PeonForHer
Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I can't understand why you're being such a glistening meatpole about this, Awareness. I'm a feminist and so is Lucy and here we are opposing it, right here on this thread, in front of your eyes. No you're fucking not. You say you doubt OTHER people would be happy with this, then reinforce the court's judgment by opining that a woman who kills is mentally ill and not actually responsible for her actions. Demonstrating exactly the same attitude which attributes agency to men - and holds them responsible - while regarding women as objects, and thus victims.
Yes I fuckety-fucking am. And, for the third time, I said 'my first thought at a woman giving birth to multiple babies then immediately killing them would more likely be majorly fucked up rather than 'evil'. This doesn't make what she did any less horrifying - but I'd rather see her secured in a looney bin than a prison.' I didn't say that this would be *conclusion after much consideration*.
The reality about this case is that a) everybody would be horrified b) few people would have seen or heard anything like it before therefore c) most people would be desperately searching for an explanation. Myself, I don't know whether we're looking at extreme evil, extreme madness, or a mixture of both.
Stop straw-manning, Awareness. I'm sorry that nobody here has presented the 'feminist-bogeywoman' view that you and Nick so dearly want to have presented for your delight and righteous fury - but you'll just have to live with facts on this occasion.
quote:
quote:
Or do you absolutely insist that feminism just *must* be defined by everything that some woman says, somewhere, that you don't like? Apparently you think feminism is defined by a dictionary definition, regardless of the actual ideology behind it. That's a convenient sham behind which feminists hide their man-hate. And a self-hating man has more than a few fucking issues.
As I've also said before, 'feminism' is defined by social scientists in the way that I and the other foaming anti-feminists here have defined it. You've used the term 'feminist orthodoxy' elsewhere - lumping in various species of female aggrandisement, female supremacy and outright man-hating. That is not 'feminist orthodoxy'. Feminist orthodoxy is about what most feminists believe - their baseline of beliefs - 'to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women'.
We all know people for whom every 'socialist' is automatically a 'communist'; every 'conservative' is automatically a 'reactionary' or even a 'fascist'. There's a huge history of propaganda behind the terms that are used in politics. All of us, across the political spectrum, know this. There are various ways in which that malign propaganda works. One goes: 'If X and Y have any single belief in common, they must have all their beliefs in common'. Thus, Trump has said things that have sounded like some of things Mussolini said - therefore, like Mussolini, Trump is a fascist. Another is 'tarring with the same brush': if one self-proclaimed conservative thinker believes (or even did believe, a century ago, when he was still alive) that black people are an inferior race - that's what *all* conservatives (still, now) believe.
Obviously this is all balls. I think most of us, when we're being fair, will accept that a 'socialist' is someone who believes strongly in equality and the possibility of major social change towards that; while we'll also accept that conservatives are people who favour tradition, the 'devil we know' and a society that, for all its faults, is the best that's achievable (since that's how it's grown, almost organically, to be). We're not going to cast all socialists as Pol Pots or Stalins, nor all conservatives as would-be slavers. We're going to take the baseline set of beliefs as the orthodoxy.
Once an ideology (using that term strictly neutrally) has bedded itself into a culture well enough, we're usually so well-versed in its use that its meaning comes to be accepted without recourse to its 'leading philosophers'. (I put that in the quote marks because it's always question that any philosopher *is* a leader of any given movement.) Thus most socialists will be aware of Marx but I can bet many would struggle to think of another 'great name'. Likewise conservatives, re conservative political philosophy - how many of them will have heard of Thomas Hobbes, considered a founder of that philosophy? But it doesn't matter. Who needs the 'big names' any more?
This is how it's worked with feminism. It's become embedded in culture, now. So it makes little sense to define 'feminism' in terms of what this or that 'leading feminist philosopher' says - or did say, hundreds of years ago. Most feminists probably wouldn't have even have heard of most of those thinkers. It's now ingrained in many women, and men, that 'establishing, and achieving equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women' is a worthy aim - and the people that believe in that *are feminists*. To be a man-hater or female-supremacist is, by definition, not feminist. (And yes, you may use that as a charge against anyone you want with my blessing.)
Christ's sake. Do you get this now, Awareness? If you want to continue being deliberately inaccurate - the better, perhaps, to further some aim of preventing equality and holding back progress - go ahead and continue to try to lump in every questionable or even downright looney thing than any 'leading feminist thinker' as part of the 'feminist orthodoxy'. But you'll only ever get picked up on it over and again by people who know more than you (god knows, it's theoretically possible that they might exist). Some of those people will be like me - they'll have seen terms like 'socialism' trashed so badly and for so long that it all but killed the ideology behind it. This we'll try to prevent.
Likewise we'll try to prevent the term 'feminism', kicked around with frenzied and and tireless vigour by people like you and Nick from being kicked into the long grass. A person who wants 'to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women' *is* a feminist and to be a feminist, all you have to do is hold to those principles and not say or do anything that contradicts them. You and Nick don't get to further this nasty little propaganda war that has already made so many - especially many women - agree on the one hand with the principles of feminism, but denounce those principles in horror the moment you or one of your ilk says 'Aha! You're another Germaine Greer or even an Andrea Dworkin!'.
_____________________________
http://www.domme-chronicles.com
|
RE: Special law for women bails them out of depraved ac... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread