Feminism

Anonymouse · December 22, 2003

It is high time to address the issue of "feminism" and its relatively proper position in our times. "Feminism" what began in the 1830s vis a vis the rise of abolitionism, in which both groups exclaimed the self ownership of the individual has dileniated itself from "the individual" simply because like all isms, in order to succeed it relies on the collective identity or mass minded thinking of the "great group". Of course, ignoring details, that is pretty much the gist of the root of the feminists, although some may argue otherwise, the details at this point I am not interested in. One can see from this point of view, and indeed the argument can be made of the idea that feminism is consonant with individualism, yet I think somehow there has been a schism in the "movement" with 99 percent of feminists not understanding what their "movement" is about. Ignoring the recent "ifeminism"(which I still find contradictary ) I will focus on "feminism" or "radical feminism" as understood by 99 percent of the feminists, and the world.

The primary goal of all "movements" or "social movements" or "revolutions" is based on collectivity and the mob, or mass minded thinking. Of course when this is pointed out, it is not well received, whether one points out the mass mindedness in nationalism, marxism, or feminism, they all nonetheless, while in theory may claim to help the individual, but at the same time confine themselves because what they really claim to help is the individual within that group, and in so doing create "group consciousness" and a "collective identity". Indeed, if feminism is about the individual, why speak of women’s rights rather than individual rights? Indeed what is the point of "gay rights" or "womens rights" or "minority rights" or any other groups' rights, if your ism is about the individual? Then why not chant "individual rights" instead of "womens rights" or "minority rights"? That obvious point is what shows that these isms are rooted in collective mass minded thinking.

I am going to ignore the whole idea of how "womens history" is created, much like "nationalist history" was created in 19th century. Of course the women didn't become a gender conscious political group movement or revolution until relatively recent times, just like workers didnt become worker or labor conscious until recent times, and just like nations or groups speaking a same language didnt because nationally conscious until recent times, but somehow we project these phenomenon into the past, and somehow we are able to create for ourselves a unique history, and view all of history may it be through Marxism, or Feminism, or Nationalism through a narrow rigid myopic view. Whichever you choose makes no difference since you blur history into a single focal point or rallying point from which each ism, respectivelly, relies on for legitimacy.

The success of feminism, like all political group movements, whether it be "civil rights" or "any rights" in which a politically created and motivated collective group demands to achieve, is based on "equality" which has root in socialism, so in order for these movements to succeed they most work in tandem with government and lawmakers and create more laws and regulations in order to "create equality", meaning more government, and essentially this is the basis of "socialism" since all movements that rely on "equality" and legislation, and governements that promise that, are socialistic. The success of feminism is not due to the creed of feminism, but rather the government. The most well armed and well funded government in the history of the planet pushed feminism into the lawbooks, and government judges have supported it, perhaps out of genuine concern, but I am to guess that like all politicians they cared for "votes". Additionally, the movement was often insidious, an innocuous little new law here, another one there, and it never ends. This isn't just confined to feminism. The "gun control advocates" the "gays and lesbians" the "environmentalists" the "civil rights activists" all rely on this sort of mass mindedness to achieve their ends.

On a personal level I do not agree with feminisms claims of advocating that women seek to fullfill their ends in the material world to build a career instead of a home and a family as the central importance of their lives. This material transcendence indeed has made society more denser and relative in recent times and not just for "feminists or women" but society as a whole, since in our socialistic society and school system, the only things we are measured up to is how much we earn, our positions, and essentially the materiality of all things, so when we say "equality" whether for blacks or women or gays, it is in essence nothing more than "material" equality. Just like the "civil rights" movement, the "womens liberation" movement is a raucus that was in the making and continues to flourish and all those that disagree with either the civil rights people or the womens liberation group, are racist and sexist, respectively. Of course this doesn't mean all feminists think that way, but this speaks for your average member with the preset group mentality, and hence how our critical thinking is lost in the haze of mass mindedness.

Of course in the dictionary "feminism" is defined as the doctrine for the equal rights of women, or the belief in the equality of men and women. While such spurious statements are made and accepted and regurgitated by the social masses, few question the underlying implications of the said definitions. And assuming if one defines feminism as the belief in equal rights for women, it is implied that men and women are somehow equal since that is the reason why they would want equal rights. If not that, then what else? This isn't to deny that women have been traditionally "second class" or "held back" but then again one can compare the present and the past but only for so much, for to look at all history and say "women have always been oppressed" and make the barometer of judgement for the past, the present state, that is anti historical, since each society or epoch or period in history was different in its own way, and if you compare fine, but to attempt to create any more "meaning" out of it is going too far, and going back to what I said, viewing all history through this lens. And perhaps its even more pertinent to ask why women have always been second class or held back? Perhaps it is not so much rooted in the "social causes" but rather the innnate inequality of men and women. Perhaps we should indeed examine this more than most feminists would claim. Men and women are different both biologically and psychologically. Men cannot have babies, obviously. Both genders are implanted with two different hormones and chromosomes. They differ in minds, characters, and capacities since their bodies and personalities are built on different things.

It is as absurd to claim men and women are of equal capabilities as it is to claim that a turtle can race with a horse. The radical feminists would find my above statement as "hateful" and "sexist" indeed, the Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug types would go berzerk at such a statement. Indeed there are women out there who deserve equal rights but they must earn it. There are women who can meet the same physical capabilities as a man to join the fire department or the army. There are women out there who are just fine as long as they earn their jobs competitively. No one disputes that each deserves to his/her share in what he/she gets. Your input equals your output. I do not believe in legislation to force "equality" or "level the playing field" simply because it is a woman, or a minority or anyone else. Women like men, should own property, whether its their own feminist club, a strip bar, or a house, or a business. No one disputes that. Everyone should have full rights to their body and property, not to expropriate those of others, as the feminists and civil rights advocates have achieved via the State, of making all else conform to their political group.

If feminists intend that everyone enjoy equal outcomes, history teaches that this is impossible. Why totalitarian socialism won’t ever work perhaps deserves another thread of its own. Indeed I will end with perhaps one of my favorite figures in our time, Ludwig von Mises, and he had this to say about feminism within the broader scope of socialism:

"So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature."

THOTH · December 22, 2003

Anymouse -

very charged words - you are pushing a clear agenda here (though not very clearly - not really a good presentation - and lacking totally in any substance)

First of all - it matters not at all what you think of what a women's "place" is etc...and thats the point. Why should any individual be restricted in oppurtunities and treatment in their lives? And why the hell do you think that what you believe should apply to other people. They can make up their own minds thank you! Who are you to tell another how to live their life?

That is the point - there should be no difference in how anyone is treated or any restrictions placed upon them or any lessening of oppurtunity or what not.

Now please argue why anyone should be restricted form doing what they desire and are capable of - whatever it may be.

Armo77 · December 22, 2003

I am all for women's rights and equality.. I have women in my family. But one thing I am not for is Sexism of any kind.. Weather it be Men hating women OR Women hating men. We both need each other.. Make love not war.

P.S. I sometimes have to work in an office environment with Feminist women.. They treat me basically like dirt.. It really does not make me want to go to work sometimes. I complained to headquarters many times.

THOTH · December 22, 2003

Funny Armo - feminist (women) ussually (well always as far as i can think of) really like me and treat me well - as I would exect to be treated (and respected) - vice versa I imagine as well (even if there are at times some mutual flirts...LOL - but nothing that is unreceptive...) - as I certaily treat everyone the same (but when I have complained before - i[n jest] - is when I get the guy working for me - when I would prefer the pretty lady - LOL ...happened to me not so long ago - ah well he worked out fine too [ie did the owrk as expected]...so no complaints)...and also in fact - I recently had a choice of a very pretty gal to be assigned to me -or this guy - both of whom had worked for me on [projects before - well after some deliberation I chose the guy - based purely on his specific capabilities and related factors (seemed like he would be available for more hours etc)...though perhaps either of them would have worked out...and she sure looks and smells better! - etc - and we will be working in pretty tight quarters! LOL ..the lesson being - don't let your personal feelings decide - make work descisons and such based purely on the best for the job...and besides she'll still be nearby and I'm sure we'll go out to lunch and such! LOL

Anonymouse · December 22, 2003

Anymouse -
very charged words - you are pushing a clear agenda here (though not very clearly - not really a good presentation - and lacking totally in any substance)

Of course it lacks substance since it actually presents an argument against feminism, in a Womens forum, and of course your bias will not allow you to assess this objectively, and hence it is not a "good presentation". You know, I am bound to get heckled in the "Womens forum" but you are misunderstanding my thread, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally, since I specifically stated that on a personal level, I disagree with the tenets of feminism, or radical feminism. However the rest of my post was actually trying to highlight something more than just "female bashing".

First of all - it matters not at all what you think of what a women's "place" is etc...and thats the point. Why should any individual be restricted in oppurtunities and treatment in their lives? And why the hell do you think that what you believe should apply to other people. They can make up their own minds thank you! Who are you to tell another how to live their life?

You are making erroneous assumptions and placing words and ideas in me that I did not state. My personal disagreement with feminism was one tiny part of the entire thread which you cherry picked and have chosen it to be youre main focus, ignoring everything else. Of course the problem with your assumption of treating each person on an individual basis contradicts feminism since it is for the gender of women, the group, not individuals, and in that sense, it is a collective ideology. If you were actually reading the post carefully you would understand that I do not seek to impose my beliefs on anyone, thus your first mistaken assumption.

That is the point - there should be no difference in how anyone is treated or any restrictions placed upon them or any lessening of oppurtunity or what not.

And I am to guess you believe in governemnt legislation and interference in the free market to "make equality"? Will you address any of the points in my post or will you go on make spurious statements?

Now please argue why anyone should be restricted form doing what they desire and are capable of - whatever it may be.

I never said otherwise, you are again assuming things. In fact your whole response is nothing but one big lard of assumptions. Do you now care to address the actual content of my thread as opposed to trivial pursuits? The same person who seems adamant in the belief that each person should be allowed to do what he or she pleases and believe what he or shes wants to believe, seems to be telling me that I cannot somehow disagree with feminism and somehow that disagreement, which is on a personal leve, translates to oppressing them.

Anonymouse · December 22, 2003

I am all for women's rights and equality.. I have women in my family. But one thing I am not for is Sexism of any kind.. Weather it be Men hating women OR Women hating men. We both need each other.. Make love not war.

P.S. I sometimes have to work in an office environment with Feminist women.. They treat me basically like dirt.. It really does not make me want to go to work sometimes. I complained to headquarters many times.

You believe in womens rights and equality? Did you read my thread? How do we have "equality"? What do you mean by "equality"? Can you perhaps define it? Equal outcome? Economic equality?

Armo77 · December 22, 2003

Equality for everything! I would not even mind if we had a Woman President one day..

THOTH · December 22, 2003

A - mouse - I think my position was pretty clear (unlike what you presented - essentially a bunch of gobblygook - I mean ahat the hell is your point - I have no clue).

So yes the one clear thing you state is: "On a personal level I do not agree with feminisms claims of advocating that women seek to fullfill their ends in the material world to build a career instead of a home and a family as the central importance of their lives."

So i tell you mind yoru own business - who cares if you think a women should e essentially a slave without the means to take ccare of herself. I just hope tat you have some serious illness sometime where the only person who can treat it is some female doctor and then you are faced with a moral dilema...maybe then you will change your mind about women having careers and being allowed the same oppurtunity as men to do whatever the hell they want to do without having to listen to your some old tired bs.

nairi · December 22, 2003

Thoth, I don't think that's what Anonymouse is saying. I may have misinterpreted him myself, but what I understood was (in a quick read) he doesn't mind "equality", but he's against the politics of it, the movement, the name feminism.

As for equality, I entirely agree with Anonymouse. We are not equal and never will be. This doesn't mean a woman should be a slave, but it does mean that we are different.

Feminism: I never had any strong arguments against feminism besides -ism and the idea that I have to be an independent career woman. Preferably, I want to marry a rich man and do nothing.

Thanks for a fascinating read Anonymouse, although I'll have to look at it a little closer again later..

Anonymouse · December 22, 2003

A - mouse - I think my position was pretty clear (unlike what you presented - essentially a bunch of gobblygook - I mean ahat the hell is your point - I have no clue).

Do you know how to read? Do you know how to assess what you read? If you haven't learned that by now, why are you on a forum?

So yes the one clear thing you state is: "On a personal level I do not agree with feminisms claims of advocating that women seek to fullfill their ends in the material world to build a career instead of a home and a family as the central importance of their lives."

Thank you for quoting me, however that's just my viewpoint.

So i tell you mind yoru own business - who cares if you think a women should e essentially a slave without the means to take ccare of herself.

I never said I think a woman should be a slave. This is, yet again, a desperate and silly attempt of you making assumptions to have some 'substance' to respond with since all of your replies have thus been empty, yet you call yourself Thoth, the wisest of the Egyptian Gods. My viewpoint was that I disagree with the general trends of how women are losing their 'feminity' in case that wasn't obvious, and like I said, that is just my personal opinion, why does it bother you more than feminists bother me? Essentially the same forces such as you who cry for 'tolerance' for feminism, are the least tolerate to those who have opposing views.

I just hope tat you have some serious illness sometime where the only person who can treat it is some female doctor and then you are faced with a moral dilema..maybe then you will change your mind about women having careers and being allowed the same oppurtunity as men to do whatever the hell they want to do without having to listen to your some old tired bs.

I am beginning to think that you are about 17 years of age, in a world of illusions and fairy tales and stories. I mean I am not for "oppressing women" as you paint me out to be, but I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you are not that mature and incapable of actually having an intelligent discourse, discussing the POINTS I RAISED in my thread, not just my opinion versus your opinion. I never said women can't or shouldn't have an oppportunity or a career. In fact I did point out that if they earn it competitively so be it, what does that have anything to do with feminism? Feminism doesn't advocate the free competitive relationship of women in relation to men and the market place, it advocates something totally polar to this. But then again you have crossed your legs for so long that you have crushed your nuts and perhaps that is causing a blur in your cognitive abilities.

Anonymouse · December 22, 2003

Thoth, I don't think that's what Anonymouse is saying. I may have misinterpreted him myself, but what I understood was (in a quick read) he doesn't mind "equality", but he's against the politics of it, the movement, the name feminism.

As for equality, I entirely agree with Anonymouse. We are not equal and never will be. This doesn't mean a woman should be a slave, but it does mean that we are different.

Feminism: I never had any strong arguments against feminism besides -ism and the idea that I have to be an independent career woman. Preferably, I want to marry a rich man and do nothing.

Thanks for a fascinating read Anonymouse, although I'll have to look at it a little closer again later..

Well, at least you understand what I meant with my opinion. Cheers.

Accelerated · December 22, 2003

yeah, sounds good Anon (have to agree with THOTH on the length of your post....there was a fair bit of rambling) - but I got the underlying point.

Just to add a little: I think introducing legislation singling out women or minority groups is discrimination in itself and in many cases is unhelpful. Example: Australian Aboriginies - they have special social security benefits and other priviledges.....has it helped? no.....they just spend the extra money on more grog sliding further into alcoholism etc.

Stormig · December 23, 2003

Men and women may not be the same but they ought to be equal. Jeesh...

THOTH · December 23, 2003

Sorry A - mouse

i stand by my position. you are basically attacking the idea of women's equality -ie fair treatment - being allowed free and open opuurtunity etc etc - it is quite clear to me - even if you attempt to veil it as an attack against "radical feminism" etc. It is clear preceisely as a result of your personal opinion that i quoted. Thus i hope for your sake that you find yourself in a position one day where you are froeced to eat your words.

THOTH · December 23, 2003

It is high time to address the issue of "feminism" and its relatively proper position in our times. "Feminism" what began in the 1830s vis a vis the rise of abolitionism, in which both groups exclaimed the self ownership of the individual has dileniated itself from "the individual" simply because like all isms, in order to succeed it relies on the collective identity or mass minded thinking of the "great group". Of course, ignoring details, that is pretty much the gist of the root of the feminists, although some may argue otherwise, the details at this point I am not interested in. One can see from this point of view, and indeed the argument can be made of the idea that feminism is consonant with individualism, yet I think somehow there has been a schism in the "movement" with 99 percent of feminists not understanding what their "movement" is about. Ignoring the recent "ifeminism"(which I still find contradictary ) I will focus on "feminism" or "radical feminism" as understood by 99 percent of the feminists, and the world.

First – you need to figure out how to write a paragraph. Second you have not at all addressed or even properly presented the issue of ‘"feminism" and its relatively proper position in our times’ And what is it that you find contradictory about recent feminism…and what is this feminism and such that you feel 99% of feminist understand (and 99% don’t understand this alluded to but unexplained shism..etc) – where do you get these figures and what are you talking about?????

The primary goal of all "movements" or "social movements" or "revolutions" is based on collectivity and the mob, or mass minded thinking. Of course when this is pointed out, it is not well received, whether one points out the mass mindedness in nationalism, marxism, or feminism, they all nonetheless, while in theory may claim to help the individual, but at the same time confine themselves because what they really claim to help is the individual within that group, and in so doing create "group consciousness" and a "collective identity". Indeed, if feminism is about the individual, why speak of women’s rights rather than individual rights? Indeed what is the point of "gay rights" or "womens rights" or "minority rights" or any other groups' rights, if your ism is about the individual? Then why not chant "individual rights" instead of "womens rights" or "minority rights"? That obvious point is what shows that these isms are rooted in collective mass minded thinking.

You so miss the point. If a group is being repressed you refer to the common elements of repression – or what not. Are you claiming tat no one can give examples of individuals who are being repressed or mistreated etc. If one cannot dot hat then I wouldn’t think the movement would get to far. This is another paragraph of yours that just says nothing at all.

I am going to ignore the whole idea of how "womens history" is created, much like "nationalist history" was created in 19th century. Of course the women didn't become a gender conscious political group movement or revolution until relatively recent times, just like workers didnt become worker or labor conscious until recent times, and just like nations or groups speaking a same language didnt because nationally conscious until recent times, but somehow we project these phenomenon into the past, and somehow we are able to create for ourselves a unique history, and view all of history may it be through Marxism, or Feminism, or Nationalism through a narrow rigid myopic view. Whichever you choose makes no difference since you blur history into a single focal point or rallying point from which each ism, respectivelly, relies on for legitimacy.

So what? What if slaves didn’t develop a consciousness of a liberation movement until recent times. Do we then say – well lets not talk about the evils of slavery in the past – it was accepted then – so it must have been OK? (and I understand that values change over time etc etc – but still – your claims that there is necessarily a myopic view etc are just false IMO. It is just that – your claims – like most everything you present here – if you wish to convince us that you are taking some sort of scholarly approach then you need to reference your opinions etc and back them up with examples (not that I care so much to wish you to do this…).

The success of feminism, like all political group movements, whether it be "civil rights" or "any rights" in which a politically created and motivated collective group demands to achieve, is based on "equality" which has root in socialism, so in order for these movements to succeed they most work in tandem with government and lawmakers and create more laws and regulations in order to "create equality", meaning more government, and essentially this is the basis of "socialism" since all movements that rely on "equality" and legislation, and governements that promise that, are socialistic. The success of feminism is not due to the creed of feminism, but rather the government. The most well armed and well funded government in the history of the planet pushed feminism into the lawbooks, and government judges have supported it, perhaps out of genuine concern, but I am to guess that like all politicians they cared for "votes". Additionally, the movement was often insidious, an innocuous little new law here, another one there, and it never ends. This isn't just confined to feminism. The "gun control advocates" the "gays and lesbians" the "environmentalists" the "civil rights activists" all rely on this sort of mass mindedness to achieve their ends.

Why must equality have its roots in socialism. …what about “With liberty and Justice and equality for all” etc…bunch of commies now are they? And yes – often people/groups/movement etc must seek redress with either legislature or the courts to force their points. Are you saying that those who did such in the civil rights movement were wrong to seek redress under the law. Should they have just rioted? What’s your point? And now you rail against all liberal causes/issues….are you Rush Limbaugh?

On a personal level I do not agree with feminisms claims of advocating that women seek to fullfill their ends in the material world to build a career instead of a home and a family as the central importance of their lives. This material transcendence indeed has made society more denser and relative in recent times and not just for "feminists or women" but society as a whole, since in our socialistic society and school system, the only things we are measured up to is how much we earn, our positions, and essentially the materiality of all things, so when we say "equality" whether for blacks or women or gays, it is in essence nothing more than "material" equality. Just like the "civil rights" movement, the "womens liberation" movement is a raucus that was in the making and continues to flourish and all those that disagree with either the civil rights people or the womens liberation group, are racist and sexist, respectively. Of course this doesn't mean all feminists think that way, but this speaks for your average member with the preset group mentality, and hence how our critical thinking is lost in the haze of mass mindedness.

And here you reveal you biases. And we are a socialist society wit a socialist school system. And this socialism is automatically a dirty word etc…yes yes we hear you (you are so wasting my time…it was just easier to tell you off like I first did…but since Nairi and others couldn’t wade through your bullshit – I felt obligated to make it clear. And BTW – the second half of this last paragraph says NOTHING. And you contradict yourself so – saying its only for materialistic good (sounds like capitalism to me) but then you say its all just socialism…and whats so wrong with materialistic good? Isn’t this a (if not the) fundamental principal of the founding of our Republic (USA) – and shouldn’t all have equal opportunity for such -= and not just forced into dependence on others (now that sounds like socialism my friend…and slavery…)

Of course in the dictionary "feminism" is defined as the doctrine for the equal rights of women, or the belief in the equality of men and women. While such spurious statements are made and accepted and regurgitated by the social masses, few question the underlying implications of the said definitions. And assuming if one defines feminism as the belief in equal rights for women, it is implied that men and women are somehow equal since that is the reason why they would want equal rights. If not that, then what else? This isn't to deny that women have been traditionally "second class" or "held back" but then again one can compare the present and the past but only for so much, for to look at all history and say "women have always been oppressed" and make the barometer of judgement for the past, the present state, that is anti historical, since each society or epoch or period in history was different in its own way, and if you compare fine, but to attempt to create any more "meaning" out of it is going too far, and going back to what I said, viewing all history through this lens. And perhaps its even more pertinent to ask why women have always been second class or held back? Perhaps it is not so much rooted in the "social causes" but rather the innnate inequality of men and women. Perhaps we should indeed examine this more than most feminists would claim. Men and women are different both biologically and psychologically. Men cannot have babies, obviously. Both genders are implanted with two different hormones and chromosomes. They differ in minds, characters, and capacities since their bodies and personalities are built on different things.

Equal rights is NOT the same as equal in all respects. It is you who are twisting definitions and such for your own ends/agenda. And you said you wanted to address feminism now – yet you can only be critical of some supposed view of the past. And what if there are some/many differences between men and women. This does not change the fact that all should be free to do as they wish – to not be constrained by your definition off what is right and what is not. Mind your own business –again I say!

It is as absurd to claim men and women are of equal capabilities as it is to claim that a turtle can race with a horse. The radical feminists would find my above statement as "hateful" and "sexist" indeed, the Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug types would go berzerk at such a statement. Indeed there are women out there who deserve equal rights but they must earn it. There are women who can meet the same physical capabilities as a man to join the fire department or the army. There are women out there who are just fine as long as they earn their jobs competitively. No one disputes that each deserves to his/her share in what he/she gets. Your input equals your output. I do not believe in legislation to force "equality" or "level the playing field" simply because it is a woman, or a minority or anyone else. Women like men, should own property, whether its their own feminist club, a strip bar, or a house, or a business. No one disputes that. Everyone should have full rights to their body and property, not to expropriate those of others, as the feminists and civil rights advocates have achieved via the State, of making all else conform to their political group.

Just because (and if – its just your speculation) a few women or whoever might have issue with your statements about equality (and I really think its just you being Rush Limbaugh here – I don’t think there are really many serious folks who are so skewed etc) – so again – a non-argument). So just what is your complaint – you say no one disputes…but then you conclude? By saying that civil rights advocates have forced folks to accept this….come clean for us now….

If feminists intend that everyone enjoy equal outcomes, history teaches that this is impossible. Why totalitarian socialism won’t ever work perhaps deserves another thread of its own. Indeed I will end with perhaps one of my favorite figures in our time, Ludwig von Mises, and he had this to say about feminism within the broader scope of socialism:

"So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature."

Well if you know von Mises you will know that he will say the same about every institution – and that he is essentially against anything to do with centralized government etc – am I not right? And please read his statement. Again I contend that he is not really saying anything of substance. His first sentence – well I see nothing wrong with women having a legal position and such like men – and legal and economic freedom…are you saying that this is something wrong? And it’s a branch of the liberal movement? So? But then this claim of going beyond this (or does he mean acting on it?) – well just what is this and why is it a problem? He is trying to say that the old way is the natural way – and just the right way for things to be – implying that women should just stay home and not work and all these things (he could say the same about slavery – its just the natural order of things – no) – its all the same. This is his point – and the point you are trying to make. But you both have no understanding of the evolution of culture – it is not a static thing. Go and study some anthropology to see what I am saying. Our world is changing and so are our social institutions – all of them – for better or worse – it just is – but I for one feel that it is the moral and right thing that women – and all people are given equal treatment, opportunity and protection – and are not bound by the views of the likes of people like you!

Anonymouse · December 23, 2003

Sorry A - mouse

i stand by my position. you are basically attacking the idea of women's equality -ie fair treatment - being allowed free and open opuurtunity etc etc - it is quite clear to me - even if you attempt to veil it as an attack against "radical feminism" etc. It is clear preceisely as a result of your personal opinion that i quoted. Thus i hope for your sake that you find yourself in a position one day where you are froeced to eat your words.

Feminism or radical feminism, however you hyphenate it, it makes no difference for you are misunderstanding my position, and in fact overlooking history and abusing sementics in your position. You as a feminist male cannot weigh this objectively for your feminist bias won't allow you to do so. If by being against feminism I am against "equal rights for women", then by all means I am against feminism, for the statement "equal rights for women" indeed the whole pillar of that state, "equality", lacks logic, and is not in accordance with reality or nature, therefore the whole creed of feminism is indeed rubbish, along with all other egalitarian creeds.

Feminism is an egalitarian ideology, that advocates equality is collectivist ideology, and it throws out the natural order of things on its head assuming the equality of the sexes. A political group that is arrived at not by a priori judgement, but by its inversion, is internally flawed in its nature, for to understand what feminism advocates - equality - one must first tackle the issue of equality.

I made the mistake in my thread of assuming the average reader to understand the issue of "equality", but perhaps I should have focused a section on that. I have seen many responses to my thread with users dipping their hands into the cookie jar of "equality" and how they are for "womens equality". But such a vague phrase begs to be defined, for what is it that you mean by "womens equality"?

Feminism assumes that women have always been oppressed and views women as its own class, a collectivist group, nevermind the fact that they only became group conscious as a movement in recent times. By doing this, feminism, like Marxism and Nationalism, projects itself into the past, even beyond into the past before its own birth as a political movement and more importantly an idea, assuming that women before it, were feminists or had a political group consciousness. That is not so.

I don't understand your hatred or intolerance toward me, but I love it, for it shows to me an insecure little lemming, an unquestioning follower of a creed that you must maintain by brushing all contradicting voices aside, for that is the only way to maintain the prism in your mind. Thus you will not like to hear what others say, and will bask in your world of what you believe or KNOW is right and indeed no one can argue against what you may think is right, or what you think the world ought to be like. Unfortunately the rules of logic don't follow imaginitive "shoulds" and "woulds", and instead rely on discourse and the exchange of ideas, event dissenting ones. Thus you have not yourself proven what it is taht feminism seeks to attain, and if you state "womens equality" then what do you mean by "womens equality"? Indeed can you define how anything in the world is equal?

To argue for this is a gross distortion of history and the human character, indeed I won't hold my breath.

Anonymouse · December 24, 2003

First – you need to figure out how to write a paragraph. Second you have not at all addressed or even properly presented the issue of ‘"feminism" and its relatively proper position in our times’ And what is it that you find contradictory about recent feminism…and what is this feminism and such that you feel 99% of feminist understand (and 99% don’t understand this alluded to but unexplained shism..etc) – where do you get these figures and what are you talking about?????

The contradiction in recent feminism, a little known faction called "ifeminism" or "individual feminism" is a contradiction for why bother arguing for womens rights if you are really for individual rights? Why collectivize something if it is indeed the individual which you uphold? My assertion that most feminists don't understand their own creed is because they don't know it steeped in collectivism, the "figure" is not to be taken literally. Indeed, being a feminist, is not much different than being a civil rights advocate or gun control or environmentalist. The schism is that while originally the feminists who rose with abolitionists desired for their individual freedom, it later became to be a collectivist ideology with feminists not understanding this little difference that you cannot both be for the individual and the collective, or rather, their creed cannot be inclusive of both since it already assumes collectivity before anything else, defines women as its collective group.

You so miss the point. If a group is being repressed you refer to the common elements of repression – or what not. Are you claiming tat no one can give examples of individuals who are being repressed or mistreated etc. If one cannot dot hat then I wouldn’t think the movement would get to far. This is another paragraph of yours that just says nothing at all.

I miss the point? I am the one that made the point, I cannot miss it, or can I? Why do you think in terms of groups? How is it that women are being repressed? Feminism blames all the differences in men and women, solely on men and the social causes, not taking into account that there are natural boundaries between men and women and perhaps it is why women have always been "second class". But no way, how dare anyone veer off into the forbidden territory of the differences of the sexes that are more than "socially created". I believe my paragraph says more than your gross spelling errors. I admit I make some typos, but you are showing signs of frustration and lapses in logic and forgetting to hit a certain key.

So what? What if slaves didn’t develop a consciousness of a liberation movement until recent times. Do we then say – well lets not talk about the evils of slavery in the past – it was accepted then – so it must have been OK?

You are distortorting things. Comparing slaves to women is indeed a bit of a gross distortion for the two are totally different worlds and things to be discussed but I know feminists, and you would argue otherwise however I wish that not to be the point of discussion here. What started as individual women and or slaves desiring their own freedom is now looked at through the lens of the present as being the "beginning of the movement". Slaves developing a consciousness, is no different than women developing a consciousness, for it originally started out as individuals wanting their individual freedom but only now with the perspective of hindsight are we able to interpret things the way feminists interpret them. Slaves gained liberation by the Emancipation proclamation indeed within the broader context of the civil war. It wasn't their "movement" that made it possible, it was the state of the world at that time, the transition from the agricultural to the industrial society that was taking place, with the rise of capitalism. I never suggested if something is accepted in the past it must be so in the future, and that is the exact sort of reckless history abuse I am against, no different than what feminists or "womyns history" does in its classrooms. Even now "womens liberation" blame capitalism as well as male tyrants for centuries old "discrimination", it was precisely capitalism and the "capitalist revolution" that freed women from "male oppression", and set them to find her way. It was the feudal and pre capitalist, pre-market society that was marked by male oppression since women were chattels of their fathers and husbands, where they could own no property of their own. Capitalism is the reason why women have what we have today, not some horsepucky creed.

Why must equality have its roots in socialism. …what about “With liberty and Justice and equality for all” etc…bunch of commies now are they? And yes – often

The statement goes "with liberty and justice for all". There is no "equality" in there, don't distort things to fit your "agenda". The framers of the Constitution merely asserted that in the eyes of God we were created equally, for they really knew that in the natural world nothing is equal, and I fail to see how so either? Perhaps you can again give me examples of how something is equal? No two things are equal. In the natural world there is inferiority and superiority. People don't like the words "inferior" or "superior" yet the world is nothing but examples of inferior and superior elements, since that is why things are unequal. Feminism is an off root of socialism since it relies on big government legislation, and collectivism and advocates "equality" with that, yet at the same time going against the natural order of things, which socialism is all about.

And yes – often people/groups/movement etc must seek redress with either legislature or the courts to force their points. Are you saying that those who did such in the civil rights movement were wrong to seek redress under the law. Should they have just rioted? What’s your point? And now you rail against all liberal causes/issues….are you Rush Limbaugh?

You are anything but a liberal for you have no conception or understanding of traditional liberalism. Supporting big government is not what traditional liberals do. You are a contradiction, in simple terms. The civil rights advocates did riot, or do you forget? The result of civil rights? More governemnt legislation, more centralization, more beaurocracy, more laws, affirmitive action, and has that made things any more equal? Instead you have more ghettos now. By the way, I am anything but a Rush Limbaugh fan. Only in the morally unambiguous world of "Left" and "Right" on the political spectrum would one assume that since to disagree with a "liberal" ( I say "liberal" since you know nothing of traditional liberals ), makes one a Rush Limbaugh fan. In fact I don't like political labels but since the mediocre minds like to settle and ravish in those, I'll adopt one to make things easier for you.

And here you reveal you biases. And we are a socialist society wit a socialist school system. And this socialism is automatically a dirty word etc…yes yes we hear you (you are so wasting my time…it was just easier to tell you off like I first did…but since Nairi and others couldn’t wade through your bullshit – I felt obligated to make it clear. And BTW – the second half of this last paragraph says NOTHING. And you contradict yourself so – saying its only for materialistic good (sounds like capitalism to me) but then you say its all just socialism…and whats so wrong with materialistic good? Isn’t this a (if not the) fundamental principal of the founding of our Republic (USA) – and shouldn’t all have equal opportunity for such -= and not just forced into dependence on others (now that sounds like socialism my friend…and slavery…)

I will avoid making a comment about this since you addressed nothing in my post, instead went off into a rant about Socialism. Like I said, perhaps that deserves another thread in the proper forum. Start one, I'll be happy to oblige. As for the capitalism and socialism, with regard to the individual and spiritual transcendence, I suggest you read the works of Menger, Mises, Rothbard, and Rand.

Equal rights is NOT the same as equal in all respects. It is you who are twisting definitions and such for your own ends/agenda. And you said you wanted to address feminism now – yet you can only be critical of some supposed view of the past. And what if there are some/many differences between men and women. This does not change the fact that all should be free to do as they wish – to not be constrained by your definition off what is right and what is not. Mind your own business –again I say!

Equal rights is not the same in all respects? Why do we need laws to guarantee "equal rights"? If it is in their nature to act competitively they will get what they seek for, and indeed my original post touched upon this. Feminism assumes women are indeed inferior, it goes back to my statement that the sexes are different, and seeks to overturn the natural barriers between male and female, and thrives on affirmitive action. In fact affirmitive action more than anything else slaps in the face of "minorities" and "women" that they are inferior and cannot compete therefore they need a socialistic "law" that grants them some "opportunity". Like I said, I don't want to stray off topic here, my focus is feminism. Indeed I do not dispute that all should be free to do as they wish to fullfill their individual goals of life and liberty, that is not my point of contention. If that is so, why do you assume feminism? Feminism doesn't believe in that, it believes and in fact demands all women, as a collective group get something because they are women and they have been oppressed, it makes them depended on their status as women and demanding and that they "deserve" something for being oppressed women, much like minorities, and this actually kills that competitive nature and dumbs them down.

Just because (and if – its just your speculation) a few women or whoever might have issue with your statements about equality (and I really think its just you being Rush Limbaugh here – I don’t think there are really many serious folks who are so skewed etc) – so again – a non-argument). So just what is your complaint – you say no one disputes…but then you conclude? By saying that civil rights advocates have forced folks to accept this….come clean for us now….

How boring would the world of man be if he were not always to assume things? Like I said, you don't know me or anything about me, yet the majority of your post is nothing but assumptions, name calling, and labelling. In fact, like most Lefty egalitarian nut huggers, all you do is the above. Instead of pointing out that some females agree with my on "equality" why not define what you mean by it? Perhaps that is a good way to make some breakthrough in the discussion. Yes, integration was forced. Talk about coercion. That is what government does, violates our property rights. If you are indeed for the free opinion and wish all people to do as they please, why are you intolerant of those that disagree withy ou or civil rights or feminism? If person A has property, it should be within the property rights of person A to hire or not hire whomeever he chooses. Affirmitive action via the government violates his property rights since it forces him to accept by the decree of government who he can and cannot hire. That is the exact antithesis of what we call liberty, property rights, and indeed capitalism.

Well if you know von Mises you will know that he will say the same about every institution – and that he is essentially against anything to do with centralized government etc – am I not right? And please read his statement. Again I contend that he is not really saying anything of substance. His first sentence – well I see nothing wrong with women having a legal position and such like men – and legal and economic freedom…are you saying that this is something wrong?

I think it is you who should reread the statement, for otherwise I would not have quoted Mises. In fact no one can argue with the first part of his statement, but what he states is something they must achieve competitively and for themselves, and if feminism helps imbue that trait in them fine, but feminism does not do that, it goes beyond that, since it is a collective ideology, and seeks to take away the natural barriers that exist, and he knows this and highlights it as a spiritual child of socialism, if it goes beyond what it has intended to do for the individual, and indeed it has gone beyond that.

So? But then this claim of going beyond this (or does he mean acting on it?) – well just what is this and why is it a problem? He is trying to say that the old way is the natural way – and just the right way for things to be – implying that women should just stay home and not work and all these things (he could say the same about slavery – its just the natural order of things – no) – its all the same.

Mises does not say that in his quote. You are bending and assuming things to fit into your position so you can have text to type in as a response to refute me. Mises says that it is within the rights of women to compete freely with men and own property and attain their spiritual transcendence for life and liberty ( indeed he stresses this in Human Action ). He then states that if feminism goes beyond that, and seeks to change and alter those institutions such as the family and the differences of the sexes by god only knows in what means, then and only then it is a spiritual child of socialism. However I would add to Mises quote that any creed that is premised in collectivism and advocates "egalitarianism" is a spiritual child of socialism, for Thoth, no one is against women competing freely, attaining property, etc., but feminism goes beyond that, with silly politice fringe groups like NOW.

This is his point – and the point you are trying to make. But you both have no understanding of the evolution of culture – it is not a static thing. Go and study some anthropology to see what I am saying. But you both have no understanding of the evolution of culture – it is not a static thing. Go and study some anthropology to see what I am saying. Our world is changing and so are our social institutions – all of them – for better or worse – it just is – but I for one feel that it is the moral and right thing that women – and all people are given equal treatment, opportunity and protection – and are not bound by the views of the likes of people like you!

Actually I understand totally the evolution of culture, for I study history. In fact all the social sciences are imbued with this "egalitarian fiction" or collective fraud. All social sciences are a slant in favor of egalitarianism. As an individualist I understand the change of history, for otherwise I would not point out the sillyness of "womyns history" or marxist history or nationalist history and how we attempt to create history where there is none.

Cultures may change, however to argue that the gender is something as fungible as culture is silly, and what feminism does, creates an imbalance within society by advocating the fungible nature of the sexes, in other words those leftist "progressive" egalitarians believe sex to be a social construct, and so when that is accepted, then its no holds barred for the fungible nature of sex. I don't deny that career women have a chance to be what they want, but after they become a career woman, earning their six to seven digit income already in their mid thirties they seek marriage and in the words of feminists themselves there are no good men left as stated in the book Why There Are No Good Men Left. Some things in gender cannot be totally abolished or brushed away. From a natural point of view, women were designed for making babies ( going off on a limb in the womens forum). That feminist book "Why There Are No Good Men Left" goes into this feminist women who have attained their jobs and ends in the material world earning their nice lump sum of seven digits a year, with nice cars and homes and relishing in the material utopia they seek marriage only to find no more men left. So when this middle aged women in their 30s have conquered that male dream of having some material power and possession they find themselves in a crises of no future in prospect, unmarried with expiring eggs in their ovaries. So after adopting the workaholic nature of men and the sexual promiscuity of men, feminist women in their mid 30s find themselves in an inevitable crises. Of course one doesn't even have to go into the world of divorce or familial breakdown and androgyny to understand the effects which feminism has had.

While I do not deny that it is within the right of each individual to seek their life and liberty, I still cannot overlook the deliterious effect that 'feminism' has reaped on "western society" in particular where it is the strongest. Feminists think that western society is brutal towards women, they themselves haven't been exposed to eastern cultures that have been far more repressive of women than the western world ever has. Despite feminist outbursts to the contrary, women were designed for motherhood and deep down they have an innate desire for it, no matter how sublimated nature can be to social idiocies such as feminism. money, prestigious jobs, and physical possessions will not make the sexes equal nor change their gender nor erase those natural boundaries of the sexes, it will only have a debilitating effect somewhere else with rise of divorces, on the family, and eventually onto the kids, and why kids from divorced homes are twice as likely to have a divorce themselves won't take a rocket scientist to figure out. There is an old aphorism from some older culture to the effect that the quickest way to destroy a rival society is to ruin its women.

THOTH · December 24, 2003

A - mouse -

I'm really not interested at all in taking the effort to debate you on any of this. I mean my position is clear - equal rights and oppurtunities for women - and yes i think that the "traditional" role for women (East & West etc) is/has been repressive. To me denial of education, oppurtunity and ability to make decisions fro oneself is an injustice that requires rectifying. And to me - all your arguments about feminism being an aspect of socialism and all of this collectivist gobblygook is just totally irrelevant - and both viels the real issue (that you basically want women back in their traditional roles) and is based from a political perspective where you view all western governements and political action within as basically socialistic and you are against all aspects of such - and i know that I am right because i am familiar with Mises and Rand and such - snd while I think theirs is a nice ideal - as i am in general opposed to Government action and power etc - I feel that these are basically necessary evils because humans are just not to the level yet to do things justly on their own (in general). And again - when you speak of "natural order" of things - LOL - well we have certainly heard this before in the context of any number of repressive policies and actions - so it is a meaningless statement at best IMO - and at worst it is something that is used to justify evil. Now I don't at all debate what you have said concerning Capitalism - but I also don't see where feminists are in opposition to Capitalism either (only because you say so) - so i just think its a non-argument - like most of what you present - it is irrelevant really - becuase in fact you are attacking our overall system/society - from the libertarian perspective...and using this as a cover to then attack feminisim - and also of course the civil rights movement. You even seem to imply that nothing needed to be done about slavery - that it would have taken care of itself in its own due time (and maybe true) - still - how can you say it was wrong to work towards emancipation etc - by changing laws and forcing such - how can you adopt the postion that this was wrong? Just the same - how can you adopt the position that equality for women should not be pursued when inequalities exist - and in fact still do.

Now I must add i am disapointed that all of our various self proclaimed feminsists on this forum haven't stepped up to lable this guy nuts...shame..though i note that Anileve and Vayri have been abset for a while - but I am confident when they see your bullshit they will rip you a new a-hole.

And BTW - I just disagree with your assertions about Feminism. Your defintions are just politically charged. When i speak of feminism I speak of the concept of women not being unfairly discriminated against and having equal rights and oppurtunities. So yes - i beleive to a large degree we are speaking past one another. Still most of your presentation seems to me to be a cover for underlying racist and discriminatory views - whether you admist to such or not. It is fundementally what I get out of your presentation. Other then that I just think - so what? irrelevant...And all can see - by your attacks agasinst working women and such in the latter part of your post where you are comming from. Yes - "social idiocies" - like women working etc...yes we can see what you are railing against....

Edited December 24, 2003 by THOTH

Anileve · December 26, 2003

I must add i am disapointed that all of our various self proclaimed feminsists on this forum haven't stepped up to lable this guy nuts...shame..though i note that Anileve and Vayri have been abset for a while - but I am confident when they see your bullshit they will rip you a new a-hole.

I am baaack!!!! THOTH jan, I personally feel like it is useless to argue with someone who is simply not interested as he stated, in the history of the issue he’s discussing. Or someone who obviously has a preconceived opinion that has cut off any form of alternate possibility of a different take on a matter. It’s like arguing with a wall. I have no intent of converting anyone into my way of thinking, unless they are genuinely interested in learning more about the subject or are open to alternate views.

THOTH I also must commend you on your quest of defending your belief and partaking in the argument for the feminism, which shows your noble character of thinking outside of the box, which some people simply do no empathize with unless they are forced in the situation where they are faced with such issues.

Anonymouses post is composed of many issues, combined in a large pot of a boiling, controversial mass, that have to be addressed separately. I don’t particularly favor the way that presents his theory since it is very spread out and not very systematic or dense, he leaps from one point to another without concentrating on each point consistently. It makes it very hard to address such a combination of completely separate issues. Instead I will concentrate particularly on feminism and its association with individualism which is the main doctrine of the Feminist movement.

Let us start with the basics, what is feminism? This is a dictionary definition:

Feminism

1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

2. The movement organized around this belief.

What is an individual?

Individual

1.) Adj. 1. single. 2. particular, special; not general. 3. having a distinct character.

4. characteristics of a particular person. 5. designed for use by one person.

2.) N. 1. single member of a class. 2. single human being.

Now we can say that in order for one to obtain individual rights, one should be recognized as an individual. As we state this one cannot help but wonder, what exactly are individual rights and who decides them. Our first instinct is to assume that rights are assumed and assigned by the government or a society, and for someone who is an extreme individualist who refuses to recognize either as the ultimate authority it’s indeed very confusing to understand what is meant by individual rights.

One can assume that individual rights based on the infrastructure of nature without an involvement of the government or any other superior factors are what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As we can clearly see it all reverts to some higher power, if not government or a society then higher being such as God. Many rely on the Bible to carve out the definitions of what “rights” are supposed to be. These famous words by Jefferson not only formed the foundation of the US constitution but also served as an inspiration to the women’s movement and civil rights movement.

Examining closer that particular quote one can’t help but notice that the words represented the institutionalized thinking of men during that time. Primary the word “MEN” are created equal” stands out as the sole bearer of those rights, thus exempting women from the formula. Although perhaps Jefferson intended more of a broader definition, such well defined words are always at danger of being taken literally, in which case men did. I must note that we are starting more from the stem of the problem not the root, since the battle of the sexes retracts its legacy to the beginning of time.

In the end, I doubt that rights of an individual can be clearly defined, thus still left to much speculation. And once again individual rights spring from what a higher power establishes them to be. So let us look at the basic rights of an individual and examine them with the correlation of women.

-----Life – check

Liberty – hmmm, now that is a broadly defined word. How does one establish what is meant by liberty, it is by nature a very relative word. Liberty can have many definitions which each individual perceives differently. Liberty for women….hmmm…well let’s examine this one:

Women could not:

* Venture out to the public life, since it was reserved for men. Instead they were given liberty to exercise their rights in the domestic sphere. Indeed they gained their liberty at choosing to do laundry before dinner and dusting before sweeping and feeding kids a bit later than usual.

* Own property, as we remember from my post about patents, which women couldn’t own since even patents were considered to be property, thus their inventions were credited to men. But they were given FULL LIBERTY at choosing to clean the property either exceptionally well or moderately well…*ahem*

* Conduct business without a male representatives, their sons would even do, as long as it is not an air headed woman that might create a catastrophe with her ignorant decision. *ahem* *ahem*

* Exercise control over their own children without permission of their husbands, although they were married.

* Have access to education and were barred from most professions, in some countries and we know a few such restrictions continue today. Although they were given LIBERTY to have their fathers or husbands to teach them how to read and write or perhaps just share stories with them ….AHA….

----------And finally A pursuit of happiness – NOW THAT IS AN EXPRESSION that couldn’t have been more ambiguous. God only knows how many definitions of that phrase exist, since happiness on it’s own is still a mystery to all of the prominent scholars. Thus to me it just sounds quite worthless of addressing. Being that some women were even stripped from their pursuit of happiness by the restrictions of their gender. Such as some of the women we read about in my other threads, who had to masquerade as men in order to fulfill their dreams. Or the women that were sold to men as brides, were they given a chance to peruse their happiness or was it prescribed to them at birth?

Now that we touched on the definitions of “individualism” and “feminism” let us connect the two to create some sense out of this confusion.

Returning back to my initial point that one must be considered to be an individual to gain any particular rights. As we can see from the list of what women were entitled to, we will notice that women didn’t not have any qualifications to be recognized as individuals. In conclusion one is forced to ask, how the hell were they able to fight for individual rights if the Anglo-Saxon male dominated world didn’t not see them as individuals and didn’t accredit them as equals?

Option 2: If all fails, 2 heads are better than one. In order to achieve a significant and dynamic goal that is not in cohesion with the masses, a unity of a few must be formed, because a unity of numerous strong voices is a more effective than one voice fighting against prescribed ideals and rules that have gained a traditional acceptance for decades. So as an oppressed class many will rise, as a power that has finally grown stronger, shattering the order of life and creating waves, no longer can this movement be ignored, life is no longer the same. As the unity grows and “collectivism” expands, threat grows and persuasion soon conquers the ignorant opposition. Mission accomplished, goal has been met and liberty is acquired.

I simply don’t understand how people can fight for individual rights if they are not included in the class of individuals. As far as I am concerned there can be no argument there. It is also quite disheartening when people not being educated about a certain issue are so compelled to exude their presumptuous and pompous ideas, without having much experience or knowledge. No different than young idealistic communists living in a capitalist society arguing with an escapee of the former vicious Communist regime, convincing them of the incredible benefits of the Communism. Sometimes I feel like people prefer to state something in order to make themselves feel important for the mere reason of stating it, even though most of their ideas are composed of inflated self imposed spineless opinions without the backbone of the facts.

Discrediting a movement or a system is to deprive a humanity of it’s ambition to strive for change to improve conditions of the struggling class, thus ripping the masterminds of the work they invested in the causes they believed in. That is that, although I am glad that this thread has been created, for I will take full advantage of the title and slowly post the history of feminism and what exactly it stood for and what it has accomplished. I would like to clear feminisms tainted image that is still not understood by many.

I am going to end this monologue with a wonderful quote that I live by:

"I cried and cried because I had no shoes until I met a man with no feet."

Stormig · December 26, 2003

Now I must add i am disapointed that all of our various self proclaimed feminsists on this forum haven't stepped up to lable this guy nuts...shame..though i note that Anileve and Vayri have been abset for a while - but I am confident when they see your bullshit they will rip you a new a-hole.

What else is new, other than that you have a bunch of nuts and a bunch of snotty brats paying the forum a visit every now and then? BOOOOOOOOOORing... It gets old eventually, even for me.

Harut · December 26, 2003

Feminism
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

then, why not name the movement Sexual Equalitism?

Anonymouse · December 26, 2003

It is common charge throughout academia and "scholarly circles" of those who disagree with a givern party or group espousing a certain doctrine, that they are accused of not "thinking outside the box". Thus when we have others validate our said positions, be it on gun control, or feminism, or environmentalism, we see those people as "open minded" and "thinking outside the box". Such filtering of semantics is indeed pointless and from the uttered statement it is obviously more about getting people to agree with your position, which the Anileve later claims she is not about, than it is to encourage and foster critical thinking.

Thus when one doesn't agree, or rather goes a step beyond and challenges the 'correct' views held, that person is said to reside with preconceived notions, while those that bask in the party that agrees with one another are said to be open minded, indeed when one simply agrees on an idea because it preaches of 'equality' and sounds 'nice' or 'progressive' for a 'better humanity', not taking into account that the ideology itself is anything but the result of deductive principles, one is committing a logical error.

The arguments proposed by feminists, when applied to scrutiny only appear to have been facile and scattershot, for indeed the brunt of the whole ideology is 'equality', whether social, political, or economic, makes no difference. Whether we focus on the 'history' of it or semantics matters not. Anileve has thus defined for us what Feminism is:

Let us start with the basics, what is feminism? This is a dictionary definition:

Feminism
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

Here the reader has defined feminism in two definitions, indeed if looked at closely, it is perhaps better to just use the first definition. Thus by stating itself as a movement for equality, it presupposes the equality of the sexes, lacking difference, and assumes that from this reference point that the output of each group will be equal and if they are not equal feminism is there to equalize it. Thus in the way in which feminism is defined using the word "sex" it thus categorizes feminism as a collective ideology championing the equality of the 'oppressed group' in this case the gender of female. And right after Anileve defines 'feminism', there is a quick leap to defining the individual.

Individual

1.) Adj. 1. single. 2. particular, special; not general. 3. having a distinct character.
4. characteristics of a particular person. 5. designed for use by one person.

2.) N. 1. single member of a class. 2. single human being.

How we are supposed to tie in the collectivist doctrine of feminism to individualism, remains a mystery since the author does not show us. Instead we are to assume it is so, because it must be. Thus by its own hand it commits a logical fallacy.

The majority of Anileves post which then went off to paint the 'individual' as a blur and mystery is simply a mystery for me for why she made it more confused than it already is, defies logic. She defined the individual, then goes on to confuse what the individual means. So somehow the individual must mean something different from its defined purpose. If not so, then she made it so.

To claim that feminism is consonant with individualism is a contradiction, since you failed to prove how one leads to another via deductive reasoning. I am merely asking to be shown how your assertion holds up to scrutiny. Thus you defined the individual, then you ended with:

In the end, I doubt that rights of an individual can be clearly defined, thus still left to much speculation. And once again individual rights spring from what a higher power establishes them to be. So let us look at the basic rights of an individual and examine them with the correlation of women.

It seems pretty clear to me from your definition of what the individual is, unless we have some agenda we are pushing that would make us want to make this as elastic and pliable as possible. If you had read my post you would see how capitalism has in fact helped women to improve them from the conditions which you stated, and not your doctrine.

If we are to continue this discussion I am afraid you must address the forbidden land of 'equality' for that is the sum and substance to your ideology. Politics relies on this sort of ideology to succeed, indeed the State divides people into groups based on race, cultures, ethnicity, ideology, gender, etc. and pits one group against the other. If there is a lesson to be learned in all this it is to never succumb to any ideology or ism that claims to have answers to everything, for that is how deception occurs. It was Socrates who stated that in order to arrive at some basic truth regarding an issue it is best to claim ignorance. My intent here has not been to know feminism, instead, whether it was Thoth or Anileve, my purpose is seeking how feminism is really about the individual and not women, and how 'equality' is consonant with nature. For whatever trivial discussion we have focused on, the pillar of your ideology is equality, and unless you can define equality there is no point in further continuing this discussion for ultimately the validity of your ideology rests in its premise, equality. Thus to use the words of Anileve, "I personally feel like it is useless to argue with someone ... who obviously has a preconceived opinion that has cut off any form of alternate possibility of a different take on a matter. It’s like arguing with a wall. I have no intent of converting anyone into my way of thinking, unless they are genuinely interested in learning more about the subject or are open to alternate views."

THOTH · December 26, 2003

Well Anileve i fully agree with what you have said - all of it. In particualr concerning this A - Mouse character and his presentation. Its why I didn't want to get into this type of argument in the first place but did wish to ridicule him - as I could see where he was headed - etc.

Speaking of - A - Mouse - please tell us all about (your opinions regarding) the role of Jews in establishing all of this international socialism (and coruption of good capitalism and democracies...etc) and particularly their role in the feminist movement....

Becuase yes, as usual here is hwere we shall end up...

And of course he has absilutly no counter for all the examples of non-freedom etc of females that you offered...no its because - for all the "of course I'm not opposed to freedon for women" statements that he makes - he fundementally feels differently - as his personal statements attest to (such as though I initially gave example of) - as well as his speaking to "the natural order of things" (which again has been used to justify all sorts of eveils in various times and places).

So yes - this A-Mouse - is really not worth it at all. And Anileve - I'm at least glad you have made it additonally clear...but I must say Iam also very disapointed with the other (modern minded?) women of the forum who are either intimadated or perhpas fail to understand what this guy is trying to say...shame...at the very least they could throw a few questions at him so that he can clarify his statements - which I agree ares dense and perhaps confusing (deliberatly so I think...to viel his true postions...)

nairi · December 26, 2003

One more reason why I am against feminism: I refuse to see myself as a victim. Men have and have always had very similar pressures.

THOTH · December 26, 2003

One more reason why I am against feminism: I refuse to see myself as a victim. Men have and have always had very similar pressures.

Refuse all you want...but live with the benefits broght to you by those who themselves refused to put up with the status quo. How short are the memories that you have - how very few women could live on their own outside of their families. How most all women had no life apart of that with their husband. How most jobs were restricted form women. How birth control was essentially non-exsistant - and how you were basically just a baby factory. etc etc etc

I find it very odd Nairi - that you express this opinion. You don't strike me as a traditional gal - who lives basically only to get married and raise a family (and nothing wrong with that - if thats what you want - totaly legit) ...but am I wrong?

And Nairi - how would you feel if you coulnd't drive - or be out on your own, if you were denied college and an eduacation - but your brother's got such, if you couldn't vote or hold property, again etc etc...

Men have pressure - sure....we all do - one way or another...but similar? I really don't think so. I can't recall any society where women have restricted men's rights the way women have been restricted.

And see yourself as a vixtim or not - its just reality - consider it being a victim or not - semantics really - still there is no denying the history...

Sign In

Feminism

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation