When ever you return please tell me what developed feeling and developed thinking look like as opposed to the undeveloped versions. To me, this seem important to the conversation.
Feminism
- Thread starter the
- Start date
Because the label means something important to me. I accept that it may mean something different to others. Im not the authority on the perception and meaning of the word.
Here's an article for you:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sexism-is-Widespread-in-Nature-61263.shtml
I know that the 'we're better than animals' argument is on the horizon so let me just say that I would never agree with that since the argument itself usually requires some sort of arbitrarily chosen 'ideal' that is highly subjective, and sometimes isn't realistically possible. And yes, even though we've done all that we can to isolate ourselves from it, we're still part of the natural world.
Interesting enough, though... at the end of the article they sort of argue that there is no real sexism in nature because males are also disadvantaged in different ways. You might actually be able to conclude that gender relations in nature involve a great deal of mutual brutality and exploitation.
I do agree that we can choose how we conduct ourselves and that our modern lives don't necessarily involve the same degree of brutality, but to say that things like rape or brutality aren't natural just isn't accurate.
In fact, studying nature actually invalidates a lot of claims about our so-called 'unnatural' behaviors-- a lot of these behaviors are only regarded as such because of far less 'natural' influences like religion, politics, etc. Most of our facilities exist to serve very primal purposes and I still think that we bury and repress a lot of our natural instincts in the name of civilization.
Again, this isn't suggesting that I agree with rape or murder or that I think rapists should be defended, just that murder, rape, etc. are actually far more 'natural' than you might think. I would say that an absence of natural predators combined with longer, healthier lifestyles has probably rendered these instincts/impulses obsolete, however.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that economics is largely a phenomena confined to humans and that economic oppression is therefore something quite different to other 'natural' forms of oppression.
Well, no, I think the most realistic course of action at this point is to struggle for economic equality-- probably some form of communism. Most of the legitimate feminist complaints revolve around economic disparities... prostitution and pornography are sex for profit, lack of education and employment opportunities means less money for women... in fact, I would even say that money/economics are responsible for the still-popular idea that the most attractive women are essentially a 'reward' for the richest men. There are definitely exceptions to this, but I still think it holds true for the majority. Remove wealth from the equation, and you're left with people relating to each other in a 'pure' fashion.
There is no reason to portray this disparity as a gender problem or as a symptom of male dominance... in purely economic terms, women are as empowered by their own objectification as men are by their wealth-- the richest men can buy the best objects. The gender war perpetuated by both the women's and men's movements is actually perpetuating a harmful division between people who should be struggling together for economic liberation-- remove wealth disparities and you'll see an enormous improvement.
Last edited:
We are not better than animals. We are different in some respects to animals. Humans are self aware. Animals are conscious and they have varying degress of self awareness- some much more so than others. Animals operate on instinct- the need for food, water, shelter, warmth, sex- basically the urge to survive and the urge to pass on their genetic material. Although God knows if thats how animals would see it...lol.i dont know, im only speculating based on my limited perception.
Self awareness means more awareness and control over ourselves and our environment. It implies a greater ability to consciously shape and create reality. We do not have to live an existance based soley on survival and passing on gentic material. Im sure most humans strive for something more. We can become trapped in our animal instincts and our fear responses. But we dont have to be.
Rape, hurting and killing is 'natural'. Sexism is natural. Life and death are natural. Killing to survive is natural. Altruism is natural. Nurturing is natural. Pain is natural. There is so much we can learn from watching animals. They mirror aspects of our being and show us our 'animal' nature. I accept this. However, when humans perform certain 'natural' behaviours such as rape, it creates 'suffering' in the the person that was raped and the person that did the raping. It lowers our consciousness. Unless these issues are resolved, they create long term trauma and psychological pain. A human may relive the experience again and again in their head, each recall creating fresh pain and adding to the suffering. Even when the person is removed from that environment and is taught new things. This happens because a great proportion of human experience is completely psychological or mental in nature. The person can 'choose' how long they will carry a particular burden. They can choose to never let it go and it will consequently effect everything they do from that point on. A person can become obessesive. It matters not what the actual state of the persons environment is and whether or not they are actually being threatened- because suffering is a purely mental state. This is one serious disadvantage for humans- the fact that we live in our heads.
Animals too may suffer. Animals experience pain, sadness, loneliness and learned helplessness. But they are also extremely adaptive. Ive seen the effect that abuse, mistreatment and neglect can have on animals. But animals can be reprogrammed with love and reconditioning new behaviour. They are so 'natural' in that way. So in the moment. responsive to their environment. Adaptive.
I think generally speaking animals are responding to their biological needs. Generally speaking, so are humans, except that most humans get caught up in their psychological state.
I agree that economic oppression is something limited to humans. Some animals can horde, and some plan ahead by collecting supplies. But rarely are animals greedy. They take what they need. Humans take more than they need because they fear not having enough, they fear dying and they fear not being as good as others.
This supposed ingrained evolutionay narrative of the woman trying to be as attractive as possible so that she can attract the most capable provider and for the man to prove his dominance over other men and be capable provider is narrowing behaviour down to the very lowest and fundamental denominator of reproduction and survival. Yes, its true women and men can act this way. But i do not believe that women are truly empowered by their objectification and that men are truly empowered by their wealth. Far from it. This constant need for survival, compete, be better, be this and that does not empower anyone. It makes people very miserable and disempowered. Bascially the premise is 'i am not good enough, i will never have enough unless i can be better than others'. This leads to continual self perpetuating fear, misery and suffering. This is unhealthy and dysfunctional. Competition will never yield as much progress as cooperation. Its not 'money' that people really want. I think it self love, worth, validation, freedom. All things that cannot truly be found in money. Money is just a mask for our deeper insecurity. It prevents us from looking deeper.
Money, weapons, popularity- its all the same shit. Masks and bandaids for fear. If someone is afraid and feeling insecure they might think that an external 'thing' may make that feel safer or better. They will horde money and weapons. And then they will be afraid of losing their money and weapons. For a fearful person there is always something to be afraid of. And then their money and weapons may be taken of them and they feel naked and afraid again. Because they never really addressed their fear and insecurity, they just sought external 'things' to mask them. What people truly want and need is self worth, validation and self love. This is an internal process. No thing and no person in this world can give people that security or peace of mind until they are prepared to face themselves and see what they really are. And this marks the end of suffering and the begin of true living.
I can say from the bottom of my heart that i do not aspire to be as attractive as i can be so that i can secure a male that can provide for me.
And yes- some form of socialism! And yay to women and men working together for economic liberation
^The pattern doesn't exist among wealthy (typical) westerners, because there are already basically equal opportunities available as well as decent wages. There are wage disparities between men and women (in some cases they actually favor the women), but the disparities are largely irrelevant because it doesn't affect either individual's ability to support themselves. People who are capable of supporting themselves and being comfortable can afford to look for other qualities in their SO's... the only reason that beautiful women marry rich men in the west is because of the status, and they're an anomaly simply because most of us are not that wealthy. But western people are also a very fortunate minority to be able to afford what we can afford.
I think that you have to narrow men and women down to basic survival in order to get a clear picture of the situation-- because as recently as the early 20th century, that's what life was. 80% of the population of England (the world's most prosperous nation at the time) was working class (and work was basically slavery). So that means that only 20% of people in the world's wealthiest nation could even afford to marry out of convenience (ie: not spit out babies to work in mines, factories, etc). But these people were still obligated to marry for land/wealth or to secure business mergers-- so, wealth (and by extension, status). So yes, people did whatever they could to survive-- and prostitution, marrying for money, etc... were survival strategies.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the idea of 'equality' is actually very new and that looking at it as some sort of 'natural' state that men have interfered with is ignoring the fact that until very recently human life was still mostly a struggle to survive however we could. If you look at people who live in true poverty (most of the world), you'll still see a lot of the old patterns/discrimination... and that's what most people used to be like.
I think that you have to narrow men and women down to basic survival in order to get a clear picture of the situation-- because as recently as the early 20th century, that's what life was. 80% of the population of England (the world's most prosperous nation at the time) was working class (and work was basically slavery). So that means that only 20% of people in the world's wealthiest nation could even afford to marry out of convenience (ie: not spit out babies to work in mines, factories, etc). But these people were still obligated to marry for land/wealth or to secure business mergers-- so, wealth (and by extension, status). So yes, people did whatever they could to survive-- and prostitution, marrying for money, etc... were survival strategies.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the idea of 'equality' is actually very new and that looking at it as some sort of 'natural' state that men have interfered with is ignoring the fact that until very recently human life was still mostly a struggle to survive however we could. If you look at people who live in true poverty (most of the world), you'll still see a lot of the old patterns/discrimination... and that's what most people used to be like.
Bascially this need to be attractive to find a boy and the need to have the biggest stick to get the girl is something that happens in patriarchal societies. It is not a necessary 'evolutionary' behaviour in matriarchal or more balanced societies. In more balanced societies people strive for things to fulfill them as individuals, they dont have to rely on impressing and securing the opposite sex for survival.
So basically i dont have to live like that because of feminism. And thank fuck for that. Because of feminism our previously partriarchal dominant society can start evolving into a society that isnt all about bigs sticks and obsession with superficial attractiveness anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
societies that were matriarchal or egalitarian. Matriarchy does not necessarily mean female dominated in the way that patriarchy means male dominated.
keep in mind too that much of written history has been recorded and intepreted from a patriarchal view point
And i remember watching a history doc where they spoke about 'Etruscans' being one of the most egalitarian societies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization
These were the people wiped out to found Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization
These were the people wiped out to found Rome
Well, the Iroquois were matriarchal. Women dominated morality and politics and were considered the 'center' of the confederacy. Does this mean that since they weren't egalitarian, it was actually a patriarchy but with women? They were also extremely violent-- they actually had battles solely for revenge purposes.
I don't think it's realistic or fair to assign only positive qualities to 'feminine' societies and only negative qualities to 'masculine' societies... there is little difference between a gang of jocks being up a skinny kid and a group of popular girls manipulating each other and eroding the self esteem of a homely loner. Everyone can be cruel, and everyone can be kind-- women aren't cruel just because of men.
Also: in the US, women were finally given the right to vote in 1920... this is considered a big deal. What isn't considered a big deal is that non-property owning men were only given the right to vote in 1850. This pattern is similar to a lot of other European countries. So not counting those 70 years (which actually constitutes an industrialization-boosted progression towards more a more liberated society in general, as other races got the vote in 1870) , how were the majority of men more 'empowered' than the majority of women?
Last edited:
[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] i think we are having a miscommunication with each other. Some matriachies were egalitarian. Some matriarchies werent. I dont think that a male dominated or a female dominated society is good. Im suggesting a more balanced society. There are positive and negative qualities to both masculine and feminine energies. Neither is better or worse. I want an egalitarian society. This means that neither the masculine or the feminine are exaggerated or become dominant. Neither masculine or feminine energy become suppressed. There is less possibility of gender oppression.
The dynamic and the drives of evolution would be completely different in an egalitarian society than in a society that was dominated by either men or women
The dynamic and the drives of evolution would be completely different in an egalitarian society than in a society that was dominated by either men or women
I thought that when you said 'matriarchal or egalitarian' you were equating the two terms-- but apparently you were just listing alternatives.
Some people actually do equate matriarchy with egalitarianism, so I guess that's why I was confused.
Sorry.
Some people actually do equate matriarchy with egalitarianism, so I guess that's why I was confused.
Sorry.
While I get what you're saying [MENTION=933]Seraphim[/MENTION], but technically, feminism promotes equality from the perspective of women to men, not vice-versa. It is not focused on granting men rights equivalent to women. Or gender equality. At least not according to the dictionary. But I'm just arguing semantics. I only bring it up because I see so many people having different opinions on what feminism means, so I thought I'd look up what the dictionary thinks.
fem·i·nism [fem-uh-niz-uh m]
noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.
If the goal was to promote gender equality, then it would not be called feminism it would be called egalitarianism.
e·gal·i·tar·i·an·ism [ih-gal-i-tair-ee-uh-niz-uh m]
noun
1. belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, or economic life.
2. active promotion of this belief.
NOTE: I'm only arguing semantics (an annoying habit I have.
)and not your views on gender equality.
I do not believe in feminism. I do not believe in treating people equally. I have no beliefs or opinions on the matter really. I will not treat all men or all women equally; nor will I treat all people equally. I will treat each individual however I see fit. Usually quite nicely, unless you piss me off.
fem·i·nism [fem-uh-niz-uh m]
noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.
If the goal was to promote gender equality, then it would not be called feminism it would be called egalitarianism.
e·gal·i·tar·i·an·ism [ih-gal-i-tair-ee-uh-niz-uh m]
noun
1. belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, or economic life.
2. active promotion of this belief.
NOTE: I'm only arguing semantics (an annoying habit I have.
)and not your views on gender equality.I do not believe in feminism. I do not believe in treating people equally. I have no beliefs or opinions on the matter really. I will not treat all men or all women equally; nor will I treat all people equally. I will treat each individual however I see fit. Usually quite nicely, unless you piss me off.
Last edited:
According to the first definition, there is no way that feminism does not treat men equally to women. If women are equal to men, then by using the term 'equal,' men are equal to women, so your statement that "It is not focused on granting men rights equivalent to women" is false, by definition.
If A=B, and A=8, then B=8. So if women's rights=men's rights, men's rights=women's rights.
If feminism is 'meta' and critical of itself, then why are you getting so upset that I'm being critical of it? Would you feel differently about what I'm saying if I had said 'I'm a feminist' first?
The way I see it, feminism is piggybacking on a legitimate movement and demeaning it in the process.
If feminism is about equality, then what separates it from egalitarianism or humanism? You don't think that there's a difference between feminism and women's rights? You don't think that different people define 'equality' differently? What does 'equality' even mean, exactly? How will we know when we've achieved it? Don't you think that if you're claiming to be part of a movement that is only about 'equality', that it's probably important to know exactly what 'equality' is?
Is it only 'equality' when the statistics show that every single possible job in the world has a 50/50 balance between men and women? When rape no longer exists? When wars kill just as many female as male soldiers? When we know for certain that it's impossible that a man could ever overpower any woman? Are you going to wipe out bullying? Religion? Seriously, what exactly is the end game here, and how is any of it separate from all of the other egalitarian movements out there?
The way I see it, feminism is piggybacking on a legitimate movement and demeaning it in the process.
If feminism is about equality, then what separates it from egalitarianism or humanism? You don't think that there's a difference between feminism and women's rights? You don't think that different people define 'equality' differently? What does 'equality' even mean, exactly? How will we know when we've achieved it? Don't you think that if you're claiming to be part of a movement that is only about 'equality', that it's probably important to know exactly what 'equality' is?
Is it only 'equality' when the statistics show that every single possible job in the world has a 50/50 balance between men and women? When rape no longer exists? When wars kill just as many female as male soldiers? When we know for certain that it's impossible that a man could ever overpower any woman? Are you going to wipe out bullying? Religion? Seriously, what exactly is the end game here, and how is any of it separate from all of the other egalitarian movements out there?
Last edited:
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that men already have all rights that women do.
And why use a word that pertains to women if the intended focus was on gender equality?
It's simply because the concept of 'equality' is ambiguous. As is 'power,' 'oppression,' and 'gender'. No one is going to agree on what constitutes equality. Is this possible to achieve? Are we conflating the idea with a utopian society? What's fair and unfair? One person's oppression is another's order. Should we allow ritualized killing as an expression of religious freedom? What about the nonpayment of taxes as a tenet of one's faith (people have tried to make this argument in a court of law and were denied).
Nobody is going to agree on what constitutes complete equality.