Toxic Feminism

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

That's the definition in pretty much every mainstream dictionary I can find, online and elsewhere. It's at the root of all efforts to put women's rights on a par with men's, and in doing so, effect the reverse as well. Everything else is just spin, implementation (some methods are more effective than others), extra specificity ("feminism in this context means . . . "), or smear.

This is such a Te response. A just the facts, ma'am, cut the excess pedantry approach. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Very endearing quality about you.



I think what he's referring to is maybe the vast body of theory, concepts, and writings behind it which is not really covered in most definitions, yet is core to feminism 101--aka the stuff that will be taught in most women's studies or gender studies courses. Unless you're making the distinction that your 101 version is just the dictionary definition.

 

[Coriolis]

This is such a Te response. A just the facts, ma'am, cut the excess pedantry approach. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Very endearing quality about you.

If only we could all agree on the same set of basic facts, that would be an important step and would set a firm foundation upon which to set priorities and then determine how best to accomplish them.

I think what he's referring to is maybe the vast body of theory, concepts, and writings behind it which is not really covered in most definitions, yet is core to feminism 101--aka the stuff that will be taught in most women's studies or gender studies courses. Unless you're making the distinction that your 101 version is just the dictionary definition.

But what gave rise to all those theories and writings? My "dictionary definition", and the fundamental sentiment behind it. They are all attempts to explain, extrapolate, elaborate, join it up with other theories, whether that makes sense or not, even use it to stroke the ego or enhance the intellectual reputation of the writer. Academics, after all, are judged in part on publications.

This means that yes, my definition is "Feminism 101". All the rest is the equivalent of specialized or even esoteric graduate coursework that may eventually churn out something useful, but isn't needed for making practical progress in every day life.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

If only we could all agree on the same set of basic facts, that would be an important step and would set a firm foundation upon which to set priorities and then determine how best to accomplish them.

Facts are useful and valuable but they can fall flat or be misleading in the absence of nuance and attention to context. However this would probably be a good topic for another thread on differences between Ti and Te, so I won't go off topic anymore on this.

But what gave rise to all those theories and writings? My "dictionary definition", and the fundamental sentiment behind it. They are all attempts to explain, extrapolate, elaborate, join it up with other theories, whether that makes sense or not, even use it to stroke the ego or enhance the intellectual reputation of the writer. Academics, after all, are judged in part on publications.

This means that yes, my definition is "Feminism 101". All the rest is the equivalent of esoteric graduate study that may eventually churn out something useful, but isn't needed for making practical progress in every day life.

It just seemed a little reductionist and I assumed that was Lark's thought but he can correct me if I'm misreading his responses and thoughts on this.

However, I feel reductionism of this sort can still be problematic. Although at the same time, if I truly agreed that feminism was just what you've reduced it to, then I wouldn't have a problem getting 100% on board with it. I'm not going to rehash what I've said earlier in this thread but it's because I feel there is a whole lot more to it than the reductionist dictionary definition version, that I am "somewhere in the middle" rather than absolutely feminist or absolutely anti-feminist. The definition does not even touch on feminism's approach to patriarchy theory, determinism, et al. And those are all important areas to understand when discussing this ideology.

 

[Coriolis]

Facts are useful and valuable but they can fall flat or be misleading in the absence of nuance and attention to context. However this would probably be a good topic for another thread on differences between Ti and Te, so I won't go off topic anymore on this.

If we cannot agree on the facts, we cannot agree on much else because we will be talking at cross-purposes, each saying "X" but meaning something different.

However, I feel reductionism of this sort can still be problematic. Although at the same time, if I truly agreed that feminism was just what you've reduced it to, then I wouldn't have a problem getting 100% on board with it. I'm not going to rehash what I've said earlier in this thread but it's because I feel there is a whole lot more to it than the reductionist dictionary definition version, that I am "somewhere in the middle" rather than absolutely feminist or absolutely anti-feminist. The definition does not even touch on feminism's approach to patriarchy theory, determinism, et al. And those are all important areas to understand when discussing this ideology.

I have no problem being 100% on board with the basic idea of Feminism, while understanding that some groups take it in directions I disagree with, or try to act on it using approaches I think won't work, or will cause more problems than they solve. That brings us right back to the Christian example. Most Christians have no problem saying they are 100% faithful, while still disavowing the actions of groups like Wesboro, or disagreeing with theologians who promote interpretations that diverge from their own.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If we cannot agree on the facts, we cannot agree on much else because we will be talking at cross-purposes, each saying "X" but meaning something different.


I have no problem being 100% on board with the basic idea of Feminism, while understanding that some groups take it in directions I disagree with, or try to act on it using approaches I think won't work, or will cause more problems than they solve. That brings us right back to the Christian example. Most Christians have no problem saying they are 100% faithful, while still disavowing the actions of groups like Wesboro, or disagreeing with theologians who promote interpretations unlike their own.

The manner in which we arrive at facts that have bearing on political discussion has itself become partisan.

The only way to discuss politics now is philosophically.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We have no common conception of the "good"

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

If we cannot agree on the facts, we cannot agree on much else because we will be talking at cross-purposes, each saying "X" but meaning something different.

Facts can be used in all sorts of ways. They can be interpreted in multiple ways. Sometimes they can be interpreted or represented in a way to further a particular agenda. This is certainly the case with many ideological and political movements.

I have no problem being 100% on board with the basic idea of Feminism, while understanding that some groups take it in directions I disagree with, or try to act on it using approaches I think won't work, or will cause more problems than they solve. That brings us right back to the Christian example. Most Christians have no problem saying they are 100% faithful, while still disavowing the actions of groups like Wesboro, or disagreeing with theologians who promote interpretations that diverge from their own.

I'm not talking about the people and groups so much as I'm talking about the body of beliefs (and even this is something not agreed upon 100%, as you might have someone like a trans-exclusionary feminist disagreeing with a third wave feminist on dogma and how to best approach and achieve equality, for example).

 

[Starry]

I have also seen the opposite happen. When someone advocates strongly for an issue that doesn't impact them, others are often mistrustful or discount their opinions because they have no stake in the matter. They will be asked, "Have you experienced this problem? Then how do you know it is even a problem? Why should we listen to you?" The reasons why should be obvious to anyone with half a wit, but when emotions are carrying the day, none of that matters.

Yah...empathy is a real challenge for some people to comprehend.

 

[anticlimatic]

Would be nice if women did something for their man for a change instead of working meaningless quota government jobs.

Women that were raised right know how to contribute female things to a relationship. Problem in america is that the family structure has been on such a decline that most of them these days don't have a positive male role model or father figure in their lives to teach them how to deal with men in a healthy fashion. Girls that come from sturdy loving households though? They've got the auto cook/maid thing down, and they even get off on it a little. Marriage material right there.

Most of the hardcore angry feminists I know had a real shit show for a father figure.

 

[jixmixfix]

Women that were raised right know how to contribute female things to a relationship. Problem in america is that the family structure has been on such a decline that most of them these days don't have a positive male role model or father figure in their lives to teach them how to deal with men in a healthy fashion. Girls that come from sturdy loving households though? They've got the auto cook/maid thing down, and they even get off on it a little. Marriage material right there. Most of the hardcore angry feminists I know had a real shit show for a father figure.

It's rare though, I know a lot of asian cultures are more traditional though.The sad thing is about these feminist women is they get into their 30s and are still single and no man wants them after.

 

[Starry]

Don't talk about Natural selection if you can't fulfill your role. What's the use of a useless man in the household if he's going to be patriarch just because he's a male?

That's not how it works. Women are not that stupid to let anyone lead them, and if you have women bitching in your life, they're bitching for a reason. Demanding Patriarchy while you're useless to your family, society and exhibit the weakest masculine traits, is not the way to put you to command in the cockpit if you don't even own your cock.

It's not even about the women in your life. It's about everyone in your life.

Milennial men have grown weak, and that's the reality they don't want to face. They follow trendy instructions of how they should be and put themselves in a box of criteria to fit in society. Even the father figures which should have been role models are now slowly replaced by puny, angry, abusive, irresponsible, simp-ish, or submissive men, resulting in a very poor development of gender identity of both son and daughter. Look around you, of course there would be this gender confusion pandemic.

Son-father estrangement makes the son prone to effeminization.
Daughter-father estrangement makes the daughter prone to "daddy issues".
And let's not forget delinquincy, truancy, promiscuity, drug abuse, criminal tendencies and other psychological problems.

The father is the source of power that establishes not only the notion of the forbidden, but ensures the growth of his offspring is positively cared for at the best of his ability.

The son needs emotional support, and forge a masculine mindset in the shores of parenthood by identifying with the characteristics of his role model, the father. He enjoys the challenges, the experiences, and all the instructions and teachings that are taking place while father and son are bonding.

The daughter needs emotinal support, that father who will listen to her worries, support her, brighten up her mood, motivates her, protects her, and guides her through the treks of life. He becomes the blueprint of the man she subsconsciously wants.

A healthy upbringing of our children contributes into the definition of the morals governing our society. It all starts from the very foundation which is family, but we're all busy blaming that policy, and blaming that government, and blaming that religion, and blaming that hokum, in a useless neverending jibber jabber intead of owning our part of the problem.

Women who have views about men on a conscious level, will soon change those views when they meet men who are worthy of them changing those views.

Haven't you met someone who told you : "I never thought I would do X ever in my life. If they asked me if I'd be in Y a month ago, I'll them they're insane."...etc, or any kind of statement that demonstrates a change of heart? Yeah.

Whatever its form, whether traditional or modern, If you're a worthy patriarch, your wife will follow, the women and men in your circle will follow, and it goes like this. It's not given, it's earned.

While it may go against what many might think... there's a lot in this post that sits well with me (it doesn't blame others - previously powerless others?...for their unhappiness. it takes responsibility). Interesting that none of the males in this thread responded to it.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Yah...empathy is a real challenge for some people to comprehend.

I wonder if this is at least partly in response to my comments on personal motives and whatnot. I was afraid my comments might be misunderstood.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Women that were raised right know how to contribute female things to a relationship. Problem in america is that the family structure has been on such a decline that most of them these days don't have a positive male role model or father figure in their lives to teach them how to deal with men in a healthy fashion. Girls that come from sturdy loving households though? They've got the auto cook/maid thing down, and they even get off on it a little. Marriage material right there.

Most of the hardcore angry feminists I know had a real shit show for a father figure.

Hmm. Head scratcher

 

[FemMecha]

Women that were raised right know how to contribute female things to a relationship. Problem in america is that the family structure has been on such a decline that most of them these days don't have a positive male role model or father figure in their lives to teach them how to deal with men in a healthy fashion. Girls that come from sturdy loving households though? They've got the auto cook/maid thing down, and they even get off on it a little. Marriage material right there. Most of the hardcore angry feminists I know had a real shit show for a father figure.

I get off on composing complex pieces that explore philosophical questions about existence and reality, and that celebrate the beauty of nature.

 

[Starry]

I get off on composing complex pieces that explore philosophical questions about existence and reality, and that celebrate the beauty of nature.

Looks like you may not have been raised right.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

These traditional roles you guys idealize were just as much a prison for men as they were for women.

C'mon, haven't you read any Warren Farrell?

 

[Starry]

Hmm. Head scratcher

You and Lark have confused me with the name and avatar change. For a moment I thought you were Lark.

And yah.

 

[FemMecha]

These traditional roles you guys idealize were just as much a prison for men as they were for women. C'mon, haven't you read any Warren Farrell?

The big problems in society are often related to the narrow gender roles that confine everyone. In the U.S. there is a very narrow conception of masculinity that causes a lot of suffering and rage. It needs to be addressed as well as the narrow conception of femininity.

 

[Starry]

I wonder if this is at least partly in response to my comments on personal motives and whatnot. I was afraid my comments might be misunderstood.

Whoops...not only did I miss this post I may have missed your point on personal motives... I'll say though that I am usually in agreement with the things you say and was aiming that at a different poster (or had a different poster's comment in mind).

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

These traditional roles you guys idealize were just as much a prison for men as they were for women.

C'mon, haven't you read any Warren Farrell?

You mean Will Ferrell.