Toxic Feminism

[Tomb1]

I live in a western country, so, naturally the first religion I think of is Christianity. It influenced laws and the legal system in western countries. Also, something that Jordan Peterson stated, Christianity puts the focus on the individual, which moves away from collectivist thinking. I haven't looked into this in much depth, so unless anyone proves overwise, for now, I will assume this is accurate.

I definitely agree with moving away from tribal collectivist thinking as much as possible. Genocides would have never been attempted if people were being judged as individuals.

Obviously human resurrection and virgin birth are biologically impossible....the fact a billion or so people believe in these things because a book claims divine authority but these people are as you or peterson claim individualistic does not camouflage that a sheepish mind is still a sheepish mind, flock or no flock.

 

[Totenkindly]

I live in a western country, so, naturally the first religion I think of is Christianity. It influenced laws and the legal system in western countries. Also, something that Jordan Peterson stated, Christianity puts the focus on the individual, which moves away from collectivist thinking. I haven't looked into this in much depth, so unless anyone proves overwise, for now, I will assume this is accurate.

I think again it depends on which cultural Christianity we are discussing, on whether the understanding is more communal or individualistic. It tends to mutate depending on where it goes. Original Christianity I think was far more communal in nature [Note that people were evaluated on what they actually did, not on what group they belonged to -- "The Good Samaritan" parable being a prime example], but I can see that western Protestant Christianity might have more focus on the individual in terms of salvation and responsibility -- or even if a bit larger in its scope typically only expands out to maybe include one's family, one's particular church, and at best one's denomination.

Again, it's an issue because some people's Christian faiths are more global in nature, whereas a lot of the intense US Christian folks are very tribal at best and deem beliefs that don't align with their version of Christianity as non-Christian, so they have a small tribe that is set against all other tribes.

So -- maybe I agree somewhat there?

I definitely agree with moving away from tribal collectivist thinking as much as possible. Genocides would have never been attempted if people were being judged as individuals.

Well, either not butchering people for simply belonging to a target group, and/or expanding one's sense of "self" to encompass everyone so there is no reason to be butchering people if we're all humans and part of the group. (Basically a very individual sense of self versus a sense of self that finds something to relate to in all humans.)

 

[The Cat]

 

[Coriolis]

Obviously human resurrection and virgin birth are biologically impossible....the fact a billion or so people believe in these things because a book claims divine authority but these people are as you or peterson claim individualistic does not camouflage that a sheepish mind is still a sheepish mind, flock or no flock.

Lots of people find value in Aesop's fables, without insisting that a tortoise really could beat a hare in a race - or that two such animals would undertake such a contest to begin with.

 

[Tomb1]

Lots of people find value in Aesop's fables, without insisting that a tortoise really could beat a hare in a race - or that two such animals would undertake such a contest to begin with.

Yeah...for some reason aesop's fables never inspired the type of sheepish devotion to biological impossibilities that the bible did. (even the devout christian who on the one hand takes for granted human resurrection, divine providence and virgin birth can understand and appreciate the tortoise and the hare race as, well, fable) Maybe aesop's fables just needed a charismatic con-man like Jesus to really push its cause into a genuine "opiate of the masses"

 

[Tomb1]

This criticism misses the point, though. Them being biologically impossible is the whole point. The claim is that "this biologically impossible thing happened, therefore it's a miracle and proof of extraordinary divine power being involved". The answer would be that virgin birth and resurrection isn't proven and it's just a hearsay and one of many such myths in history of humanity that provide psychological copes for the obvious biological defect of mortality.

That misses the point. They believe by implication of their core beliefs that human resurrection and virgin birth are biologically possible but only if God wills it to be -- only under special circumstances. Miracles are not divorced from biological processes but that God is the one who has ultimate author of how biology works such that if he really wanted to he could make the sun sit on top of the moon. Individualism involves not being vulnerable to drinking the kool-aid, and I would set forth that a good majority of the Christians out there ascribing to these biological impossibilities as biologically possible if God wills it to be are really just kool-aid drinkers at the end of the day. To go back to the point, drinking kool-aid is reflexively tribalistic/sheepish in spite of what that poster or Jordan Peterson may have otherwise claimed.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

To focus on the topic of the thread, there is an observation I've had through experience, although it may not be a popular opinion. The issue with women and "toxic feminism" or "toxic femininity" is that there is this underlying history, ocean of power imbalance between the genders. In today's world every possible power dynamic is happening. Sometimes women are more dominant, and sometimes it is the men, and oftentimes that power imbalance is derived from a history of power imbalance.

What I have noticed is that when a group is suppressed, a small segment of that population with react with an overcompensating level of power. I have been around religious environments that have strong gender imbalances and see most of the women submitting, but the ones who don't are extremely adept at gaining power through overt, or more often subvert means. What we tend to see in the history of feminism is that elite group of women who start with areas of privilege primarily socioeconomic combined with naturally aggressive personalities. Sometimes these elites don't share the microphone with more oppressed women, but take complete control not only in relationship to men, but also other women.

 

[ceecee]

To focus on the topic of the thread, there is an observation I've had through experience, although it may not be a popular opinion. The issue with women and "toxic feminism" or "toxic femininity" is that there is this underlying history, ocean of power imbalance between the genders. In today's world every possible power dynamic is happening. Sometimes women are more dominant, and sometimes it is the men, and oftentimes that power imbalance is derived from a history of power imbalance.

What I have noticed is that when a group is suppressed, a small segment of that population with react with an overcompensating level of power. I have been around religious environments that have strong gender imbalances and see most of the women submitting, but the ones who don't are extremely adept at gaining power through overt, or more often subvert means. What we tend to see in the history of feminism is that elite group of women who start with areas of privilege primarily socioeconomic combined with naturally aggressive personalities. Sometimes these elites don't share the microphone with more oppressed women, but take complete control not only in relationship to men, but also other women.

Elites, have never shared the microphone with oppressed anyone - it's one reason they are elites. Until people start looking at class and nothing else as the source of the problem, there will simply be more and more "toxic <insert thing or group>" to distract. Use Roe/Wade as an example. Does anyone think women who have privilege and do all they can to uphold the hierarchy they benefit from are not going to receive whatever reproductive services they need? Of course not. That's class, it's not gender, not an ism. There is a reason the few politicians and leaders that frame their arguments around class, get snuffed by the media and political leadership - they all know that's the actual issue and narrowing class inequality as a political priority isn't going to happen on their watches. The elites make those rules - especially when they are the only people inhabiting both the elite class and the political class.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Elites, have never shared the microphone with oppressed anyone - it's one reason they are elites. Until people start looking at class and nothing else as the source of the problem, there will simply be more and more "toxic <insert thing or group>" to distract. Use Roe/Wade as an example. Does anyone think women who have privilege and do all they can to uphold the hierarchy they benefit from are not going to receive whatever reproductive services they need? Of course not. That's class, it's not gender, not an ism. There is a reason the few politicians and leaders that frame their arguments around class, get snuffed by the media and political leadership - they all know that's the actual issue and narrowing class inequality as a political priority isn't going to happen on their watches. The elites make those rules - especially when they are the only people inhabiting both the elite class and the political class.

Thank you for this post that is on point. I am also concerned about the Roe vs. Wade and abortion situation in our country. It is the lower socio-economic classes that suffer from these decisions.

 

[ceecee]

Thank you for this post that is on point. I am also concerned about the Roe vs. Wade and abortion situation in our country. It is the lower socio-economic classes that suffer from these decisions.

Yes. You can use race as another example. The GOP would love a race war and are doing all they can to make it happen, however most Democrats aren't going to do anything to stop it and their most reactionary voters from both parties salivate like animals at the very thought. The actual question that should be asked is - Is racism the primary problem in America today, or the outgrowth of a system that oppresses all poor people? This is also how you see the kind of outrage over soup thrown at a Van Gogh by climate activists that should actually be reserved for the climate activist that set himself on fire at the Supreme Court. This society values property over human life, they always have and its got nothing to do with political affiliation. Neither do draconian reproductive laws - they are aimed at poor people, poor black women is simply a bonus to them.

Incidentally I have a feeling those activists destroying property are backed by the oil and gas industry but I don't have poof of that, just a hunch. It's too BLACK LIVES MATTER spray painted by some mfer on his own garage door.

 

[Coriolis]

Thank you for this post that is on point. I am also concerned about the Roe vs. Wade and abortion situation in our country. It is the lower socio-economic classes that suffer from these decisions.

Poorer folks always bear the brunt of everything. I wouldn't discount gender as a separate axis for power imbalance, though. Plenty of well-off women get shafted both in and outside of the home, just because they are women. In some environments, working class women gained influence based on the essential economic contribution of their labor in a way their wealthy sisters could not. There is real intersectionality here.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Poorer folks always bear the brunt of everything. I wouldn't discount gender as a separate axis for power imbalance, though. Plenty of well-off women get shafted both in and outside of the home, just because they are women. In some environments, working class women gained influence based on the essential economic contribution of their labor in a way their wealthy sisters could not. There is real intersectionality here.

I can see this as valid. Are there any specific examples that come to mind? If I state it with pure abandon, I'm a bit confused about gender relations. I have followed some of the celebrity MeToo issues and find some female behavior questionable, although have a somewhat complex nuanced impression of the overall dynamics. I have experienced setbacks professionally that could be attributed to gender. I have also seen some rather bad behavior from women. I'm in a state of flux, but certainly not as a result of being sheltered. I also have residual impressions from the "mean girl" dominance behaviors from school days that prejudices some of my impressions.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The thing is, there are many far, far better articulated arguments against the worst aspects of feminism than those coming from Peterson, and also many that aren't being formulated from a traditional conservatism viewpoint. At this point, it is frustrating that Peterson has become THE go-to voice and spokesperson for anti-feminists, when he only represents a fairly narrow sliver of opinion and attitude within the MRM.

 

[Coriolis]

I can see this as valid. Are there any specific examples that come to mind? If I state it with pure abandon, I'm a bit confused about gender relations. I have followed some of the celebrity MeToo issues and find some female behavior questionable, although have a somewhat complex nuanced impression of the overall dynamics. I have experienced setbacks professionally that could be attributed to gender. I have also seen some rather bad behavior from women. I'm in a state of flux, but certainly not as a result of being sheltered. I also have residual impressions from the "mean girl" dominance behaviors from school days that prejudices some of my impressions.

Examples of what? To me, the bottom line is that the negative aspects of human nature are present in both/all genders/sexes. People willing or intending to harm or take advantage of others will find a way to do so. To the extent that they exploit traits associated with one or the other gender, they will demonstrate the toxic versions of those gender norms, whether masculine or feminine. The male flavors tend to be more violent, more direct. The female flavors tend to be more indirect and manipulative. These differences are far from absolute, and are rooted in how we are socialized, which shows us the pathways most likely to get us the results we want, however hurtful and counterproductive they may be. The stereotype of women being more virtuous or morally superior to men is a Victorian fiction.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I feel there’s a double standard in regard to body positivity. We’re now seeing a demand for more female body types to be celebrated, yet the standard on male beauty is still rather narrow and limited to tall and built (but not too muscular). I know there was talk of the “dad bod” being more appreciated, but every example of it I’ve seen given by women is still some fit, older actor who is just slightly husky. Real dad bods are generally considered unattractive. Can speak from personal experience of going from fat and flabby and getting zero attention from female coworkers to slender with defined arms and shoulders and regularly receiving positive attention from many of the same coworkers who previously ignored me

 

[ceecee]

I feel there’s a double standard in regard to body positivity. We’re now seeing a demand for more female body types to be celebrated, yet the standard on male beauty is still rather narrow and limited to tall and built (but not too muscular). I know there was talk of the “dad bod” being more appreciated, but every example of it I’ve seen given by women is still some fit, older actor who is just slightly husky. Real dad bods are generally considered unattractive. Can speak from personal experience of going from fat and flabby and getting zero attention from female coworkers to slender with defined arms and shoulders and regularly receiving positive attention from many of the same coworkers who previously ignored me

I like the dad bod.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Double standards are an issue in some aspects of feminism, but you will never make me attracted to a "real" dad bod. I don't go for big women, either. I'm generally not on board with the "body positivity" thing when it means accepting obesity and basically low health standards. I can conntrol what I look like by working out, etc. and thus I expect someone who does the same. What can't be controlled is what ought to be accepted. Thankfully, my husband and I share the same values in this, and can thus enjoy attraction to one another and the more sexual parts of the relationship.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Double standards are an issue in some aspects of feminism, but you will never make me attracted to a "real" dad bod. I don't go for big women, either. I'm generally not on board with the "body positivity" thing when it means accepting obesity and basically low health standards. I can conntrol what I look like by working out, etc. and thus I expect someone who does the same. What can't be controlled is what ought to be accepted. Thankfully, my husband and I share the same values in this, and can thus enjoy attraction to one another and the more sexual parts of the relationship.

My issue with feminist body positivity movements is that they hijacked a movement that was originally created specifically for people with legitimate disabilities and/or for overweight people with conditions making weight loss impossible or extremely difficult. In the process of hijacking it, they made it about overweight white chicks being happy with being overweight. That's not really the goal of the original movement. It was never about being happy with one's body when one has the means to live healthier. It's about those people with no control over their body. That they made it all about fat women and not fat men is just par for the course and typical to most movements they've co-opted.

Now no one takes body positivity seriously.

 

[Mind Maverick]

My issue with feminist body positivity movements is that they hijacked a movement that was originally created specifically for people with legitimate disabilities and/or for overweight people with conditions making weight loss impossible or extremely difficult. In the process of hijacking it, they made it about overweight white chicks being happy with being overweight. That's not really the goal of the original movement. It was never about being happy with one's body when one has the means to live healthier. It's about those people with no control over their body. That they made it all about fat women and not fat men is just par for the course and typical to most movements they've co-opted.

Now no one takes body positivity seriously.

Imo it is hard to take it seriously, yes...but body-shaming is a red flag to me anyway, and I do tend to reproof those who do it. Interpret that how you will. In my eyes, it is just people pushing values onto others in unintelligent ways, as usual.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The feminists I work with are actually focused on protecting people's rights and working toward legal reform. Luckily I know these particular ones via local trans rights groups so I didn't have to worry as much about dealing with TERFs and fainting couch feminists who think white women are still an oppressed group in the first world.