But in all seriousness, I don't claim to be an expert on feminism; I have after all, only skimmed the surface of feminism and taken those two courses, experienced society as a female, and read a few things about it here and there (and no, this is not meant to be facetious; I legitimately do not believe myself to be an expert). However, I have noticed a trend in some feminist ideology (though it may not encompass all of feminism, and there may not be one all-encompassing view, I still see a trend in a certain way of feminist thinking), and that is what I was spelling out.
And as far as being "the" one that holds substantial weight; there is no "the" one. I never said "the." I just said it holds substantial weight; that doesn't logically imply that it holds the most weight.
You're right; there is no overt claim to this belief, but I believe that it's an underlying premise in a significant portion of feminist theory. Obviously the feminists about which I speak don't claim this outright; that would just make them sound ridiculous and get them no where. In fact, the feminists to which I'm referring probably don't even realize for themselves that they are inadvertantly expressing this belief. I don't think that any rational and reasonable person would ever overtly make the affirmation "Respect me even though I don't deserve it." or think the claim "I want respect even where it's not deserved." in their own head. I'm referring to an underlying notion. Again, the underlying notion may not be the primary backing force behind all feminist theory, but it takes up a large enough portion to be worth mentioning.Here we go...now répéter après moi: there is no such thing as a "substantial" feminist ideology holding that women should be treated with more respect than they are currently, even if they don't deserve it (lol what?), that women are viewed by the majority as inferior beings and treated as such (most feminist thought today is very far past issues of conscious discrimination), and that the problems that women face are due solely to their womanhood (lol, what?). Where are you getting this from? I don't even know how to go about theoretically placing these views, because they are so ridiculous as to be beyond identification even as malicious steretypes of feminism.
Yes, along the lines of that. But I'd of course argue with the claim that my botched interpretation of the realm of feminism to which I refer is nonsensical. I never meant to imply that all feminism is backed by this though, and I've stated that several times in this thread.The closest I can get is to suggest that they are MAYBE your own botched interpretation of certain second-wave feminist tenets mixed with a little radical or cultural feminism, and some of the hand-holding, "sob sister" stuff of liberal feminism (e.g., anti-porn, "take back the night," media campaigns to end eating disorders, feel-good stuff about body issues, the Dove campaign, "the patriarchy ruined my life" kind of stuff.) But even if that's the case, your interpretation is still way off and makes little sense, even as satire or humorous exaggeration.
You're right; it's not a completely accurate representation of all feminism. I don't know how you can possibly argue that it's not a representation of some, though.Your other definition of feminism is not much better, though I think you were going less for accuracy and more for rhetorical effect.
I've had self-proclaimed feminists tell me that porn should be illegal because it objectifies women, rapists should face the death penalty, any man accused of rape should be locked up until all accusations are wiped clean, a woman who claims rape should never be argued with, men treat women like meat, men only treat women as equals because the government has set in place certain measures to force equality but men don't actually believe in equality, and the best yet: "If I were a man, I could have gone so much farther in society." I didn't hear these claims from completely ignorant "feminists" either. We had debates in one of my womens studies classes, and these notions were brought up by womens studies majors. My representation of feminism may be breaching on only a small part of "feminism" (and perhaps the part that you'd like to not take claim on as a more educated and intellectual feminist), but my representation is not a skewed version of reality.
"Good" feminism exists, but so does bad "feminism." That's to be expected with any ideology, though. Perhaps you think I've played up the "bad" feminism too much, and that's a fair judgment on your part. I have given hardly any credit to "good" feminism, and the reason for that is because I'm trying to make a point about bad feminism here. Hell, maybe I shouldn't even be calling "bad feminism" feminism at all. Maybe I should be calling it pseudo-feminism, and perhaps those self-proclaimed feminists who make claims like the above are wrongly labeling themselves as feminists. However, they are still claiming to be a part of the feminist culture, and regardless of how accurate their claim is, it's going to contribute to the ways in which I perceive the word "feminism."
Yes, thank you. I'm glad you see the rhetoric in that (and hopefully you see the rhetoric in other things I've said here?). Obviously I don't think feminists are down on their knees grovelling."Begging for respect" is likely your interpretation of what these particular feminists you have in mind do, and the phrase choice was, as mentioned, probably rhetorical, so I'll leave this one.
An example of this is some women believing that they are more entitled to certain jobs where female presence is lacking, simply because it adds "diversity" to the field. If a woman is as qualified as a man, she will get the respect that such man of equal standing receives. If not, she shouldn't expect to get special treatment just because hiring her may aid in closing a male/female gap. And before you go and say that feminists don't believe this, I'm just going to clear it up and say that some do. Maybe not the most prominent ones (as the prominent ones are likely to have a much better grasp on reality; the idiots are not the ones that become prominent), but again, some self-proclaimed feminists hold this view.As to pointedly remarking on not being treated with respect, again, I don't know what specific feminist or feminists you are referring to here, but this has more to do with specific practices of feminism by individuals than feminist ideologies, or feminism generally. Are you talking about women complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace or something?
I don't believe that women are completely equal with men. That's pretty apparent by the ratios in certain intellectual fields and positions of power, average salaries, SAT scores, etc. I simply do not believe that women are oppressed because society as a whole still deems them as inferior. Some interpretations of certain statistics may suggest that women appear to not be equal with men when it comes to caliber, at least not at this point, but I stand by my claim that their inequality is not due to an overt oppressive and discriminating force. Women in American society are faced with the same kinds of equal opportunities as men to pursue what they believe will make them happy, and again, if a woman finds herself in a situation where she is not faced with equality, it's not due explicitly and exclusively to her gender.If I were to give your views a more generous interpretation, I might say that perhaps you read some Camille Paglia, or leafed through some of her writing, and proceeded to (badly) misunderstand what she was saying while still retaining all of her attitude and fervor against the anti-porn, Gloria Steinem feminists of the late 80s and 90s. But you would not even accept a Paglia view, because she advocates for full political and legal equality with men, which she is not naive enough to believe to be already accomplished.
I don't see how it's logically inaccurate to claim that women are still in recovery but are not overtly oppressed by society. Sorry.Do you really not see the incoherence here? How can you simultaneously explain current gender inequality as a carry-over of old notions that have not been fully "counteracted" yet (and are thus still causing gender inequality, though to a diluted degree when compared to history), and maintain the belief that there are no "gender biases" in operation today?
I still think there is ground to be made, but not in regards to fighting some societal belief that women are inferior or by fighting treatment of women as inferiors.
Discrimination can exist but be so negligible (or in other words obsolete, not in general use, old-fashioned, out-dated, what have you) that it has no relevant effect on a woman's position. Again, I don't see the contradiction....which implicitly assume the existence of gender discrimination (though you claim, based on God-knows-what, that it has no power or effect), AND maintain that gender biases are "obsolete?" That is an explicit contradiction. You make no sense.
I agree that there is a complex relationship between our different distinguishable attributes; I just don't think being female plays nearly as large a role as the others, and the role it plays is not as a fundamental reason for the oppression that females may face.Also, you have erroneously established a hierarchy in which discriminations based on color, ethnicity, SES, or anything else except gender are considered more fundamental than those based on gender (which, as I pointed out, you seem to hold contradictory views about.) This flies in the face of all contemporary theories of power and oppression, which suggest either that (a) the various "lines of oppression" (race, gender, class, sexuality), a term I take from Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, interact in complex and unpredictable ways with one another and with the systems that enact their oppression, or (b) that the interaction of these "lines of oppression" can be identified only by careful investigation of the context in which any specific manifestation of oppression is thought to occur. Now, that is not to say that these theories are right (I tend to think most of them just manage to say obvious things in a complex way, or else they flat out don't make sense), but just that you, with your view of "blackness over femaleness," would have been seen as naive by theorists as far back as the 80s.
Yes, I did throw in a personal experience remark, and I can see how you might think that I am applying my narrow frame of reference to a larger whole, but I'm not. I threw that in as a rhetorical device; not as a substantial foundation for my view.And anyway, I don't even know why I'm telling you any of this, as the only basis you have for your "blackness over femaleness," or "third-world-ness over femaleness," is that you, at least part of the time, and despite the contradictions posed by your other stated beliefs, deny the existence of gender discrimination based on how you personally feel about the situation. And don't deny it...I have you redhanded here:
My view on feminism and the extent to which females are oppressed for being female is from the education I have received about it regarding statistics, philosophy, and just talking with "educated" feminists. I've stated enough times that the views to which I'm referring and critiquing are not how I see all of feminism in its entirety; it's merely a part of some (and again, a large enough portion to be mentioned) feminist ideology that I find really silly.
If you're finding contradictions in my beliefs, then maybe I haven't laid them out well enough. I see no contradictions, though, even the ones that you feel you've so clearly pointed out.
Well, I'm telling you what I think because on of the main points I'm trying to convey here is my perception of feminism.All you do is assert what you think is the reality of the situation. In neither of the above two paragraphs do you ever once provide any reasoning, evidence, or anything else of a justificatory nature (except the personal feelings remark.)
I provided no evidence; you're right. I'm just too lazy to look up statistics and provide you guys with concrete data that supports my claims. I don't take my debates on this forum seriously enough to do that, and I'd just rather you think my argument completely unfounded than go find some numbers and/or philosophical excerpts (especially statistics/philosophies about which I've already read). Sorry.
As my closing remark, I'll just say that perhaps you might think about why somebody who is mildly informed on the topic has such a notion about some modes of feminism.As a closing remark, I'll just say that perhaps you might think about reflecting on why you have such a hostile attitude toward the word "feminism" when, even if it is ridiculous and outmoded as you say, it shouldn't bother you any more than, say, fringe religions or any other organization with an agenda. I don't see you ranting about Wiccans (but there might be a connection with feminism there, so bad example.) What's your specific beef with "feminism?"
And no, I'm not ranting about fringe religions or any other ideologies that I find absurd right now, as that's not what this topic is. I brought up feminism as some tangent to some train of thought I (or maybe someone else?) on this thread was having. Just because I'm ranting about feminism doesn't preclude me from having any problems with other philosophies and ideologies as well. How does the former imply the latter in any way?
In short: I've noticed a trend in some realms of feminist ideology. I've noticed this trend by speaking with self-proclaimed feminists and through reading feminist theory by some prominent feminist writers. The trend I've noticed is an underlying notion implied by certain feminist ideals, not something that is overtly expressed by feminists, and not something that is implied by all feminist theories.