Sounds to me like you're just overly enthusiastic about going off on your moral high horse (ironically, a behavior which is not so foreign to most who claim to be "feminists").
How is that ironic?
First and foremost, I'd like to express the view that I do not believe that discrimination against women never occurs in American society. I simply do not believe that this discrimination has a lasting impact on the woman's position. Discrimination is a remnant of the past (Come on guys, it's not even been a century since woman's suffrage was set in place), and while they may be hurtful and frustrating, discriminatory views hold no substantial power here. The reason that women are not in a completely equal position with men, from a numerical viewpoint, is simply due to the fact that they haven't been given enough time to counteract against the old-fashioned notions of the mid 20th century.
You're right when you say that I bash feminism in spite of its good qualities. The good qualities of feminism are not those which I bash, though. I am frustrated with the feminist views that women are still treated as inferiors, that women should be treated with more respect than they currently experience (regardless of whether or not individuals have earned such respect), and that the problems women face are due exclusively to their womanhood.
I do not believe a black women is oppressed by the expanses of American society simply because she is a women. I believe she is oppressed because she is black. Likewise, a hispanic women is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is a hispanic. An immigrant woman is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an immigrant. An impoverished single mother is not oppressed because she is a woman; she is oppressed because she is an impoverished single mother.
I have nothing against movements and organizations that seek to close the gap among different races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I also have nothing against the movements and organizations that seek to specifically help women within oppressed races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic classes. I find the latter to be tackling a small part of a much larger problem, and some may argue this is a good approach, while others may see the limitations to it. That's beside the point, and not really something I'm prepared to argue for or against in terms of effectiveness. I simply stand by my claim that tackling the belief that women are inherently inferior is futile, as this belief is not widely held nor is it pervasive among modern Americans.
I do possess a certain view on N. American feminism, and this is the view that I'm bashing. The term "feminist" has a seriously negative connotation in contemporary American thought, and it has this connotation because of a stereotype formed and backed by reality. This connotation is one that I admittedly associate with feminism, and the feminism that abides by this connotation is the one that I am bashing and find redundant, futile, and obsolete. Again, though, I do not find movements that seek to help the downtrodden who are actually downtrodden to be redundant and futile. I just do not believe that it's fair to say that the downtrodden are downtrodden because they are women.
I do attest to the fact that differences among gender exist in American society. I never meant to imply that other factors also exist, so therefore gender must not be the cause. It wasn't supposed to be a logical corollary. I simply meant to imply that other factors exist, and these factors are the cause, not gender in and of itself (but again, if we want to help certain groups based on gender, then I can't really be opposed to that, as it's still productive in some way, regardless of whether or not it's the most expansive method out there). My overall belief is that if we want to fight oppression, fighting gender biases is hardly the way to go, as I believe gender biases in America are practically obsolete now.
I do not have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I am merely focusing on one realm of feminism (a significant realm and one that holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology) and laying out my problems with it.
Oh my word, this post is so flagrantly imbecilic that I don't even know where to begin. I was literally flabbergasted into speechlessness for several minutes after my initial read. I think instead of trying to dissect this beast, as you'll likely fail to acknowledge it anyway (and I already have a fucking headache) I'll just say two things:
(1) I have suggested this before, but I'll spell it out more explicitly for you this time. You are largely ignorant on the subject of "feminism" and should therefore refrain from speaking as though you know what you're talking about. Or else read a Wikipedia page before you do for chrissakes.
Though I know you will refuse to listen, your perception of "feminism," even if you have modified it in light of criticisms not to encompass all feminisms (althought now it's apparently the one that "holds substantial weight in modern feminist ideology," lol), is so idiotic that I can't believe anyone could think such things without feeling the need to surreptitiously self-flaggelate. But not to worry, I will cure you of your ignorance, or at least this particular manifestation of it (because that's what a selfless person I am.)
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. 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.
Your other definition of feminism is not much better, though I think you were going less for accuracy and more for rhetorical effect.
Feminists seem to think it's productive to beg for respect, pointedly remark on times when they are not treated with respect, and blame it on the fact that their lack of respect is due to deep-rooted societal notions on what a female ought to be.
"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. 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? Finally, as to blaming disrespect on deep-rooted societal notions of what a female should be, this is just another instantiation of your "they think the problems women face are due solely to their womanhood" nonsense, which I've already addressed.
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. And she calls herself a feminist for that reason (but she stands in opposition to a lot of the 90s institutionalized feminism of the academy, and even a lot of the prominent feminisms now, because she rejects the French theorists, who have been HUGELY influential to feminist theory, rejects feminist critiques of media (also often born out of feminist appropriations of the French theories), advocates open sexuality as liberatory, and advocates the marriage of aesthetics and feminism.)
(2) Your views on gender oppression are incoherent. At one point you claim that:
I do not believe that discrimination against women never occurs in American society
And that:
The reason that women are not in a completely equal position with men, from a numerical viewpoint, is simply due to the fact that they haven't been given enough time to counteract against the old-fashioned notions of the mid 20th century
But then you come back and say:
I believe gender biases in America are practically obsolete now.
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? Further, how can simultaneously claim that:
I simply do not believe that this discrimination has a lasting impact on the woman's position. Discrimination is a remnant of the past (Come on guys, it's not even been a century since woman's suffrage was set in place), and while they may be hurtful and frustrating, discriminatory views hold no substantial power here.
...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.
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.
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:
I've lived for nearly 22 years as a female, and I've never felt oppressed (at least not in this country) by the fact that I have a vagina.
Trinity and onemoretime (though I am not implicating them in my viewpoints by mentioning their usernames, so keep that in mind) did not take you out of context when they called you on this, because you offer no other justification for your beliefs. This is the only possible thing that could be interpreted as a justification in all of your drivel. Let me remind you:
I simply meant to suggest that females are equal in today's society so much as they want to be equal, and it takes some sort of "rigorous" thinking to see that. Most "feminists" simply wish to victimize themselves by finding ways that they are not equal rather than by indirectly tackling any such notions via working independently from them. Feminists seem to think it's productive to beg for respect, pointedly remark on times when they are not treated with respect, and blame it on the fact that their lack of respect is due to deep-rooted societal notions on what a female ought to be. The only way for anybody, females included, to gain respect is to earn it, and if one earns respect, she'll get it, regardless of her gender.
Here a woman is only oppressed insofar as she lets herself be oppressed; there are available opportunities for essentially everybody, and any lacking opportunities are not due to gender biases. An active feminist movement in America is outdated and redundant (regardless of where such movement falls on the radical scale), and until we let go of it, women will never realize that their problems have nothing to do with societal oppression and everything to do with their own frame of mind.
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.)
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?"