|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: If you go around saying feminism is a bad thing....
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
...a lot of women are going to perceive you as a threat. You have free speech and you have the right to voice the opinion that feminism is a negative movement that oppresses you unfairly but don't act surprised and butt hurt when people disagree with you. Feminism is the reason women can vote, work and avoid being possessions. Consider the fact that when you make statements denouncing feminism you will be heard as saying that for example women shouldn't be allowed to qualify as professionals or own their own houses.
[ 22. January 2015, 02:03: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Excellent. I'm sure some random molecules of air somewhere are feeling duly chastised, seeing how you've given us no real clue as to who this might actually be directed at.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Feminism is terrible.
It suggest we women can have a full-time paid job, and a full-time unpaid job raising kids and running a household ( not to mention caring for decrepit parents too) and be blissfully happy to boot.
Hilarious idea!
Oh no wait. Maybe it doesn't mean that.
Maybe it means two parents in a household can both hold full-time stressful paid jobs, share the running of a household part-time, be excellent parents, care for decrepit parents and have sufficient leisure time.
Also hilarious!
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)
[ 16. August 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
What I find hilarious is when professional female politicians assure us that women should not vote and should not work outside the home.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What I find hilarious is when professional female politicians assure us that women should not vote and should not work outside the home.
That's another manifestation of the "Laws That Should Only Apply to Other People" phenomenon. There's hundreds of them in every jurisdiction.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I've never heard such hogwash from a politician (people vote for this woman?) but I've heard women preachers say that feminism is a bad thing. (?) I was once riding a bus with a bunch of soldiers and one of the women proclaimed loudly that she wasn't a feminist. I asked her if that meant she thought her equal pay and equal opportunity to advance in rank was something she planned to forgo.
I was an early member of NOW and worked to get my local schools to put some brochures in their career rack that suggested the girls might grow up to be doctors and engineers as well as nurses and housewives. You wouldn't believe how hard it was to get this small change across to the (all men) school board. Some of the things I remember are; applying for a job at a bank and being told that "Men wouldn't trust women to handle their money," and being told at K-Mart that a woman would never manage any of the departments because, "Men won't take orders from a woman." I think some younger women just have no idea how it used to be.
I wouldn't belong to NOW today because I think their emphasis has moved from equal rights for women to special rights for women in some areas, but I'll always call myself a feminist so long as I think we deserve to be treated as full citizens.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am on travel now with limited computer power but I am sure it is easy to find YouTube video of such moronities. If I can find a link I will post it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wouldn't belong to NOW today because I think their emphasis has moved from equal rights for women to special rights for women in some areas, but I'll always call myself a feminist so long as I think we deserve to be treated as full citizens.
I called myself a feminist until I got to college, where I kept encountering people who tried to tell me what I thought and felt and how I was raised. The problem is that what they were telling me had nothing to do with what I thought or felt or how I was raised. They also used 'you can't think that and call yourself a feminist' as an argumentative strategy frequently.
So I stopped calling myself a feminist. I'm not an anti-feminist either. But, on the other hand, I had to stop blogging arguments against some of the things the most prominent feminists of my generation (Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Melissa McEwan, Jill Filipovic, Sadie Doyle, etc.) say because the rape and death threats got to be too much and the people making them were too tech savvy about hiding their IP addresses.
I know there are those who say that if you are in favor of equal rights for men and women then you are a feminist. But words mean what people mean when they use words, and I can't determine if the majority is still using the word that way.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just don't call yourself a feminist if you're male, or The Silent Acolyte will rip your lungs out.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)
Actually that's more a practical outworking of the erosion of working- and middle-class wages. But go ahead, blame it on Feminism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)
Yes, it's ever so much better if due to the erosion of the middle class the family needs the second income but the woman gets paid much less.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
There are specific movements that do not call themselves feminist, such as womanism - it was started in response to the domination of feminism by white women (which sadly is still the case today) and black women's needs being ignored. In that context, a black woman can easily say that feminism is a bad thing because it has fought for the rights of a particular group of women (white, middle-class, non-disabled, cisgender) and excluded other women such as black women. So not all critiques of feminism come from a sexist POV, but these are generally critiques from women.
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So I stopped calling myself a feminist. I'm not an anti-feminist either. But, on the other hand, I had to stop blogging arguments against some of the things the most prominent feminists of my generation (Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Melissa McEwan, Jill Filipovic, Sadie Doyle, etc.) say because the rape and death threats got to be too much and the people making them were too tech savvy about hiding their IP addresses.
I know there are those who say that if you are in favor of equal rights for men and women then you are a feminist. But words mean what people mean when they use words, and I can't determine if the majority is still using the word that way.
I would love to hear you say more about this, Saysay. I'm not familiar with any of the writers you just mentioned but I've heard things over the years that were so extremist and so angry toward men -- including little boys!--that I could hardly believe they were serious.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jade Constable: Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
I don't understand very well what you're saying here.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I would love to hear you say more about this, Saysay. I'm not familiar with any of the writers you just mentioned but I've heard things over the years that were so extremist and so angry toward men -- including little boys!--that I could hardly believe they were serious.
For the most part the writers I mentioned started as bloggers back in the days when blogs were new. Most of them blogged about a combination of feminism and politics (from a Democratic/leftist perspective). They are also, for the most part, agnostics or atheists with varying degrees of Dawkins-esque hostility towards religions and religious believers. (For example, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen got pulled off the Edwards campaign after protests from the Catholic League). But I'm used to being insulted as someone who is obviously just stupid because x,y,z.
As time went on, ISTM that their blogs became more and more like echo chambers, where any dissent from the party line or any disagreement with anything was inherently considered hate speech and a personal attack no matter how politely phrased. As such the comment would be deleted and the commenter banned from the site. That in itself wasn't too much of a problem for me - your blog, your space, your right to set rules and control who is in the space.
Except at the same time they seemed to be gaining a wider audience in popular leftist news sites, such as Slate, Salon, and the Huffington Post.
Having a lot of very conservative family members (think Wheaton college in Illinois), my experience is that a vicious personal attack accusing someone of taking certain actions because they believe horrible things that they do not in fact believe is not exactly the best way to get them to change their minds about policy. Before I left the south I considered myself a yellow-dog Democrat, so of course my first instinct was to try to reign in some of the craziness. So for a while I was linking to things and trying to lay out a logical argument and explain why I didn't think certain techniques were the best strategies for pursuing certain goals.
As it turns out, there are a bunch of ideas you apparently can't express on the internet without expecting rape and death threats (take anything other than the party line when it comes to sexual assault and campus rape and watch how many people pop up to tell you you should be raped and beaten so you'll have some sympathy for the victims; try explaining how offensive you find it that people are equating situations that involved severe physical violence with situations that involved hurt feelings and people seem to respond by threatening you with physical violence).
I don't think the vast majority of feminists hate men or boys or 'masculine' things, but I don't think we're doing anyone any favors by letting certain comments by people who are in the spotlight slide without calling them out on those comments. Because I do think there are some people who do hate those things; like you, I've heard some things that are so extremist and so angry towards men that I would have thought they were parodies if they weren't coming from extended family members. There are others who I just can't figure out how to read.
But anyway. I'm currently one of those people who has no idea what I'm going to do next election cycle because I don't think I left the Democrats or feminism; I think they left me by almost solely concerning themselves with the lives of middle to upper-middle class white women and their bizarre obsession with getting everyone to accept their ideas about sex.
I don't know if that answers your question or not. I have more to say but don't want to drone on forever.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.
And I would have said that it's about breaking down false hierarchies of power; hierarchies based on your sex or hair or eye or skin color or the social class you were born into, etc.
I'm fine with the hierarchy that says that my doctor friend - having studied and practiced medicine for a very long time - has more authority in medical discussions than I do.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)
I'm not convinced that's the outworking of feminism, seems to me it's the outworking of greed. A better house, better car, better holidays etc etc requires maximum income. THe outworking of feminism might be for each parent to work part-time-that's what some couples I know do. Of course they have less status and less money but they're less stressed and their kids get the care their parents believe best.. Feminism is about women being able to choose what to do with their bodies and their lives and possessions.
For those couples/families really need 2 incomes in order to survive, then it's not about feminism, it's the same economic probs that made mums into washerwomen or fishwives selling their husbands' catch etc long before feminism.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jade Constable: Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
I don't understand very well what you're saying here.
The liberation of women from the patriarchy is not about saying that men and women are equal. The patriarchy is structurally designed to advantage men over women - therefore if you institute shallow 'equality' without removing the institutional patriarchal structures, equality doesn't actually mean anything.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So I stopped calling myself a feminist. I'm not an anti-feminist either. But, on the other hand, I had to stop blogging arguments against some of the things the most prominent feminists of my generation (Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Melissa McEwan, Jill Filipovic, Sadie Doyle, etc.) say because the rape and death threats got to be too much and the people making them were too tech savvy about hiding their IP addresses.
I know there are those who say that if you are in favor of equal rights for men and women then you are a feminist. But words mean what people mean when they use words, and I can't determine if the majority is still using the word that way.
I would love to hear you say more about this, Saysay. I'm not familiar with any of the writers you just mentioned but I've heard things over the years that were so extremist and so angry toward men -- including little boys!--that I could hardly believe they were serious.
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.
But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?
Feminism is about women.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
For those couples/families really need 2 incomes in order to survive, then it's not about feminism, it's the same economic probs that made mums into washerwomen or fishwives selling their husbands' catch etc long before feminism.
As you point out, the idealized image of father going out to work and mother staying at home with the children doesn't paint a complete picture even of life in the 50s, say. There is an element of truth in there, though. The price of a house is determined by the ability of people to pay for it. When the norm (at least, for the house-buying segment of the population) is to have a single income for the family, that limits, on average, the price of a typical house. When you introduce two-income house purchasers to the equation, you have a population who (because they have more income) can outbid the single-income folks for the desirable houses, and so push prices up. This in turn places pressure on the remaining single-income families to go double-income if they want to be able to afford what they consider a decent house.
So to the extent that feminism enabled married women to be employed (rather than being required to leave on marriage - cf. teachers, secretaries etc. in the pre-war years), we could blame it for pressuring middle-class families to have two incomes.
This doesn't make feminism a bad thing, of course - no societal change has ever had immediate positive benefits for everyone. The losers in this case are families containing women who don't want to work* - in the prior social arrangement, they were protected from competition with families with women who wanted to work by the fact that nobody would employ a married woman. Once you remove that constraint, families with women who want to work win, and those with women who don't want to work lose.
There has to be an additional effect - a net benefit to the country as a whole from a larger workforce, and the addition of a bunch of smart, resourceful women to the ranks of the wealth generators. This change should look like an increase in growth (whether we're talking about economic growth, technological / standard of living growth or what). At some point, the benefits to the whole of society of this growth must exceed the penalty inflicted on the woman who doesn't want to work, so even she is better off. I don't think I know how to sensibly calculate that.
*Yes, I know stay-at-home parents do work. I have one in my house - I am well aware of how much work she does. "Work" here is used to mean paid employment.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just don't call yourself a feminist if you're male, or The Silent Acolyte will rip your lungs out.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) If believing in equal pay and equality under the law and all of that makes one a feminist... if getting angry at the pink Barbie world foisted on little girls as their only option makes one angry... then I'm a feminist.
(Of course I have no idea whether The Silent Acolyte is anything like that, but I thought I'd mention this.)
I used to not classify myself as a feminist because it seemed to assume an array of things, and as well I don't have problems with all manner of hierarchy in marriage as long as it is consensual, but then when any given issue came up I wound up on the "feminist" side, so at this point if it walks and talks and quacks like a duck, I may as well emit appropriately feminist quacks rather than keep thinking I don't count.
And while I'm not thrilled with there being any conflict between Hillary and Obama right now, I will eagerly vote for her in 2016 though I would probably prefer Elizabeth Warren.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've never heard such hogwash from a politician (people vote for this woman?)
Oh God. Linky time. The US is insane, alas.
Kelly Ayote: I Voted Against Equal Pay For Women Because We Have Enough Laws
Michelle Bachmann, though really you can just look her up in general for a complete batshit crazy experiences every time she says anything whatsoever
Sarah Palin (again, this is one of those "just randomly look up whatever she's saying at the moment" things)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.
So I'm guessing you don't live in the US with its easy access to guns?
It's true that many men resort to violence more often and more quickly than many men. It is not true that the only thing any man suffers from a woman's anger is hurt feelings.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Thanks a lot, Saysay. That gives me a clue to the meaning of some sound bites I've heard here and there. Things sure have come a long way since the early 1970's when I was current on the subject. I understand what you mean when you say "feminism left me." I sometimes say I used to be liberal but liberal moved.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)
I'm not convinced that's the outworking of feminism, seems to me it's the outworking of greed. A better house, better car, better holidays etc etc requires maximum income. THe outworking of feminism might be for each parent to work part-time-that's what some couples I know do. Of course they have less status and less money but they're less stressed and their kids get the care their parents believe best.. Feminism is about women being able to choose what to do with their bodies and their lives and possessions.
For those couples/families really need 2 incomes in order to survive, then it's not about feminism, it's the same economic probs that made mums into washerwomen or fishwives selling their husbands' catch etc long before feminism.
Some years ago I saw a very insightful article about the possible outworkings of the increase in double-income families on the housing market, when it first happened:
1. People buy similar size houses on similar mortgages, and use the second income on other expenditure.
2. People buy similar size houses on similar mortgages, and use the extra income to pay off the mortgage debt much more quickly.
3. People have more income and so buy bigger houses by putting themselves into larger debt, and then have to keep having 2 incomes to service the debt.
Scenario 3 is, of course, pretty much what happened, at least in Australia. And in some ways was inevitable - that scenario pushes towards higher house prices, because as long as someone is willing to go for the big double-income sized mortgage, they'll be the ones able to pay a higher price for the house and so get the house.
But the end result is that everyone finds they have to agree to having a double-income sized mortgage in order to get a house. And single people find they're screwed.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It's true that many men resort to violence more often and more quickly than many men.
And if it's not obvious, that second 'men' should have been 'women'.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.
Given that the first of those scenarios is perfectly legal and the second is exceptionally illegal and vigorously prosecuted, in what way is that an institutional issue?
A biological or physical issue, maybe. But not institutional. Not at all.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)
I'm not convinced that's the outworking of feminism, seems to me it's the outworking of greed. A better house, better car, better holidays etc etc requires maximum income. THe outworking of feminism might be for each parent to work part-time-that's what some couples I know do. Of course they have less status and less money but they're less stressed and their kids get the care their parents believe best..
Best contemporary option in my opinion. But not common. And I'm not convinced it will become common soon.
And yes it is about greed but it's also about societal expectation. We somehow believe we can have it all: work full time and be good parents and look after a household and care for our elderly parents.
Simply not possible in my opinion.
But many still ascribe to the fable.
And the kids and the marital relationships and the elderly parents in nursing homes alone suffer the most.
I call bullshit.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Well, it is clearly not possible to Have It All. Everybody has to prioritize and make choices.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.
But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?
Feminism is about women.
It's not just about women. It's about children, and parenting, and relationships, and power. Of course, some men benefit from patriarchy - but power comes at a price, and for some the price is too high. Ask yourself this: did white people benefit from ceasing to become slave owners? I'm glad I'm not a slave owner, aren't you? if you want to know how patriarchy can oppress men, you might start with Owen's Parable of the Old Man and the Young
Alternatively, some women also benefit from patriarchy - is that a reason for not ending it?
Evensong - you can call bullshit all you like, but "having it all" is a bastardised version of feminism perpetrated by disciples of capitalist materialism.
[ 17. August 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: QLib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the end result is that everyone finds they have to agree to having a double-income sized mortgage in order to get a house. And single people find they're screwed.
Not quite as screwed as those of us whose partner can't work due to illness. It pisses me off hearing how essential it is to have 2 incomes in a household from people who earn the same as or more than I do. Some of us don't have that option.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
A lot of young men on the internet are complaining about feminism as the source of almost all the problems of the modern Western world. It's quite scary!
What do their mothers, who themselves grew up in an age of increasing liberation and opportunities for women, think of these attitudes? And what about their fathers, who loved and had children with these very women?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.
So I'm guessing you don't live in the US with its easy access to guns?
It's true that many men resort to violence more often and more quickly than many men. It is not true that the only thing any man suffers from a woman's anger is hurt feelings.
The amount of women who die at the hands of men far outstrip the number of men who die at the hands of women. It is not an equal situation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)
I'm not convinced that's the outworking of feminism, seems to me it's the outworking of greed. A better house, better car, better holidays etc etc requires maximum income. THe outworking of feminism might be for each parent to work part-time-that's what some couples I know do. Of course they have less status and less money but they're less stressed and their kids get the care their parents believe best..
Best contemporary option in my opinion. But not common. And I'm not convinced it will become common soon.
And yes it is about greed but it's also about societal expectation. We somehow believe we can have it all: work full time and be good parents and look after a household and care for our elderly parents.
Simply not possible in my opinion.
But many still ascribe to the fable.
And the kids and the marital relationships and the elderly parents in nursing homes alone suffer the most.
I call bullshit.
Except that it's feminists who criticise the uneven distribution of household work and that 'women having it all' is actually women doing twice the work of men. This is basic Sociology 101.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Excellent. I'm sure some random molecules of air somewhere are feeling duly chastised, seeing how you've given us no real clue as to who this might actually be directed at.
I'm rather curious about this myself. I wonder if George will be back to enlighten us?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.
But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?
Feminism is about women.
It's not just about women. It's about children, and parenting, and relationships, and power. Of course, some men benefit from patriarchy - but power comes at a price, and for some the price is too high. Ask yourself this: did white people benefit from ceasing to become slave owners? I'm glad I'm not a slave owner, aren't you? if you want to know how patriarchy can oppress men, you might start with Owen's Parable of the Old Man and the Young
Alternatively, some women also benefit from patriarchy - is that a reason for not ending it?
Evensong - you can call bullshit all you like, but "having it all" is a bastardised version of feminism perpetrated by disciples of capitalist materialism.
I call bullshit on people in western nations not being slave owners. Sure who'd want to get their hands dirty and themselves sullied with the sight of mistreatment of people we'd forced into dependence on us. No, it's much more effective to enslave the masses in the third world who are enslaved in order to produce the cheap consumer goods that fill our lives. We've just become a hell of a lot better at enslaving those less powerful than ourselves and we absolve ourselves from having to face any questions of conscience, out of sight is out of mind.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.
Given that the first of those scenarios is perfectly legal and the second is exceptionally illegal and vigorously prosecuted, in what way is that an institutional issue?
A biological or physical issue, maybe. But not institutional. Not at all.
Socially institutional - if men feel that it's OK to kill women much more than women feel that it's OK to kill men, that is an institutional difference between male and female anger within society.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.
The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.
But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?
Feminism is about women.
It's not just about women. It's about children, and parenting, and relationships, and power. Of course, some men benefit from patriarchy - but power comes at a price, and for some the price is too high. Ask yourself this: did white people benefit from ceasing to become slave owners? I'm glad I'm not a slave owner, aren't you? if you want to know how patriarchy can oppress men, you might start with Owen's Parable of the Old Man and the Young
Alternatively, some women also benefit from patriarchy - is that a reason for not ending it?
Evensong - you can call bullshit all you like, but "having it all" is a bastardised version of feminism perpetrated by disciples of capitalist materialism.
White people's benefit from not being slaveowners anymore (I hope you're not suggesting that slavery has ended!) is incidental to the benefit to black people - it's not important, and it wouldn't matter if white people didn't benefit. We have white privilege so we do not need liberating from racism. The same applies to men and liberation from the patriarchy - it's incidental and not the point of liberation. Tired old privilege denial.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jade Constable: But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?
I have worked on gender relations in Central America, with men and with women. My experience is that it can be very liberating for a man to let go of machismo. It is an expectation that's been laid upon them, from when they are young. In a sense, men have to behave like this, and this can feel like a pressure.
I'm not saying that this compares to what women go through —obviously they are more a victim of patriarchy than men are— but I believe a feeling of liberation can definitely exist for men when they finally can let go of this.
quote:
Jade Constable: Feminism is about women.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say what feminism is or isn't. I'm a man after all, and I don't think this is my prerrogative. But I do feel that it can be good to think of feminism as being about relationships between men and women, and the best way to improve them is often to work with them both.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
White people's benefit from not being slaveowners anymore (I hope you're not suggesting that slavery has ended!) is incidental to the benefit to black people - it's not important, and it wouldn't matter if white people didn't benefit. We have white privilege so we do not need liberating from racism. The same applies to men and liberation from the patriarchy - it's incidental and not the point of liberation. Tired old privilege denial.
Clearly the oppressed suffer more than their oppressors and thus gain more if oppression ends. But oppression dehumanizes the oppressors as well as the oppressed, so while the point of liberation is and should be to free the oppressed, don't underestimate its potential effects upon oppressors.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The losers in this case are families containing women who don't want to work* - in the prior social arrangement, they were protected from competition with families with women who wanted to work by the fact that nobody would employ a married woman. Once you remove that constraint, families with women who want to work win, and those with women who don't want to work lose.
The losers in this case are also frequently the women who work taking care of other people's kids. They are paid to work full-time, but frequently do not receive wages that would actually allow them to live independently in the areas in which their services are needed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount of women who die at the hands of men far outstrip the number of men who die at the hands of women. It is not an equal situation.
And the number of men who die at the hands of other men is far greater than the number of women who die at the hands of men.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The losers in this case are also frequently the women who work taking care of other people's kids. They are paid to work full-time, but frequently do not receive wages that would actually allow them to live independently in the areas in which their services are needed.
Yes, the economics of childcare are rather difficult. Childcare, particularly for infants, is about the most labour-intensive occupation in existence. There is no reasonable way to achieve significant productivity gains in childcare, so it suffers from Baumol's cost disease with a vengeance.
A stay-at-home mother* with two or three small children has a full-time (and then some) job. If she wants to work outside the home, and hire someone else to care for the children, by construction that person has to be paid significantly less than the mother earns. Then think about overheads...
*Could also be father - there are some stay-at-home dads - but the calculus is the same. Basically, you need to compare the wage of the parent with the lowest earning capability with the wage of the childcare worker.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
In places like Australia where childcare is partially government subsidised. the losers are also those whose taxes pay for others' childcare whilst they get not tax breaks for only having 1 income or 2 part-time incomes. I strongly support free 2 user, tax-payer funded education but childcare for the under 5s, not so much.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
White people's benefit from not being slaveowners anymore (I hope you're not suggesting that slavery has ended!)
No, I'm not. But I suggest that where we (privileged white westerners) are now is an improvement on where we were 200 years ago when we actually owned slaves and (apparently) didn't think there was a problem with that. quote:
We have white privilege so we do not need liberating from racism.
There we differ. Yes, those at the top of the heap* benefit materially, but some things matter more. It's an ugly system and we all need to be liberated from it. That's not to deny the fact that (by and large) I'm one of the winners in the current global situation.
*If we're talking about slavery, it's not a simple black-white thing any more, is it?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is to the good of society as a whole, that children be nurtured and educated. Even if I have no children myself -- I want intelligent nurses around me in my old-age home. I want my airplane pilot and my auto mechanic to be intelligent and competent and well-trained persons. I want my politicians to be well-educated (in so far as it is ever possible for them) and my culture to be vibrant and full of creativity. It is worth my tax dollar, to pay for child care and education.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
if men feel that it's OK to kill women much more than women feel that it's OK to kill men, that is an institutional difference between male and female anger within society.
I seriously doubt that there are any men or women who "feel it's OK to kill women/men". That is a seriously fucked up way of putting it.
What there are plenty of is people who have very poor impulse control or anger management, that causes them to do things they later regret. Or people who think that anyone who pisses them off is fair game for a beating. Or people who are just plain psychopaths or sociopaths. But none of those problems are amenable to institutional correction, because they are not institutional problems.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount of women who die at the hands of men far outstrip the number of men who die at the hands of women. It is not an equal situation.
And the number of men who die at the hands of other men is far greater than the number of women who die at the hands of men.
Men don't matter, apparently.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
White people's benefit from not being slaveowners anymore (I hope you're not suggesting that slavery has ended!) is incidental to the benefit to black people - it's not important, and it wouldn't matter if white people didn't benefit. We have white privilege so we do not need liberating from racism. The same applies to men and liberation from the patriarchy - it's incidental and not the point of liberation. Tired old privilege denial.
Clearly the oppressed suffer more than their oppressors and thus gain more if oppression ends. But oppression dehumanizes the oppressors as well as the oppressed, so while the point of liberation is and should be to free the oppressed, don't underestimate its potential effects upon oppressors.
Precisely. Just been reading Peter Hain's memoirs where he tells of his first legal trip back to South Africa to observe the 1994 elections, and asked a white election official how he felt about the prospect of majority rule. Answer: 'actually, it's a relief to have apartheid off our backs'. Having to maintain your domination over someone else, whether directly or through 'taken for granted' social structures, is dehumanising. You can't be the person God made you: you have to be the person that you have made for yourself. Patriarchy, like racism, like any form of inequality, may deliver material advantage for some (at the price of eternal vigilance) but it disfigures everyone. So ending patriarchy is absolutely about equality: the equal dignity and worth and liberation of all.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The losers in this case are also frequently the women who work taking care of other people's kids. They are paid to work full-time, but frequently do not receive wages that would actually allow them to live independently in the areas in which their services are needed.
Yes, the economics of childcare are rather difficult. Childcare, particularly for infants, is about the most labour-intensive occupation in existence. There is no reasonable way to achieve significant productivity gains in childcare, so it suffers from Baumol's cost disease with a vengeance.
A stay-at-home mother* with two or three small children has a full-time (and then some) job. If she wants to work outside the home, and hire someone else to care for the children, by construction that person has to be paid significantly less than the mother earns. Then think about overheads...
*Could also be father - there are some stay-at-home dads - but the calculus is the same. Basically, you need to compare the wage of the parent with the lowest earning capability with the wage of the childcare worker.
Holy Mother of Fuck.
Children are not economic subjects that should be subjected to economic rationalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is to the good of society as a whole, that children be nurtured and educated. Even if I have no children myself -- I want intelligent nurses around me in my old-age home. I want my airplane pilot and my auto mechanic to be intelligent and competent and well-trained persons. I want my politicians to be well-educated (in so far as it is ever possible for them) and my culture to be vibrant and full of creativity. It is worth my tax dollar, to pay for child care and education.
If you want the good of a society as a whole, you would pay the mother or father of their children (or grandparents or extended family) to bring them up themselves and not relegate them (too much - yes a bit of childcare is fine but full time no way and certainly NOT in the very early years when attachment is such a big issue) to the battery hen production line of childcare.
Childcare workers IME are excellent and loving carers, but they are not family. And kids know that. And I think it's damaging.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is to the good of society as a whole, that children be nurtured and educated. Even if I have no children myself -- I want intelligent nurses around me in my old-age home. I want my airplane pilot and my auto mechanic to be intelligent and competent and well-trained persons. I want my politicians to be well-educated (in so far as it is ever possible for them) and my culture to be vibrant and full of creativity. It is worth my tax dollar, to pay for child care and education.
Education yes..... chid care is what their parents are for.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
