Awareness
Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Feminism covers a broad range of allied philosophies/ideologies that advocate for equality of the sexes.
No it doesn't. Feminist theory is fundamentally anti-male by asserting patriarchy theory as their underlying justification for the demonisation of men. By reframing the world as a horror story with men as "the other" who solely possess agency and act upon women as victims, feminism attempts to present the moral justification for male hatred.
It is in claims such as this that you betray your fundamental ignorance of what feminism is. The term feminism covers a wide range of streams of thought that only have in common that they advance the interests of women and advocate gender equality. They range from liberal feminism to radical lesbian feminism. Many of these streams disagree with others on a variety of issues. Those extremes range from a little nutty, to full-man-hating lesbian nutty. All of them, however, are founded upon patriarchy theory. Without patriarchy theory, there is no feminism.
Essentially you're arguing there are multiple shades of shit. Regardless of the color, it's still shit.
quote:
It is more accurate to refer to feminisms, the plural. You continual attempts to reduce the wide range of feminist thinking to a single ideology. definable only by relation to males (as you insist above), demonstrates how unfamiliar you are with the reality of today's third wave feminisms. Third wave intersectional feminism is utter nonsense which attempts to co-opt men, women of color and trans women (who feminism has treated abominably for decades) into their fold in order to justify further privilege acquisition by middle class white women.
The argument is essentially "women in third world countries are treated like shit and trans women suffer because men are toxic - so give us more stuff!" - It's pretty much the most noxious, toxic and ultimately self-interested style of feminism.
quote:
Just one example: if only men had agency as your 'definition' of feminism asserts, then feminisms couldn't exist as women would be without the necessary agency to invent feminisms. That's a measure of how stupid and internally inconsistent your claims are, and how ridiculously easy they are to dismiss. Actually you're proving my point for me. Feminism claims that women have agency, except when it means holding women responsible for their fuckups - you know, treating them like an adult.
So, women have agency - of course they fucking do - but feminism insists they don't because when a man and a woman both get drunk and fuck, the man is a rapist.
Feminism denies female agency when it's useful to portray women as objects who are acted upon. So feminism both claims women have female agency, then pretends they don't when it's a disadvantage to possess that agency and be held responsible for their actions.
quote:
Your insistence that you can define feminism(s) and that the womens movement cannot accurately define it self speaks equally to your arrogance and ignorance. Men have never had the right to define feminisms and they never will. That makes as much sense as IS defining democracy ie no sense at all.
Oh dear. Education time again!
For any ideology to be taken seriously, it has to be at least credible. It has to possess internal consistency, its view of the world has to be explained, its assessment of the status quo, it's proposal of a new vision for the future and the means by which a transition from present state to future state takes place.
For feminism, that vision of the status quo is found in patriarchy theory which posits that men as a class have oppressed women as a class for millenia. Without patriarchy theory, without that assessment of the status quo which claims that women are oppressed and treated unfairly because they are women, the entire thesis of feminism collapses.
Otherwise the conversation goes something like this:
"Women deserve equal rights!"
"They have them. When was the last time you saw a woman breathing coal dust in a mine? Now do fuck off."
If someone is claiming to be a feminist without referencing patriarchy theory, then she's advocating for reforms but producing absolutely no rationale for why those reforms should be instituted. Mind you, feminists making claims without evidence is pretty much de rigueur. Evidence is so unfashionable. Of course, once you examine feminist's claims and their corresponding lack of evidence - those claims collapse.
quote:
You can be as pompous loud, long winded and abusive about it as you like. I don't need permission from you on what I can be. Get back in your fucking box, you badly overestimate both your significance and your capability.
quote:
But it doesn't and can't cover the very obvious fact that you really haven't a clue what feminisms are about. A claim for which you have zero evidence. What? A feminist without evidence? That's so common it's practically a cliche.
Yes dear, you're a cliche.
quote:
That you are so strident in your opposition to a movement that has improved the standard and quality of life for hundreds of millions of women, if not billions, across the planet suggests that, just like your mate poor little nicki, your real hatred is of women not feminisms, It has done no such thing. Feminism has improved the lot of employers who now have a doubled labour force to draw from and due to the sudden influx of workers resulted in a drop in wages, reducing the income of families in real terms since the second world war. Families are in fact, worse off, than before feminism.
In the totalitarian societies such as our friends of the communist and socialist persuasion, feminism allowed the state to double its labour force, erase familial ties and replace all interpersonal loyalty with loyalty to the party. I doubt you'll find a Russian or Chinese woman who considers herself better off due to feminism. Now she has to work AND care for her children and possibly her husband if he doesn't have work. That sound like a paradise to you?
As for third world countries, that's just a bald-faced lie. Intersectional feminism has only started to claim concern for third world women in the last decade and only because they make for great photo ops which are then used to argue for less responsibility and more dollars. "Women in third world countries are dying, so us white women need more stuff!"
The moral bankruptcy of that last case is particularly fucking sickening.
quote:
that you cannot cope with the thought and/or the reality of gender equality in today's world. Women currently possess gender advantage and feminists keep pursuing further advantage for women while disadvantaging men. If you're too stupid to realise this, then that's entirely your own problem. It's not my job to educate your ignorant ass.
quote:
Well suck on it stupid, thanks to feminisms and feminists, the days when men ruled and women listened are long gone and never coming back.
Now that's a classic feminist statement. Devoid of content, evidence and useful only for the insight it gives us into the personality issues of the author.
Go have a lie down and a cup of tea. There's a good girl.
_____________________________
Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.
|
RE: Women's rights groups to rally against equal custod... - 
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