User Tag List

Page 117 of 162 FirstFirst ... 1767107115116117118119127 ... LastLast
Results 1,161 to 1,170 of 1614

Thread: 3rd wave feminism

  1. #1161
    Senior Member Array ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    7,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    I am a man, who will happen to be drinking a Shirley Temple.
    I know. I will toast you with a Boilermaker or some other manly drink.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.
    Likes Qlip, Hard liked this post

  2. #1162
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Lateralus - while I agree with your critique of patriarchy theory, I do think its important to acknowledge a missing connection here:

    This:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    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.
    Suggests more power in determining this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    What I believe actually happened is that both genders have always had privileges and obligations, and societies worked to balance those privileges and obligations.
    The section of society that had the highest degree of agency and impact over their decisions and evolution as a society would also have the biggest impact in determining where the social balance sits and thus who gets more privileges and obligations. Maybe you paid a fair price for the apple I sold you, but if that apple is your only option of food (As is the case with strict social roles), then the farmer had a lot more power in determining that price then you did. An important dynamic that Karen Straughan - who you are quoting verbatim - repeatedly chooses to ignore.

    Now, for a counter point to the above, and I am only saying this in advance because I've seen this discussion unfolds a lot to the point where this is a very relevant reminder, let's remember here that the vast majority of these societies throughout history were not particularly democratic or liberal. In a society were everyone's subjugated to a king or a priesthood or a militant leadership, whether they have the same gender as you or not has very little impact on what that subjugation means for you, and the added biases that emerge from gender get balanced out by the added biases of viewing people of your own gender as competition - it can go against you interests as much as it can benefit them. Subjugation by people who share your genitals does nothing to reduce the effect of subjugation. To be stripped of personal agency was not the monopoly of any gender, but rather, the general state of most civilized human beings (And as for uncivilized human beings, well, they sucked at record keeping).

  3. #1163
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post

    This is the bottom line, and all I think any resonable person would expect.
    At the same time I do think if an entire society followed this model that it would be completely destructive to society due to a women's physical and biological limitations and differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    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.
    So how do you come to the conclusion that these people are not thinking for themselves and taking charge of their own lives?

  4. #1164
    Senior Member Array Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Perhaps I should have said agency outside the home? In any case, I don't think it's very important because I don't believe societies were consciously determining this balance. I think the process was much more organic and democratic (not in the literal sense, more like market democracy) than what you are imagining, having more in common with the spread of an internet meme than a government policy.

    Who is Karen Straughan? Better yet, should I care who Karen Straughan is?

    As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I fully understand it, but I think I agree with the sentiment. One minor point: Pre-industrial governments were incapable of being as intrusive into people's daily lives as modern governments. They could always kill you, but it was virtually impossible to monitor and enforce certain lifestyles. Enforcement on that scale requires a lot of energy, literally, and pre-industrial economies simply couldn't produce enough.
    "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."

  5. #1165
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Pre-industrial governments were incapable of being as intrusive into people's daily lives as modern governments. They could always kill you, but it was virtually impossible to monitor and enforce certain lifestyles. Enforcement on that scale requires a lot of energy, literally, and pre-industrial economies simply couldn't produce enough.
    You only think that because you don't expect the...
    Likes SD45T-2 liked this post

  6. #1166
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I fully understand it, but I think I agree with the sentiment. One minor point: Pre-industrial governments were incapable of being as intrusive into people's daily lives as modern governments. They could always kill you, but it was virtually impossible to monitor and enforce certain lifestyles. Enforcement on that scale requires a lot of energy, literally, and pre-industrial economies simply couldn't produce enough.
    The "killing" part was kind of bad, ya know. Just sayin'.
    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

  7. #1167
    Analytical Dreamer Array Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    At the same time I do think if an entire society followed this model that it would be completely destructive to society due to a women's physical and biological limitations and differences.
    Given the diversity within humanity, I don't think any one model would work for everyone, nor should we expect it to. My entire point is that which model a couple, family, or individual chooses should be based on far more influential factors than his/her genitals and chromosomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    So how do you come to the conclusion that these people are not thinking for themselves and taking charge of their own lives?
    By talking with them, or more likely (and often more revealing), by listening to them talk with others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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...
    And there are people/groups who don't want certain women's rights advocates to speak or participate because they see them as "feminazis". There are individuals within every movement who are more polarizing and extremist than others, and individuals who are less tolerant of divergent views and try to shut them down. Their actions merit criticism, independent of which group or issue they advocate for.

    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? 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.
    I haven't seen anyone - here or IRL - claim anything like the highlighted, unless discussing women in a place like Afghanistan. And I'm not sure what your repeated comment about "losing the movement" is supposed to mean. Taking the long view, and acknowledging the occasional setback, women continue to make headway in having opportunities opened to them, limitations removed, and generally receiving fairer treatment. That is the sign of a successful movement. The main policy issues today seem to revolve around reproductive rights and workplace flexibility. National organizations like NOW have an obvious role in addressing these, just as organizations like the NAACP have a role in addressing the problem of police violence, even though the former issues affect both men and women, and blacks aren't the only targets of police violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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.
    "Not all X" is going to be valid regardless of what X is, since no group of humans is going to be truly monolithic or homogeneous in thought and action. It is fine to criticise extremists in whatever group, based on their actions. It is ignorant and pointless to level a criticism against anyone when it does not apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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".
    I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean. Who are "they"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    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.
    Yes, the mechanics of human reproduction have prevented the imposition of female ghettos or holocaust, for the most part, relative to what mixed sex groups can do to each other. I suppose the closest thing would be a harem: an insular, female-only community maintained for the pleasure and procreation of some powerful male. I understand that in some situations, harem women were quite pampered, but a gilded cage is still a cage.

    The fact that reproduction requires a certain coexistence of the genders does not prevent maintenance of what might better be called "gender apartheid". Many Islamic societies operate on this principle, with interaction between males and females who are not close relatives strictly limited. We have seen more extreme versions of this in places like Afghanistan and now in the areas ruled by ISIS. Then there are traditions like female genital mutilation, which need no segregation to persist.

    Indeed, I wonder if the fact that societies cannot keep women and men physically separate has led to or fueled the desire to keep them separate in every other way, in the greatest double standard the world has known. It is easy to feel entitled to authority over someone if that someone is in a "lesser" or even simply a fundamentally different class of being as yourself. Whites long maintained such an attitude about blacks, namely that they were less intelligent, subhuman even, and needed white people to take care of them and be in authority over them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    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.
    As someone already mentioned, the party with greater agency will have more say in how this balance is struck. Sure, women had certain privileges, but they were similar to the privileges accorded to children, who were viewed as not capable of managing their own affairs, and in need of protection, guidance, and material support. I shouldn't have to explain the problem with putting women on a par with children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    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?
    A woman who has to defend her family on the home front, sometimes quite literally, with no training and few resources is as much a primary victim as a trained, equipped soldier at the front. Don't forget also that until relatively recently, a woman risked her life every time she became pregnant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    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.
    I agree that people who equate personal fulfillment to wealth, fame, and power are taking a very narrow view. Few men will be fulfilled if these are the standards. When comparing the lot of men and women over the ages, I would look primarily at personal agency and individual sovereignty: meaning, how much was the individual able to direct the course of his/her own life. I'm sure for much of human history, the majority of both men and women were locked into arrangements by class and circumstance, perhaps tied to feudal estates, or obligated to take on the trade of a father.

    Men were more likely to have some choice in trade or career, though, and were allowed to be more mobile in seeking greener pastures. Women were prohibited from most trades and careers except to the extent that they helped a husband in his work, which tied them to the support of a father or husband, and kept them from trying to make their own way as a man might. They usually were limited to choosing among marriage, domestic service, and the convent. Laws typically gave husbands signficant authority over their wives and their wives' property. If there really was a gender balance, this sort of exclusion and coercion would not have been necessary.
    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. #1168
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    (Note: Reordered to best convey the idea of what I am trying to get through, and to help pin point what it is we disagree about).

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    And I'm not sure what your repeated comment about "losing the movement" is supposed to mean.
    Earlier I summarized here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    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.
    And I think that might need expanding. This point might illustrate what I mean better:

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    National organizations like NOW have an obvious role in addressing these, just as organizations like the NAACP have a role in addressing the problem of police violence, even though the former issues affect both men and women, and blacks aren't the only targets of police violence.
    Both of us have agreed that shared physical custody should be the default starting point, there was an attempt at doing just that in the state of New York, NOW blocked it. Is that what's taking a role in advancing your definition of the feminist agenda looks like? Is that working for gender equality? I believe me and you can agree on such matters pretty easily because I believe we're both actual gender egalitarians. However, the more I examine it the less I am capable of taking any such assertion about the feminist movement at it's current state seriously. Whatever gender egalitarians are left within it, they are not at the helm.

    To explain the analogy:

    I agree with what Lincoln has decided on with the american civil war, I'd like to think that at the time I might have voted republican and would have probably thought of myself as one. But when I look at the GOP today and I disagree with them on gay rights, foreign policy, a completely hypocritical approach to big government, a host of other issues and what I'd generally consider to be a very irrational narrative about christian prosecution and the liberal media, I wouldn't be able to say that I am a modern day republican - the elements in the movement that might have represented my values have lost the movement (Before I was born, but that's besides the point).

    Likewise, I love the work of individualists feminists like Wendy McElroy, I agree gender should never be an issue when it comes to any right, responsibility or life choice. But when I look at the feminist movement in it's modern glory and I disagree with having vagina-requiring-scholarships, vagina-required aid for victims of domestic abuse, a constant push against father's rights (And in turn children's rights), a persistent move to have men guilty in front of the law until proven innocent as long as the accuser is a woman, a host of other issues and what I'd generally consider to be a very irrational historical-revisionist narrative about the patriarchy, I wouldn't be able to say that I am a modern feminist - the elements in the movement that might have represented my values have lost the movement (And got replaced by values that IMO outright contradict to the ones I agreed with in the first place).

    Does that make sense? In regards to what I mean at least (Regardless if you agree with it, just trying to make sure I am doing a good job at communicating).

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    And there are people/groups who don't want certain women's rights advocates to speak or participate because they see them as "feminazis".
    Am I not digging deep enough? Because this is all I've been able to find:


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I haven't seen anyone - here or IRL - claim anything like the highlighted
    Off the top of my head, post1087, post864, I remember a few others but not exactly at what points they are in the convo (1167 posts and all). It was this sort of thing that actually got me asking why aren't any of the feminists here arguing with each other when they defend feminism under very different definitions and outright contradicting points of view about what it means. Also: While I am not going back there (I've just had dinner and I have no intention of loosing it), if you are willing to take a dive into places like the TwoXChromosomes or feminspire or about half of tumblr... Be my guest.
    Last edited by Mane; 05-02-2015 at 04:14 PM.

  9. #1169
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Given the diversity within humanity, I don't think any one model would work for everyone, nor should we expect it to. My entire point is that which model a couple, family, or individual chooses should be based on far more influential factors than his/her genitals and chromosomes.
    This isn't necessarily true, for the last 3 million years and still areas in developing countries, traditionalism has worked for the survival of our species. The funny thing is society today in north America still depends on the traditional roles of men jobs that require any form of risk of physical labor are still acquired by men, yet you feminists wouldn't bat an eye to this type of work. I would like to see a society run by females alone one that doesn't depend on men to do the dirty work for them. I would also like to see a society where females aren't given special treatment and support by the government, this to me is a truly progressive society.

  10. #1170
    Senior Member Array Rambling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    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.
    Off topic of the thread, but IME it's the moderate Christians who criticise the fundamentalists, not the other way around at all.

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
  •