User Tag List

First 1666106114115116117118126 Last

Results 1,151 to 1,160 of 1614

  1. #1151
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I can't really respond to the rest of your post. I'm not a member of NOW or any other "official" feminist group.
    But that's exactly the problem I keep pointing at - they take actions, the feminists who agree with you don't.
    As long as that remains the case, what you say "As a feminist" has very little bearing on what feminism means in practice.

    BTW, some have tried. I brought up earlier the criticism of Wendy McElroy (Individualist feminist), she's a bit of a hero of mine, and if her style of feminism would have been the one that grew in power & petitions governments, we'd be having a very different discussion. It didn't.

    You've lost your movement, and for you to defend it from criticism in it's current form "As a feminist", you might as well defend the republican party from criticism and call yourself a republican for believing in what it meant in the time of Lincoln.

  2. #1152
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    But that's exactly the problem I keep pointing at - they take actions, the feminists who agree with you don't.
    As long as that remains the case, what you say "As a feminist" has very little bearing on what feminism means in practice.

    BTW, some have tried. I brought up earlier the criticism of Wendy McElroy (Individualist feminist), she's a bit of a hero of mine, and if her style of feminism would have been the one that grew in power & petitions governments, we'd be having a very different discussion. It didn't.

    You've lost your movement, and for you to defend it from criticism in it's current form "As a feminist", you might as well defend the republican party from criticism and call yourself a republican for believing in what it meant in the time of Lincoln.
    I would agree with this in large part. As a corollary, I think that the MRA side is just as wacked out. Activists don't exactly have the same agenda as those who aren't politically active. Worse, in discussions like this one, you have these ideological types (I want to spell it "IDIO-logical"!) whose arguments make their case so very poorly, that most reasonable people will not listen. When I listen, I hear their pain, but their pain is so loud in their own heads, they don't hear what I'm saying that might alleviate it.

    I'm not saying that such people shouldn't speak up, but rather that there is a selection effect: when a point of view is unpopular, you have to REALLY believe in it in order to speak up about it. The problem is that the selection effect breeds incoherence, as strong emotion drives their advocacy.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes Mane, captain curmudgeon liked this post

  3. #1153
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Yes. His wife also went back to work after staying home for a few years, like I did, and because she worked he was able to leave a higher-paying private sector job for a less high-paying but otherwise pretty cushy county job that affords him lots of time off to take care of his kids. It's a good thing, since he needs to do all of the parenting tasks himself since his wife and the mother of his children died two years ago, when the kids were 15 and 12. So I guess you could say he's still oppressed, but now it's by grief and circumstance, not gender roles.
    My father had a similar circumstance, first as a boy when his mother spent years undergoing cancer treatments, and later when his wife suffered a stroke. The flip side of every adult being able to support themelves and their family financially is that everyone should be able to perform the tasks necessary to run a household and raise kids, at least if they want kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I can't really respond to the rest of your post. I'm not a member of NOW or any other "official" feminist group. I don't claim NOW or any other organization speaks for me.
    The closest thing I belong to is the League of Women Voters, which campaigns for responsible government and civic engagement for all citizens. I didn't even recognize the name of the NOW president you referenced. It's not that I don't take an interest in gender bias on a national or policy level: quite the opposite. It's just that I find I cannot impact that nearly as much as I can impact things in my own backyard, so that is where I focus, on how I live my life, personal and professional, and how I interact with others.

    As for your shirts and slogans, they are just symptoms, not the real problem. The real problem is the entire mindset that sees those things as OK, where the Black, Jewish, or Gay versions would be instinctively viewed as not OK (unless the person was a racist, etc.) As I alluded to previously, we cannot legislate changes in attitudes. These come about more slowly, one person at a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Can you understand why it comes across as nothing but decades of empty lip service? Can you understand how - judging the movement by the history of it's member's actions in the real world rather then the academic dictionary definition they so rarely care to be consistent with - feminism comes across as nothing but one gender's interest group?
    So by this measure the NAACP is just one race's interest group, and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League just one religion's interest group, and GLAAD just one sexual orientation's interest group? Do you see no benefit and no legitimacy in groups that focus on the needs and circumstances of one segment of society, even if many of those needs are fundamental human needs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Isn't it fair to judge communism not merely by it's Utopian ideal but by the reality we've seen of what really happens when revolutionary governments take hold of a nation's entire means of production to be redistributed at an undeclared date that will never materialize?
    Bad example. We can certainly judge societies like the USSR, China, and North Korea for what really happens, but since true communism was not realized in these societies, we cannot judge it by looking at them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Martin Luther King have judged America for it's constitution and the rights it claims to give people, or by the reality of how selective it was for which of it's citizens it deemed to be people?
    Actually, he did both. He expected America to live up to its constitution, and faulted it where it did not. The ideals in the constitution, however, provided powerful ammunition.


    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Part of the value of having a family is that you have people who are committed to each other (not just the man and wife, but parents to children, and so on), that you can rely on. In some cases, that you can rely on even if they don't really like you that much.
    A small point: do you ever write "woman and husband"?

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Because feminists usually shame women for choosing to stay at home and take care of the kids and I don't think a man working while a female staying at home is a problem if that's their choice.
    Do you think a woman workoing while the man stays at home is a problem, if that's their choice?

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Ok so you've compromised your individual roles. Also I do infect think that most feminists are against a women's choice to stay at home and take care of children, the women I know who do this are constantly shamed by feminists.
    The only women (and men) I find deserving of shame are the ones who don't even think about what they are doing; who stay home, or go out to work, just because that is what others expect, what they were raised to do, what their mothers/fathers/grandmothers/grandfathers have done for generations. Unfortunately many people of both genders fall into this category. They miss out on the greater financial gain or personal fulfillment they could have if only they could see outside these blinders, and be more flexible in what options they are willing to consider.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    But that's exactly the problem I keep pointing at - they take actions, the feminists who agree with you don't.
    Not at all. We just take different actions, more immediately, every day. But the newspapers don't report our accomplishments, and our failures are just vented to friends. We need both kinds of actions. To go back to my example of fathers at my workplace taking family leave: we need the top-down changes in policy that lead employers to make those options available. We also need the everyday example and encouragement to get more men to take advantage of them.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #1154
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    So by this measure the NAACP is just one race's interest group, and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League just one religion's interest group, and GLAAD just one sexual orientation's interest group? Do you see no benefit and no legitimacy in groups that focus on the needs and circumstances of one segment of society, even if many of those needs are fundamental human needs?
    If one of those groups functioned as an interest group for all intent and purposes while in the same time kept systematically insisting that they are about equality for all groups within a narrative where only their group faces oppression by an imaginary evil collective of all but themselves so that any other group fighting for privileges that the they have already obtained or simply maintained and any criticism to how functioning in their group's interest might have infringed upon the rights of other groups is a stance against equality in general and a sign of a deep seeded mentality ill hate... Yes, I'd have a problem with that.

    Those groups admit they are interest groups. You - not the general "you feminists" but specifically you Coriolis - did too. and I was grateful for that, it's why we were then able to continue in an actual honest discussion, in the middle of a thread that had very little of those, in a topic full of devoted communities with almost none of those. As far as my own experiences go, out of what is probably a few hundreds, you are the 2nd self declared feminist that has ever gone that far, and the 1st that has done so on her own initiative and with acceptance as fact (The previous attempt briefly entertained the notion but shortly after went back on it and continued with the narrative above).

    It was a refreshing level of honesty. I'd prefer it if it wasn't so rare.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Actually, he did both. He expected America to live up to its constitution, and faulted it where it did not. The ideals in the constitution, however, provided powerful ammunition.
    Would he have been able too if every criticism he gave was answered with arguments that if he's saying something against how america lives up to it is a stance against the constitution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Bad example. We can certainly judge societies like the USSR, China, and North Korea for what really happens, but since true communism was not realized in these societies, we cannot judge it by looking at them.
    But that's just it, they do show us that militant uprising taking over a nation's means of productions turn out to have a very hard time giving them up for redistribution, which was a pretty fundamental flaw in the Marxist vision about obtaining the Marxist utopia to began with. The problem of Marx's vision of communism is it's inability to end in true communism. The sort people who are good at leading violent revolutions and the sort of people who might be inclined to actually redistribute the spoils after turn out to not really be the same kind of people (Not to mention the internal politics of revolutions require a lot of alliances and promises to people of interest that are going to want more then an equal share).

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Not at all. We just take different actions, more immediately, every day. But the newspapers don't report our accomplishments, and our failures are just vented to friends. We need both kinds of actions. To go back to my example of fathers at my workplace taking family leave: we need the top-down changes in policy that lead employers to make those options available. We also need the everyday example and encouragement to get more men to take advantage of them.
    What you do as an individual in your private life isn't a reflection of a movement, it's a reflection of your personal values, and the degree that they are inspired and consistent with a movement's premise is not a reflection on the movement's consistency and ability to live up to it's premise as a whole.
    Last edited by Mane; 05-01-2015 at 12:24 PM.

  5. #1155
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    A small point: do you ever write "woman and husband"?
    Do you? And do you never write "man and wife"? Never ever?



    I don't ever write "spouse and spouse" either, and that's probably going to be required pretty soon, what with gay marriage becoming prevalent. I'll probably use whatever turn of phrase others come up for that and find acceptable, when it gets to that point.

    When I was much younger, I tried to keep my language very technically proper, to the point that people thought I spoke strangely. I'd never end a sentence with a preposition, followed all the rules of style and grammar even in my spoken speech. These days, I use common turns of phrase, even if technically incorrect, ending sentences with prepositions, using words like "ain't" and so on. I find that it generally makes my speech clearer to others and facilitates communication, because language isn't logical or logically parsed, so much as full of expressions and idioms that evoke images and ideas in the minds of others.

    Only in the context of a thread like this would your "small point" of questioning the use of a common turn of phrase even come up as a potential topic. You bring it up not to clarify anything, but to be deliberately provocative over nothing. That's a recipe to shut down communication.

    You probably thought you were making a point. No, you weren't. You were trying to score a point. Like all the rest of the provocative nonsense that arises in these kinds of threads, it's a signal to everyone else that while you might be interested in debate, you aren't interested in listening.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SD45T-2 liked this post

  6. #1156
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Do you think a woman workoing while the man stays at home is a problem, if that's their choice?
    Nope not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The only women (and men) I find deserving of shame are the ones who don't even think about what they are doing; who stay home, or go out to work, just because that is what others expect, what they were raised to do, what their mothers/fathers/grandmothers/grandfathers have done for generations. Unfortunately many people of both genders fall into this category. They miss out on the greater financial gain or personal fulfillment they could have if only they could see outside these blinders, and be more flexible in what options they are willing to consider.
    So who are you to judge them as people who live their lives according to what others expect of them? I don't think these people do not "think" about what they are doing, I think they are adults who are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves. For someone like you shame them based on this is wrong you no right to push your ideologies onto other people.

  7. #1157
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Do you? And do you never write "man and wife"? Never ever?

    I don't ever write "spouse and spouse" either, and that's probably going to be required pretty soon, what with gay marriage becoming prevalent. I'll probably use whatever turn of phrase others come up for that and find acceptable, when it gets to that point.

    When I was much younger, I tried to keep my language very technically proper, to the point that people thought I spoke strangely. I'd never end a sentence with a preposition, followed all the rules of style and grammar even in my spoken speech. These days, I use common turns of phrase, even if technically incorrect, ending sentences with prepositions, using words like "ain't" and so on. I find that it generally makes my speech clearer to others and facilitates communication, because language isn't logical or logically parsed, so much as full of expressions and idioms that evoke images and ideas in the minds of others.

    Only in the context of a thread like this would your "small point" of questioning the use of a common turn of phrase even come up as a potential topic. You bring it up not to clarify anything, but to be deliberately provocative over nothing. That's a recipe to shut down communication.

    You probably thought you were making a point. No, you weren't. You were trying to score a point. Like all the rest of the provocative nonsense that arises in these kinds of threads, it's a signal to everyone else that while you might be interested in debate, you aren't interested in listening.
    The point I was making is that these figures of speech come from very real attitudes and even laws regarding gender roles and expectations. The point is not to criticise a speaker (i.e. you) for using the phrase, but rather to get people to consider what its origin is, and why. We hear this phrase often at the end of certain forms of the Christian wedding ceremony: "I now pronounce you man and wife." The man was a man before the wedding, but the woman was not yet a wife. Implicit in this is that the man's status doesn't really change as a result of the marriage, but the woman's does. Of course historically, the man has now taken on the responsibility for the wife, but legally (as others have already mentioned), her legal status was now subsumed in that of her husband. Hopefully we don't think that way now, and our laws are not structured that way. I point it out to show how pervasive that perspective is, that it colors commonplace expressions like "man and wife', to which many people don't give a second thought.

    And no: I never write/say "man and wife". I will say "husband and wife" if the focus is on their status as a married couple, or "man and woman" otherwise.

    I am told that the common expression in Hebrew is "woman and husband". How this reflects Jewish marriage customs or other cultural aspects I cannot say, not being Jewish and not knowing much about that religion and culture, but it would be interesting to learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    If one of those groups functioned as an interest group for all intent and purposes while in the same time kept systematically insisting that they are about equality for all groups within a narrative where only their group faces oppression by an imaginary evil collective of all but themselves so that any other group fighting for privileges that the they have already obtained or simply maintained and any criticism to how functioning in their group's interest might have infringed upon the rights of other groups is a stance against equality in general and a sign of a deep seeded mentality ill hate... Yes, I'd, have a problem with that.
    I have heard individuals from all sorts of interest groups speak in the manner you describe, but know of none (including feminists) where that is a mainstream perspective of groups successfully working for practical change. The main criticism I hear is not that one interest group denies the reality of oppression experienced by members of other interest groups, but rather that the first interest group does not work hard enough to promote rights or benefits of those other groups. I agree with this to the extent that the groups should support each other, and there will be cases where direct collaboration and joint effort will bring better results than either group working alone. We have seen this when Jewish groups speak out against hate directed at Muslims in their community. The commonalities we see between women's rights and (egalitarian) men's rights groups seem ideally suited for this sort of collaboration. That being said, I don't see a problem with each group focusing mainly on its own members. This allows them to make most effective use of their resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Would he have been able too if every criticism he gave was answered with arguments that if he's saying something against how america lives up to it is a stance against the constitution?
    Then it would have been easy for him to expose them as hypocrites (which he may very well have done). It should be obvious, though, that reasonable arguments on any grounds were not sufficient to obtain the changes King wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    But that's just it, they do show us that militant uprising taking over a nation's means of productions turn out to have a very hard time giving them up for redistribution, which was a pretty fundamental flaw in the Marxist vision about obtaining the Marxist utopia to began with. The problem of Marx's vision of communism is it's inability to end in true communism. The sort people who are good at leading violent revolutions and the sort of people who might be inclined to actually redistribute the spoils after turn out to not really be the same kind of people (Not to mention the internal politics of revolutions require a lot of alliances and promises to people of interest that are going to want more then an equal share).
    The only legitimate criticism of true communism one can take from this is that it is impossible to realize in practice, due to factors like what you mention. Your criticisms thus rightly apply to any forcible redistribution of land/resources, whether done in an attempt to establish communism, or within the context of another political system like socialism, fascism, or even monarchy. It is a criticism of methods, not ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    What you do as an individual in your private life isn't a reflection of a movement, it's a reflection of your personal values, and the degree that they are inspired and consistent with a movement's premise is not a reflection on the movement's consistency and ability to live up to it's premise as a whole.
    You don't need a national organization with lobbyists, like NAACP or NOW, to be a movement. When more and more people start doing something in their private lives, especially if they do it in small groups, encouraged by friends and neighbors, it becomes a movement. The underground railroad did not spring up through the actions of a national group, but rather because individuals opposed to slavery decided to put their personal values into practice by helping slaves escape. The contemporary homeschool movement has a significant local/individual component as well. As I mentioned, we need both sides: the broad, organized group working for legal and policy change, and the decentralized networks of individuals, promoting change one person at a time through their example and encouragement. Sometimes these will overlap, but not always.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Nope not at all.
    This is the bottom line, and all I think any resonable person would expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    So who are you to judge them as people who live their lives according to what others expect of them? I don't think these people do not "think" about what they are doing, I think they are adults who are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves. For someone like you shame them based on this is wrong you no right to push your ideologies onto other people.
    I said nothing about actually shaming anyone for anything. I do judge them: I cannot help but do so, since the one thing I cannot abide is people not thinking for themselves and taking charge of their own lives. I recognize that they have the right to live their own lives, though, however misguided I may find their choices, and do not share my opinions with them unless (1) I am asked, or (2) it is someone very close to me and I feel justified in at least raising the issue.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #1158
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The main criticism I hear is not that one interest group denies the reality of oppression experienced by members of other interest groups, but rather that the first interest group does not work hard enough to promote rights or benefits of those other groups.
    The two are related - it is in creating that narrative and upholding it that they create a political and intellectual environment where the other groups are not allowed to promote or speak for rights or benefits for themselves or reasonably critique the first group as an interest group. It's a destructive level of dishonesty.

    While I am mostly referring to a more large scale and generalized distortion in the political and intellectual spheres, we can actually see that taking place in the most concrete manner possible in the protests against allowing MRA authors to give talks in universities and the petitions against the center for men in Toronto. But ofcourse, not all feminists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I have heard individuals from all sorts of interest groups speak in the manner you describe, but know of none (including feminists) where that is a mainstream perspective of groups successfully working for practical change.
    So we're going back in a circle to the question of whether this is mainstream feminism or radical feminism? Let's ignore that we've seen right here feminists who deny that they are radical & view themselves as mainstream expressing the belief that the position of modern women to men today is that of black slaves to white owners in pre-civil-war america and thus the claim that men might have problems in the current system is as ridicules as suggesting white people suffered as slavers all while insisting that patriarchy theory is the one holy only way to interpret history, and let's ignore that those posts were generally liked by other feminists, and that other feminists kept insisting that there is nothing radical about thinking that way. Maybe that's just an unlikely coincidence of the diversity of people typoC attracts, and maybe feminism is big enough to include entire bubbles of radicals who never get tapped on the shoulder by the mainstream counterparts and told "Hey, this is a little extreme...". Let's say that the accumulation of feminist subreddits and blogs are just such a minority within a much larger population of feminists who simply do not share their radical peer's online footprint. Even if we say all that is true and indeed feminists who'd readily admit it's a gender's-interests-groups are the majority, let's say... 80%. Then we go back to what I've pointed out before: It's the other 20% that has the helm, it's they who are running the large scale political activism, they who are at the academic front of gender studies and feminists literature. This doesn't change the fact your side lost the movement, it would just mean the other side didn't win it democratically, despite frequently employing democratic elections in the selection process within such organizations.

    More importantly, it seems to me that there is a symbiosis between the two. Knowingly or not, in every discussion like this I've seen, the few moderates act as cannon fodder to deflect criticism from the activist. Much like "Not all men", "Not all feminists" serves as a constant red herring to deflect away the criticism against the feminists who are like that and gear their political activism accordingly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    You don't need a national organization with lobbyists, like NAACP or NOW, to be a movement. When more and more people start doing something in their private lives, especially if they do it in small groups, encouraged by friends and neighbors, it becomes a movement. The underground railroad did not spring up through the actions of a national group, but rather because individuals opposed to slavery decided to put their personal values into practice by helping slaves escape. The contemporary homeschool movement has a significant local/individual component as well. As I mentioned, we need both sides: the broad, organized group working for legal and policy change, and the decentralized networks of individuals, promoting change one person at a time through their example and encouragement. Sometimes these will overlap, but not always.
    I agree with that, but what I don't agree with is using how you impact the few dozens of people in yours arms-reach "As a feminist" to invalidate and deflect from the reality of how they impact the few million people within their arms-reach "As feminists".

  9. #1159
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    So by this measure the NAACP is just one race's interest group, and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League just one religion's interest group, and GLAAD just one sexual orientation's interest group? Do you see no benefit and no legitimacy in groups that focus on the needs and circumstances of one segment of society, even if many of those needs are fundamental human needs?
    I get tired of feminists comparing the plight of women to the plight of certain ethnic groups. There has never been a Female-only ghetto. There has never been a Female-only holocaust. There has never been Female-only slavery. Why? Because human societies are not organized that way. They are not divided along gender lines. Humans are a tribal species and tribes have always included both females and males.

    We're constantly fed propaganda about how women were oppressed for millennia before the birth of feminism, and I accepted that at face value for most of my life. But as I've examined my beliefs as I've aged, this is one that struck me as intellectually unsatisfying. It doesn't make any sense in the context of evolution. Any society that oppressed women in favor of men, as the unfalsifiable Patriarchy hypothesis asserts was rampant throughout human history, would be at a disadvantage when encountering a society that oppressed women to a lesser extent or did not oppress women at all. The less oppressive society would have been more productive. Over the course of thousands of years, this would have exerted a selective pressure against oppressing one gender in favor of the other. By no means am I saying this would have been the only selective pressure. Disease and climate still would have been more powerful factors, but in cases where the impacts of disease and climate were roughly equal between societies, the less oppressive societies would have had an advantage in at least this one respect. In my opinion, the Patriarchy hypothesis contradicts evolution.

    What I believe actually happened is that both genders have always had privileges and obligations, and societies worked to balance those privileges and obligations. Where the gender balance was struck has varied, dependent on the conditions at that time. Gender roles existed, but they didn't unilaterally favor one gender over the other as the Patriarchy hypothesis asserts. I think feminists judge women as oppressed throughout history because they are very ethnocentric and egocentric. They judge using modern standards and their own personal preferences. Men were usually granted more agency (I'm not actually certain it is true, but I don't have a good reason to not accept it), but they were also saddled with more obligations or at least more dangerous ones. The life of a woman from any historical period would seem awful and boring compared to today, so I can understand why few women alive today would want to live in the past. But the same applies to men. Life was more difficult for everyone in the past, regardless of gender. Believers in the unfalsifiable Patriarchy hypothesis dismiss this with a wave of their hand. The suffering of men, if it has happened at all, is not important and should be dismissed. Hillary Clinton serves as a good illustration of this view:

    Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have every known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.
    Obviously losing your home and becoming a refugee is awful, but isn't dying worse? Keep in mind, throughout most of history men usually didn't have a choice in whether or not to fight. They usually had a choice between certain death (execution/banishment/etc) and possible death (dying in battle). Given those circumstances, how could they not be the primary victims? And that doesn't even include the countless physically and psychologically wounded soldiers. Is a woman who is obligated to care for her war-wounded husband also the primary victim? Does anyone doubt that many men throughout history would have preferred to have the female privilege (Oops, I forgot female privilege does not exist) of not being forced to fight in wars?

    It makes a lot more sense to view the balance between the genders as something fluid throughout history. Using our modern, hyper-individualistic standards to judge the condition of women in the past is flawed. Our society is obsessed with wealth, fame, and power. We have this tendency to judge others on those very Western criteria. "That person wasn't powerful? Then that person couldn't have lived a fulfilling life. That person must have been oppressed." Actually, I don't think it's just flawed in how we judge the past, I think it's flawed in how we judge the present.

    Disclaimer: I'm not 100% certain there has been zero instances of Female-only ghettos, genocide, and slavery. If there have been any, they have been rare, so much more rare than instances of ethnic ghettos, ethnic genocide, and ethnic slavery as to not be comparable. Ethnic ghettos exist all over the world and have centuries, if not longer. Ethnic genocide is the most common type of genocide, though ideological/political genocide made a run at it in the 20th century. Ethnic slavery...can anything (white) women have endured compare to what Africans endured in the Americas for centuries?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."
    Likes Hard liked this post

  10. #1160
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    So we're going back in a circle to the question of whether this is mainstream feminism or radical feminism?
    I view the relationship between radical and moderate feminists the same way I view the relationship between fundamentalist and moderate Christians. Moderates rarely criticize the radicals/fundamentalists, but if you criticize fundamentalism, there's always a moderate around to jump in and say "not all Christians are like that" or something to that effect. This shielding of fundamentalists from criticism by moderates serves to enable fundamentalism. Moderates enable fundamentalism.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."
    Likes Rasofy, Hard liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO