aneeshm
Deity
The more I read about this ideology, the more I come to the conclusion that feminism is, at least today, inherently negativist, based on negation and not affirmation, and in general anti-life. A devout feminist is incapable of a normal relationship with a man, or with her society, and is incompatible with the family unit.
This movement may, once upon a time, have been a force for the good, when women were fighting for equality, but now they have degenerated into some sort of rabidly anti-men, anti-society, anti-establishmentarian farce.
When I see the syllabus for "Women's Studies", I see most of it is plain rubbish masquerading as scholarship.
Another part, which I covered in an earlier thread, is that women in the movement are denied any traditional role models. All women who were well-integrated into their society, or served as a model for later women (such as Sita, Kunti, Draupadi, et al) are called "slaves". All women who follow normal gender roles are called "slaves". Hell, all women who have a normal and happy married life are also called "slaves"! Slaves of what, precisely? The Patriarchal society, or course!
One thing which I realised is that trying to form an ideological movement around a simple struggle for equality is dangerous and ultimately self-defeating. This is because movements and ideologies have a life of their own, once initiated.
When the feminist movement started, it aimed at gender equality, or equality of opportunity. Today, in Europe and America, this equality is a reality.
But any movement, once started, acquires a life of its own. If feminism had been simply a struggle for equal rights, it would have ended when these rights were granted. The mistake that occurred was that it became an ideology, a movement.
Any movement seeks to justify its existence. The only way feminism could seek to justify its existence after they achieved their ends (of gender equality through legislation) was to expand their scope, or to somehow try to establish that their objective was not yet achieved. They chose to follow both these methods.
In the first place, feminists have expanded into what is called "Women's Studies", supposedly a study of women. I've always wondered what that really meant, because women cannot be studied as one would study a biological specimen, devoid of all context. This ensures that the "movement" remains alive.
The second method is of somehow saying that in spite of the achievement of all their stated goals, the goals haven't really been achieved, and by making more and more demands. The demands, of necessity, grow more and more absurd as time goes on, because all the reasonable ones have already been granted. Demands and cries of "Help! Help! I, the poor helpless woman, am being oppressed!" always help in rallying people around the cause.
One interesting side-effect is that this locks feminists into a sense of perpetual victimhood. What they don't understand is that this reinforces the image of women as helpless or weak far better than any amount of male domination ever could.
The moral of the story: don't turn struggles into movements. It degenerates into farce. And don't pay attention to idiots - these "studiers" of "women" will die out if not given any more attention of paid any heed.
And just to piss off feminists, from now on, I'm going to start calling myself a "Patriarchian".
This movement may, once upon a time, have been a force for the good, when women were fighting for equality, but now they have degenerated into some sort of rabidly anti-men, anti-society, anti-establishmentarian farce.
When I see the syllabus for "Women's Studies", I see most of it is plain rubbish masquerading as scholarship.
Another part, which I covered in an earlier thread, is that women in the movement are denied any traditional role models. All women who were well-integrated into their society, or served as a model for later women (such as Sita, Kunti, Draupadi, et al) are called "slaves". All women who follow normal gender roles are called "slaves". Hell, all women who have a normal and happy married life are also called "slaves"! Slaves of what, precisely? The Patriarchal society, or course!
One thing which I realised is that trying to form an ideological movement around a simple struggle for equality is dangerous and ultimately self-defeating. This is because movements and ideologies have a life of their own, once initiated.
When the feminist movement started, it aimed at gender equality, or equality of opportunity. Today, in Europe and America, this equality is a reality.
But any movement, once started, acquires a life of its own. If feminism had been simply a struggle for equal rights, it would have ended when these rights were granted. The mistake that occurred was that it became an ideology, a movement.
Any movement seeks to justify its existence. The only way feminism could seek to justify its existence after they achieved their ends (of gender equality through legislation) was to expand their scope, or to somehow try to establish that their objective was not yet achieved. They chose to follow both these methods.
In the first place, feminists have expanded into what is called "Women's Studies", supposedly a study of women. I've always wondered what that really meant, because women cannot be studied as one would study a biological specimen, devoid of all context. This ensures that the "movement" remains alive.
The second method is of somehow saying that in spite of the achievement of all their stated goals, the goals haven't really been achieved, and by making more and more demands. The demands, of necessity, grow more and more absurd as time goes on, because all the reasonable ones have already been granted. Demands and cries of "Help! Help! I, the poor helpless woman, am being oppressed!" always help in rallying people around the cause.
One interesting side-effect is that this locks feminists into a sense of perpetual victimhood. What they don't understand is that this reinforces the image of women as helpless or weak far better than any amount of male domination ever could.
The moral of the story: don't turn struggles into movements. It degenerates into farce. And don't pay attention to idiots - these "studiers" of "women" will die out if not given any more attention of paid any heed.
And just to piss off feminists, from now on, I'm going to start calling myself a "Patriarchian".
