading Trotsky, and that is his interpretation of From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs - they decide what their ability and needs might be. Isn't it the truth that people who hate their job will work like ants at something they really enjoy?
OK, it will be a long time before we have robots capable of taking all the chores off our hands. But we could distribute them. We could conscript for socially useful work just as some countries conscript to their military, maybe on the Swiss pattern where a few weeks are set aside for public service every year.
What I see with what calls itself feminism today is an unholy mixture of eliminating all the personal priorities over corporate demand that women hung on to after men had been reduced to wage-slavery, and since effective contraception and widespread abortion, women have no 'excuse' for not being identical to men. Ironic that Female Eunuch was the great feminist tract and the whole direction of modern feminism is about women suppressing their reproductivity in order to work like men - that is, to make 'eunuchs' of themselves as much as any Imperial Chinese Mandarin wanting to get on in his world.
The other part of that mixture is spoilt little girlies brought up to expect Daddy and then boys to run after them just because they are girls, and then hitting a real world that treats them equally with men and expects them to do something to justify their rewards, whether at work or in the kitchen. Quel horreur that men are not kowtowing to them just because they were born to sit on privilege! It must be all a nasty plot of those wicked Patriarchs!
We seem to be going backwards in that as the need for mass employment declines and we suffer from over-production and lack of provision for actual necessities, so education is seen far more as training to get a job than as developing personal independence and ability to take an active interest in life irrespective of job. I see it all crashing down around our ears just as the USSR did based on the same principles that we must live to work, not work to live.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 15:09:59 GMT -5
Once more, Erasmus, your definition of feminism is so clearly subjective and skewed that you are simply setting up an Aunt Sally in order to knock it down again.
I do NOT consider myself a feminist (though I certainly don't think I'm a misogynist or male chauvinist either!) but:
1 Surely it's agreed by people of ALL persuasions that equal pay for equal work is no more than simple natural justice?
2 Surely most of us agree that women should have as wide a choice of opportunities for working as man.
3 I'm sure most of us agree that men are just as capable of raising children as women.
If agreeing with those options makes me a feminist in your book, so be it.
I do NOT support affirmative action programmes, positive discrimination, patently sexist laws such as the presumption of maternal custody rather than joint custody, the war on fathers in the name of alimony, the proliferation of false allegations of rape and domestic violence, and the general misandry that masquerades as feminism but is actually female chauvinism.
I oppose ALL forms of discrimination - positive or negative - and despise female and male chauvinist attitudes equally.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 13, 2010 19:16:03 GMT -5
Of course my definition of feminism is subjective. It is my understanding, so by definition subjective! That is no excuse to run away from meeting the points I raise. As far as I'm concerned, feminism was part of a social liberation that posed a serious threat to the commercial Establishment by placing 'feminine' values of human relationship and personal life equal (and often above) 'masculine' of economic commitment, for men as much as for women. So the commercial Establishment took it over and made it their tool to erase those values from women as much as from men.
I always did call myself a feminist until I came into conflict with post-80s feminists on BBC boards and then those spun off from them like this who support everything that feminists as I understood them used to oppose. They don't want to replace what they persist in calling The Patriarchy with a human-orientated society of both sexes geared to providing for social need and responsive to what women have traditionally done at all. They want to be part of it and to reduce women to mere economic units like men.
All these things you (Mike) cite
I would say have no more to do with feminism than votes for women: that's all past history that every normal person has taken for granted as the way we live today for at least 30 years. As you say, Everybody takes all this as just normality - well, nearly everybody! Feminists are about the only people left who do not believe that is the situation and fiddle statistics to try and present women as invariably the weaker victim sex.
To identify yourself with a group name at all is to distinguish yourself from the rest of society. So for a start, when the only real difference between the sexes is that women retain much more personal freedom of expression and still expect more courteous treatment than men (both ultimately social trivia) to identify oneself as feminist is to deny this is the case, to separate oneself out as disagreeing with the common social consensus. Those who agree with it don't give themselves a distinctive name. It would be like forming an anti-slavery or religious tolerance group demanding abolition of slavery or freedom of worship for non-Christians with people staring at you wondering where you've been for the last 150 years. I see feminists the same.
In my case it's more than that because the whole concept of subordination to work for others for pay was the lowest of the low and people would rather work for nothing for a relative on the understanding that when their crops fell due, the relative would work for them, than lower themself to the status of wage-dependence. Even those who did work for others did so as independent sub-contractors, not as the employees that feminists seek to reduce women to instead of liberating men from to equality with women. "Get an education, so you won't have to work" my grandmother (a day teacher at Haut de la Garenne boys' orphanage during the 1920s - and there were some horror tales there!) told me. Not true any more: men don't have that freedom in an industrialized culture and while women gained it towards the end of the 19th century, feminists are determined to deprive them of it so they can be like the men feminists glorify instead of allowing men equality with women.
Where feminists are more of a problem is their insistence on the inferior value of all things traditionally feminine compared to all things masculine (again the absolute reverse of their predecessors) and demand that whatever men do, women must do too without the slightest question of whether anybody should be doing it at all. The kind of feminists I believe in picketed Greenham Common air base to close it down: today's are more likely to be picketing for more women among the fighter pilots and top brass!
Instead of trying to support young women who perhaps are ill-educated enough to feel that they only thing they can do to achieve a sense of fulfillment, feminists are only interested in preventing them from having any children so they can spend their days behind a till if they are lucky. They complain that girls do not follow the same educational path as boys and assume always that this is because of some pressure n the girls, never that maybe they are doing what they like and maybe too, many of the boys are going into scientific subjects because they are the ones under pressure.
Perhaps girls are more practical: education is increasingly presented as little more than training for a 'good' - ie high-paid high-status - job; well that isn't sciences, technology, mathematics and engineering is it? It is media, advertizing, 'business', management, law and above all finance, all fields where if girls really are better communicators and less narrowly devoted to one subject, they should expect to do better than boys.
A Feminist, as far as I am concerned, is a woman who believes women can only related to men as an inferior, who thinks of women who are sexually active with men as men's playthings (Tools of the Patriarchy) with no sense, will or mind of their own, who believes that all traditionally feminine activities are degrading and all masculine superior, whose aggressive Femininazi stance towards men and contempt from women who do not feel inferior to men actually belies her absolute terror of men she fantasizes as great hulking brutes women are simply too inferior to relate to as equal, especially sexually. It's not unsurprizing that real Nazi propaganda ultimately shows far more terror of Jews, homosexuals and Communists than simple hatred).
The Feminist sees traditional ideals of masculinity as superior without question and women inferior unless they adapt them. The thought that men might learn anything from women or benefit from being less 'masculine' is anathema to her: I've had enough run-ins with You-know-who on that score! One of her more pompous (but at least also more honest) retinue once told me that Patriarchy is "Holding men and their activities as the social ideal and standard". As far as I am concerned, that defines Feminism.
I do not like industrial culture, I believe that traditionally feminine values of personal relationships, self-expression, valuing yourself for the person you are, not for the job you do for the profit of others, and the ideal of working at what you want to do for the satisfaction of doing it, not for the money, are what really matter. I know from experience of arguing this with self-styled feminists that this is what they hate the most. Feminists want women to stop having personal commitment and valuing themselves for anything except what they are paid to do and pay to own just like the impersonal unfeeling economic units traditionally demanded of men. I want men to return to personal commitment and valuing themselves as individuals like women.
Only feminists constantly define women as social inferiors to 'dominating' men. Most women find that an offensive put-down and are busier trying to fight this traditional sexism renamed feminism to make the social structure aware that raising a family is a woman's right and even if men can't actually give birth, they still have children and families and it's about time that the workplace and society learnt the sexual equality that would make them family friendly and feminized. These are the 'real' women, not the feministess in their little Lesbian huddle under the table the moment a man looks at them. Feminism is Male Chauvinism for Girlies afraid to be Women expected to treat men as equals. It is the opposition to men's equality with women and women's acceptance of their equality with men, a blast from the past imagining some ghastly 1950s culture that only ever existed in the worst American advertizing.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 14, 2010 4:38:24 GMT -5
all a load of wordy nonsense....women are women and men are men and both are human viva la difference...respect for the qualities each man or woman can bring and a respect for the differences each woman or man can bring and the world would be a happier place for us all with out analising and angst....
|
|