Momma Grizzlies Know How To Protect Their Cubs - The New Feminists?

[Lord of Elves]

I'm not sure what you point is here. That feminists undeservedly draw attention to themselves by acting as though there really are problems which concern themselves, as well as all women, instead of ignoring the problems and pretending they no longer exist as many people do?

Uhh, yes, if you want it to put that way. I guess I get up every morning and oppress me a wimmen-folk before breakfast and just never noticed it before

 

[Traitorfish]

Uhh, yes, if you want it to put that way. I guess I get up every morning and oppress me a wimmen-folk before breakfast and just never noticed it before

Lousy strawman is lousy.

 

[GoodGame]

Is this a ploy to get California and Russia in Palin's camp?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Lousy strawman is lousy.

Not a straw-man. I really want to know, where are the figures that show that women are being "oppressed"? Not just getting a lower wage job (that proves to be an entirely different discussion) but actively harassed and consistently so.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not a straw-man. I really want to know, where are the figures that show that women are being "oppressed"? Not just getting a lower wage job (that proves to be an entirely different discussion) but actively harassed and consistently so.

It's really a bit more complex than that. It's about overturning a patriarchal society rooted in a binary model of gender and sexuality which repressed males and females of all genders and sexual orientations. Do a bit of research into it, don't just throw out these archaic second-wave strawmen. You're asking for elaboration on an argument which nobody (well, nobody worth listening to) is making.

 

[Lord of Elves]

It's really a bit more complex than that. It's about overturning a patriarchal society rooted in a binary model of gender and sexuality which repressed males and females of all genders and sexual orientations. Do a bit of research into it, don't just throw out these archaic second-wave strawmen. You're asking for elaboration on an argument which nobody (well, nobody worth listening to) is making.

Well, yes, that's all very well and good and I'm all for the evolution of the society and the disappearance of outdated concepts and modes, but considering that the human species is physically binary-gendered, is it wrong to think of "deviations", from those modes of gender as deviations?

That is to say, are those discrepancies from the "normal", pattern resulting from an actual physical difference, or just the preference and behavior of the individual?

 

[Leonel]

Don't mama grizzlies also rise up on their hind legs and attack you if you even exist in the same field of view as her cub?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, yes, that's all very well and good and I'm all for the evolution of the society and the disappearance of outdated concepts and modes, but considering that the human species is physically binary-gendered, is it wrong to think of "deviations", from those modes of gender as deviations?

You confuse "sex" with "gender. The two are distinct, specifically, the human species is, as you say, naturally binary-gendered (although the acceptance of intersex individuals is also a plank in the third-wave and LGBT platforms), but that gender is a social construct which draws on innate biological qualities. That's not to say that constructs are arbitrary or imaginary, however, simply that they represent conventions, rather than absolute truths. The recurring appearance of the male and female genders in societies across the globe appears to suggest that the binary gender system has it's roots in human psychology, but the existence of third gender and transgender traditions, differing attitudes towards homosexuality, and variations between gender roles reflects that our particular understanding of those genders is far from absolute or universal.

That is to say, are those discrepancies from the "normal", pattern resulting from an actual physical difference, or just the preference and behavior of the individual?

Well, the argument is that any perceptions of "normalcy" are social constructs, the conclusion being (in accordance with Liberal tradition) that people should be free from the social obligations created by these constructs, and so the constructs should be dissolved, at least in their present form, and replaced with a more fluid, subscriptive system of gender and sexual identity.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not a straw-man. I really want to know, where are the figures that show that women are being "oppressed"? Not just getting a lower wage job (that proves to be an entirely different discussion) but actively harassed and consistently so.

Given that you apparently think that bigotry and racism no longer exists in this country to any great extent, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary, I don't find it terribly surprising that you also think that women are no longer oppressed.

While the difference in salaries and wages has gotten better so it is now only 85% of the comparable wage for males, it is still far from being equal. I'm not sure why you think the most visible and obvious sign that this inequality still exists in the workplace is a matter of a different discussion, since it is clearly germane. The mere fact that half our elected representatives and half the executives in our corporations are not femaie smacks of this obvious inequality. Women hold only 1 in 5 of the top executive jobs in the top 73 public corporations, and only 14 percent of boardroom seats are occupied by women. In Congress, it is even worse. 13% of the Senate are women and 14% of the Representatives.

But there are far more reasons than that. Off the top of my head:

The fundamental right of all women to be able to decide whether or not to have an abortion has been severely eroded of late. If the far-right gains any more power, they may very well lose that right altogether in most, if not all, states. This has incredible implications regarding basic female human rights.

Women are also still quite frequently sexually harassed in the workplace. And their claims are frequently ignored even today. It has now been nearly 20 years since Anita Hill's sworn testimony fell on deaf ears during the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas, but such testimony still seems to carry as little weight even today.

Women are also frequently openly discriminated against if they show any desire to have a baby. Employers are still using that flimsy excuse to treat women as second class citizens, even though it is usually no big deal to provide unpaid maternity leave for a faily brief period so they can do so.

There are literally myriad different ways that still make women second class citizens in our society. Trying to steal the moniker of feminist by people who are actually just the opposive is even a direct attack.

 

[civver_764]

I think a certain degree of sexism is desirable. I don't want to have sex with a girl who plays football.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Not a straw-man. I really want to know, where are the figures that show that women are being "oppressed"? Not just getting a lower wage job (that proves to be an entirely different discussion) but actively harassed and consistently so.

No, none whatsoever, and nor has there ever been. There is only a conceptual vortex of ill-defined and contradictory assertions from Marxist-feminists who believe they have a right to politicise their personal problems.

I think a certain degree of sexism is desirable. I don't want to have sex with a girl who plays football.

It's official - even anarcho-communists reject foolish Marxist-feminism

 

[Traitorfish]

I think a certain degree of sexism is desirable. I don't want to have sex with a girl who plays football.

That's an issue of sexual preference, not sexism. There are plenty of girls who don't want to sleep with football players, either, but that doesn't imply that they object to playing of football by men, or the possession of appropriate physiques by men; they just prefer a different kind of man.

No, none whatsoever, and nor has there ever been. There is only a conceptual vortex of ill-defined and contradictory assertions from Marxist-feminists who believe they have a right to politicise their personal problems.

Who are these "Marxist-feminists" to which you refer, what are these "ill-defined and contradictory assertions", what are the "personal problems" they possess, and what grounds do you assert that they represent the dominant form of contemporary feminism? Additionally, when you say that "women have never been oppressed", do you simply mean in recent history, or do you mean throughout the entire history of the human race?

 

[civver_764]

That's an issue of sexual preference, not sexism. There are plenty of girls who don't want to sleep with football players, either, but that doesn't imply that they object to playing of football by men, or the possession of appropriate physiques by men; they just prefer a different kind of man.

I also like that society pushes girls to care a lot about their appearance. Is that sexism?

 

[Traitorfish]

I also like that society pushes girls to care a lot about their appearance. Is that sexism?

That depends. Do you think that men should be held to the same standards? Do you hold the appearance should be within prescriptive binary-gender norms? Or do you simply hold that people should invest in their personal appearance? Sexism, despite the half-understood stereotypes of feminism (and, unfortunately, some of the more mental feminists) does not simply consist of anyone doing anything appropriate to their traditional gender role as dictated by their biological sex, but to people doing things because of that gender role.
It's effective to think of properly developed feminism (and masculism) as a form of sexual anarchism; it's a school of thought which holds that people should be their own masters, and dictate their own actions, rather than be held to any imposed prescriptions of behaviour, formal or informal. Gender can still play a role in society, as a subscriptive notion arrived at by consensus, a "cultural collective", if you will, and adhered to as much as is necessary for effective interpersonal communication and cooperation, however much that may be.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Who are these "Marxist-feminists" to which you refer

Why did you put "Marxist-feminism" in inverted commas? I didn't just make it up you know

what are these "ill-defined and contradictory assertions"

prescriptive binary-gender norms
sexual anarchism
subscriptive notion arrived at by consensus
fluid, subscriptive system of gender
a patriarchal society rooted in a binary model of gender and sexuality

what are the "personal problems" they possess

For many of the more extreme feminists, childhood abuse, rape, being really ugly, domestic violence.

They used to sum it up with a nice little phrase "make the personal political" which means - my father/husband was/is an absolute s***, so now we're going to make everyone else suffer.

and what grounds do you assert that they represent the dominant form of contemporary feminism?

Because third-wave feminism never really materialised did it? The hijacked platform of the original movement, as taken over by the ultra-left nutjobs, is still the most vocal and virulent form of feminism.

Additionally, when you say that "women have never been oppressed", do you simply mean in recent history, or do you mean throughout the entire history of the human race?

I'm not aware of any societies that have deliberately and systematically made it their business to oppress women, and to oppress only women, qua women - without also oppressing men at the same time - simply because they were women. Such a society could not have survived.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why did you put "Marxist-feminism" in inverted commas? I didn't just make it up you know

I know, yes, I was quoting you. The idea being that you would then respond with some elaboration upon the concept of "Marxist-feminism", and, as indicated by my fourth question, why you hold this school of thought (which does exist, no questions there) to be representative of mainstream feminist thought? (And, while we're here, why you assert that "Marxism" is a necessarily negative or discrediting prefix, beyond your own personal prejudices.)

prescriptive binary-gender norms
sexual anarchism
subscriptive notion arrived at by consensus
fluid, subscriptive system of gender
a patriarchal society rooted in a binary model of gender and sexuality

Those are all pretty well defined and elaborated on, if you read the right stuff, and not at all contradictory. They're also things that I've just said, so I find it hard to believe that they are derived from any personal experience of feminist thought.

For many of the more extreme feminists, childhood abuse, rape, being really ugly, domestic violence.

"Many of the more extreme feminists"? That's a rather ill-defined demographic. Perhaps you could elaborate upon the identity of these individuals, and their relationship to the broader movement?

They used to sum it up with a nice little phrase "make the personal political" which means - my father/husband was/is an absolute s***, so now we're going to make everyone else suffer.

That's a rather significant misreading of a political philosophy with a far broader application. It refers to the belief that personal development and growth can and do play a part in a broader political movement, in this case, that nurturing a stronger self-identity among women leads to a stronger political movement. It's a call for individual development and grass-roots activity, rather than, as you suggest, a mangle cry for attention. I would've thought that would be quite self-evident to a supposed Objectivist, given the obvious applications which the concept has to your philosophy.

Because third-wave feminism never really materialised did it? The hijacked platform of the original movement, as taken over by the ultra-left nutjobs, is still the most vocal and virulent form of feminism.

What do you mean "it never materialised"? It quite clearly exists, as five minutes reading a few of the more progressively minded feminist blogs quite clearly demonstrates. Granted, it never had quite the mainstream presence, granted, but that is a far more complex issue than "whoops, Traitorfish just made it up". I think what you're doing is taking a common stereotype and insisting that it is an accurate depiction of mainstream feminist thought, despite the fact that rather clearly have little to no experience of it.

I'm not aware of any societies that have deliberately and systematically made it their business to oppress women, and to oppress only women, qua women - without also oppressing men at the same time - simply because they were women. Such a society could not have survived.

Why does the feminist objection to the historical oppression of women necessarily imply that only women were oppressed? Certainly, most modern feminists make a distinction between the concepts of patriarchy and male privilege and the notion that men were entirely and innately free of any and all oppression. Now, granted, there's an argument as to what extent the oppression of men was related to gender, but this isn't something that's been overlooked. One of the failings of second-wave feminism was the lack of a common acknowledgeable of the gender-based oppression of men (noting that this oppression primarily took place at the hands of patriarchal society, rather than at the hands of women), but third-wave feminism seeks to correct that, among other failings of the second wave, and is consequently a far richer place of discussion for such topics, particularly in given the support for LGBT rights (specifically the "G", "B" and "T" bits), and, increasingly, for masculist thought and the progressive wing of the men's movement.

 

[civver_764]

That depends. Do you think that men should be held to the same standards? Do you hold the appearance should be within prescriptive binary-gender norms? Or do you simply hold that people should invest in their personal appearance? Sexism, despite the half-understood stereotypes of feminism (and, unfortunately, some of the more mental feminists) does not simply consist of anyone doing anything appropriate to their traditional gender role as dictated by their biological sex, but to people doing things because of that gender role.
It's effective to think of properly developed feminism (and masculism) as a form of sexual anarchism; it's a school of thought which holds that people should be their own masters, and dictate their own actions, rather than be held to any imposed prescriptions of behaviour, formal or informal. Gender can still play a role in society, as a subscriptive notion arrived at by consensus, a "cultural collective", if you will, and adhered to as much as is necessary for effective interpersonal communication and cooperation, however much that may be.

Yeah, I think that in general girls should care more about their appearance than men. I'm not saying that they have to, but I much prefer that they do.

 

[LucyDuke]

It's a successful PR campaign by NOW and such that sadly link feminism with fringe lefty crap. The largest women's group in Amerca is the Concerned Women For America. Conservative, Christian, Female.

An overgrown knitting circle does not a feminist organization make. Meet me outside.

I'm not aware of any societies that have deliberately and systematically made it their business to oppress women, and to oppress only women, qua women - without also oppressing men at the same time - simply because they were women. Such a society could not have survived.

Have you heard of Africa? There are some societies there that you might want to take a look at.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, I think that in general girls should care more about their appearance than men. I'm not saying that they have to, but I much prefer that they do.

Well, I suppose that depends on your broader position. Simply acknowledge that you prefer a greater number of individuals that you find sexually attractive to exist is not, in itself, sexist; it depends on to what extend you see this as any sort of obligation, and to what extent you are complacent in the assertion of such obligations by other. Sex and feminism have a somewhat complicated history, and there is a lot of discussion on the subject, even within the pro-sex circles of third-wave feminism. All I can suggest is that you do some further reading, because all I can really suggest is that it "might be sexist", which isn't all that helpful.

Remember, both of you, you both purport to be libertarians, in your own ways. Sexual liberation is a necessary part of any libertarian program, and to ignore it is to ignore a significant imposed restriction on human behaviour. Only when people are free of all coercion, direct and indirect, hard and soft, can people truly be free. Freedom, at the end of the day, is political and social autonomy, and what is political and social autonomy if you are not personally autonomous?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Remember, both of you, you both purport to be libertarians, in your own ways. Sexual liberation is a necessary part of any libertarian program, and to ignore it is to ignore a significant imposed restriction on human behaviour. Only when people are free of all coercion, direct and indirect, hard and soft, can people truly be free. Freedom, at the end of the day, is political and social autonomy, and what is political and social autonomy if you are not personally autonomous?

And what you're forgetting is that ~98% of people are happy with their sexuality and gender, and never had to be coerced into accepting those genders/roles.

We cannot undermine and destroy society because 2% of people had problems with their sexuality/gender. You are forgetting the most important element of sexual freedom - the freedom to be left alone to carry on doing what is right for you. ~98% of people are free with their gender and sexuality - it is feminists who are trying to take away their autonomy in order to impose unwanted concepts on people who don't need them.

This whole project is superfluous. Just accept the fact that most people are perfectly happy with the roles they grow up in and that trying to undermine those roles is like trying to tell a homosexual person that they have no right to be homosexual. Then perhaps you will make some understanding about sexual freedom and autonomy that might be helpful to you.