vava Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Niari I think you're giving us an excellent perspective - that of someone (a woman) who has been brought up in a mostly liberal, progressive society/country, socially speaking. From my undestanding, common sense 'rights' have been enjoyed by women in the Netherlands for a longer time than here in North America - and were acquired without the militancy, or rather, vigilance that is characteristic of feminist activists here. So for you, equality has been attained - you have your choices, and can make them freely without discrimination. In the meantime, in North America there are still pay equity issues - women still occupy fewer top level management positions than suggested by the m/f ratio of graduates in post-secondary management programs... One must also comment on the rigid values in middle america - still largely rural & traditional - that are more comfortable with a certain role for women....In essence, will we see a gradual decline in feminist activism when we see the divergence, socially speaking, between male & female diminish... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 hmm here's what i think about "feminism" its just too much sometimes...there are reasons why men and women are different, but these reasons should not be taken into the extremes neither should feminist views...most feminists go too far with their radical views, therefore makine me as an individual more disinterested than ever about the whole topic...there shouldnt be dominance of one or the other gender, but equality is not possible due to differences in men and women, whether in society, or from the media, there need to be some grounds of classifying men and women...not as equals but a seperates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) Anileve, like I said from the beginning, I don't have strong arguments against feminism except for the -ism and my personal experience with it. But I also said that I don’t believe women should be slaves or that we should turn back time. My personal experience is that it was forced on me. I couldn't escape going to school, having career-oriented goals, hearing the slogan "Een slimme meid is op haar toekomst voorbereid" (A smart girl is prepared for her future) and my mom's "Never depend on a man." The other extreme where I am constantly urged by certain members in the family and other (stranger) Armenians that it is high time I got married and had babies is just as annoying. I simply feel that by taking the side of women, feminism, like many/most/all (??) other -isms, creates an us vs. them situation. I don't feel that I am victim of society or that my rights are being abused in any way. My main question is: why does the movement still exist? We got what we wanted. Or didn't we? ‘The Eternal-human bears us aloft’. Thank you. Nairi, what you have tapped into is not just a hallmark of feminism, but rather all political groups created by politics, whether its regarding race, ideology, gender, religion. It is precisely the mass-mindedness and collective thinking imposed by such things as political -isms in that they are already structured systems of thought. Of course this does not mean that one who is against political systems is necessarily harping on womens rights. Quite the contrary, one is for the full development of any individual. One can be, as you have pointed out, for the full development of women and exercise their individual minds, and not necessarily be confined to the political ideology of "feminism". State power derives not from tanks, soldiers, machine guns, and other weapons of violence, but from our willingness to adopt collective identities. By getting us to identify ourselves with various groupings from race, religion, economic interests, gender, or other collectives the government is able to manipulate us into supporting the interests of "our" collective vis a vis others. It is in this sense that all of politics is grounded in social conflict. Edited February 9, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Men and women ARE different physically, and perhaps even in the way they think about things (Heinz's Dilemma, and so on), but that does not imply that they are unequal or that they should be. Different does not mean unequal, and by "equal" I don't mean "having the same personality or characteristics", I mean "equal in the social aspect" (rights). If you can jump from physical (or even emotional) difference to justifying anti-feminism, you have to provide reasons for doing so, because if you cannot prove that those differences were in fact meant to put men in a position of control, you're position is null and void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 good pont wolf! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Men and women ARE different physically, and perhaps even in the way they think about things (Heinz's Dilemma, and so on), but that does not imply that they are unequal or that they should be. Different does not mean unequal, and by "equal" I don't mean "having the same personality or characteristics", I mean "equal in the social aspect" (rights). If you can jump from physical (or even emotional) difference to justifying anti-feminism, you have to provide reasons for doing so, because if you cannot prove that those differences were in fact meant to put men in a position of control, you're position is null and void. The natural inequalities as you pointed, also manifest themself in the society, thus there are no such thing as "equal rights". "Equality" used in any sense, is simply not a dynamic of nature. That even our "system" is composed of inequalities and imperfections makes any idea of "equality in a social aspect" impossible. "Equal rights" simply means rights of someone else over others, as in affirmitive action. Most people do not understand my position on feminism and how the radical faction uses this ideology as a stepping stone for more legislation and more mass minded thinking and more support of Leviathan. I suggest everyone read the quote I provided in the beginning by Mises which he demonstrated straight out that one can still support the idea of feminism, so long as it doesn't turn into a spiritual child of socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 The natural inequalities as you pointed, also manifest themself in the society, thus there are no such thing as "equal rights". How do they manifest themselves in society? That even our "system" is composed of inequalities and imperfections makes any idea of "equality in a social aspect" impossible. "Equal rights" simply means rights of someone else over others, as in affirmitive action. That our system is unfair and imperfect doesn't mean that movements to make it better are also imperfect. You are jumping from point A to point B without having a bridge to cross. I am against affirmative action, because it begs the question (tries to solve racism, sexism, etc by racism, sexism, etc) Advocating for equal rights does not mean that women should have privileges over men in applying for jobs. It simply means that women should be CONSIDERED as possible applicants and holders of those jobs. You are confusing two different things: It's one thing for a man who had it all to lose half of what he had (opportunities) in order for the woman to be on the same level as he, it's another thing for a man to lose half of what he had just because his counterparts are of the female sex. The former is called equality, the latter, privilege. I don't think there can be an absolute level of equality that could last for longer than a fraction of a second, until the balance shifts again, perhaps in the other direction. There can be patriarchy or matriarchy, but there cannot be absolute and total equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 But who is going to "enforce" this equality? Since obviously individuals as well as genders differ, thus they will not have equal outcomes, nor will they be all viewed the same by whoever is making decisions since discrimination is the natural, rather the cognitive ability to differentiate, and we discriminate everyday in every action. If the State, composed of humans, and imperfect is to impose these "opportunities" how do we know it will be impartial? In fact, we don't. With the ushering in of the capitalist revolution, and the division of labor we had what more than ever elevated the rank of women and gave them a chance to own property and specialize, indeed a chance for individual development. I see no way of trying to "enforce" equality other than by the watchful eye of a strong central government, since in the marketplace competition reigns supreme. This isn't to deny that there are no women who cannot be firefighters, and many are and they meet the physical requirements. Nor does this mean no woman can be a lab chemist, or a forensics expert, or a business owner, or an actress and drive BMWs. It is precisely because of the capitalist revolution that women can endeavor into these respective fields. I haven't confused anything, at least I don't think I have, rather I'm merely confronting the underlying premise of "equality", which is entrenched in all of the humanities and social sciences in the universities and that to step away from it, one is equated to committing a sin. I've been heckled for this but I'll quote Mises again. ""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." Indeed, if it goes beyond its intended aims, it is very "Marxian" in its effrontery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 since we humans like the familiar, and the familiar is what we learn from society...our observations...mainly stereotypical and biased...therefore there cannot exist a world n which there arent any stereotypes or "gender roles" if there are genders...there are differences...obviously there are reasons why we were created the way we were...not speaking of human rights here..or implying that men or women should have more or less freedom...but since people are imperfect, so are the forms of government, ideologies and beliefs=therefore the rise of so called "inequality"...i can write pages and pages on this....might not make sense but hey i tried! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Indeed. In fact too many people misconstrue my position in arguing against equality as some form of oppression towards women. That is not so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Indeed. In fact too many people misconstrue my position in arguing against equality as some form of oppression towards women. That is not so. Bla, bla, bla...masses....bla, bla, bla...political -isms...bla, bla, bla...lesbian feminists...bla, bla, bla, butches....bla, bla, bla...Austrian School of Economics...bla, bla, bla...no equality.... Chorus: Vay ko tsava tanem, Vay! Ox ko tsava tanem, Ox! Xelket tanem prem, mi lav lavash epem, Vay! ---Bla, Bla, Bla By Anileve Feminismian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Bla, bla, bla...masses....bla, bla, bla...political -isms...bla, bla, bla...lesbian feminists...bla, bla, bla, butches....bla, bla, bla...Austrian School of Economics...bla, bla, bla...no equality.... Chorus: Vay ko tsava tanem, Vay! Ox ko tsava tanem, Ox! Xelket tanem prem, mi lav lavash epem, Vay! ---Bla, Bla, Bla By Anileve Feminismian You're too cute. No I don't intend to oppress you, and yes I hate political systems, and yes I think we should go on a picnic and have lavash o panir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 But who is going to "enforce" this equality? Since obviously individuals as well as genders differ, thus they will not have equal outcomes, nor will they be all viewed the same by whoever is making decisions since discrimination is the natural, rather the cognitive ability to differentiate, and we discriminate everyday in every action. If the State, composed of humans, and imperfect is to impose these "opportunities" how do we know it will be impartial? In fact, we don't. Philosophers. That's what we're here for. Politicians are the bane of the world, philosophers are its salvation. And I am very serious about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Philosophers. That's what we're here for. Politicians are the bane of the world, philosophers are its salvation. And I am very serious about this. Well, now I don't think they would like that. Politicians are an essential part of our world. They would be nekkid without being politicians. We really need them. I'm serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 You're too cute. No I don't intend to oppress you, and yes I hate political systems, and yes I think we should go on a picnic and have lavash o panir. Cute is for moppets. <_< Anonymous jan, I don't think that would be a very good idea, there might be a chance of my angry feminist side to spring forward and I will be compelled to crush you with my butch physique! Or just shove you in the bottle of cognac and put a cork in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Politicians are an essential part of our world. Philosophers don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Cute is for moppets. <_< Anonymous jan, I don't think that would be a very good idea, there might be a chance of my angry feminist side to spring forward and I will be compelled to crush you with my butch physique! Or just shove you in the bottle of cognac and put a cork in it. Well the Cognac part is a mouses dream, so is being crushed by you, the feminine feminist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Well the Cognac part is a mouses dream, so is being crushed by you, the feminine feminist. My feminist ass feels quite wet... I think I need 2 towels: 1 to wipe it and one to lay over a thick pile of bull crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 My feminist ass feels quite wet... I think I need 2 towels: 1 to wipe it and one to lay over a thick pile of bull crap. I was serious madamme. But alas I shall take my courtly affairs to seek another feminist, hopefully as feminine as thee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) Philosophers. That's what we're here for. Politicians are the bane of the world, philosophers are its salvation. And I am very serious about this. Ehem. Philosophers think, politicians (though nearly not enough) take action. When, in your great perfect society without politicians the philosophers take over (I assume this is what you want) they become politicians themselves. Read Plato and Aristotle on this. Edited February 9, 2004 by gurgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Couldn't help myself here... Exerpt from Frank Zappa - The Adventures Of Greggery Peccary (from Studio Tan album)... Greggery: WHO IS MAKING THOSE NEW BROWN CLOUDS? WHO IS MAKING THOSE CLOUDS THESE DAYS? WHO IS MAKING THOSE NEW BROWN CLOUDS? BETTER ASK A PHILOSTOPHER 'N SEE WHAT HE SAYS! Narrator: GREGGERY stops at a gas station and makes a mysterious phone call . . . Greggery: IS THIS THE OLD LOFT WITH THE PAINT PEELIN' OFF IT BY THE CHINESE POLICE WHERE THE DOGS ROLL BY? IS THIS WHERE THEY KEEP THE PHILOSTOPHERS NOW, WITH THE RUGS & THE DUST, WHERE THE BOOKS GO TO DIE? HOW MANY YEZ GOT? SAY YEZ GOT QUITE A FEW, JUST SITTIN' AROUND THERE WITH NOTHIN' TO DO? WELL I JUST CALLED YEZ UP 'CAUSE I WANTED TO SEE A PHILOSTOPHER BE OF ASSISTANCE TO ME! Narrator: GREGGERY receives information that 'The Greatest Living PHILOSTOPHER Known to Mankind' is currently in possession of the very information in question, and, furthermore, this information could be HIS, if only GREGGERY would attend a 'SPECIAL THERAPEUTIC GROUP ASSEMBLY' (Classes now forming), and available at a special low low introductory fee . . . and now, here he is, 'The Greatest Living PHILOSTOPHER Known to Mankind', QUENTIN ROBERT DeNAMELAND! Take it away! Quentin: Folks, as you can see for yourself, the way this clock over here is behaving, TIME IS OF AFFLICTION! Now this might be cause for alarm among a portion of you, as, from a certain experience, I TEND TO PROCLAIM: 'THE EONS ARE CLOSING'! Narrator: Make your checks payable to 'QUENTIN ROBERT DeNAMELAND, Greatest Living Philostopher Known to Mankind'! Greggery: WHO IS MAKING THOSE NEW BROWN CLOUDS? WHO IS MAKING THOSE CLOUDS THESE DAYS? WHO IS MAKING THOSE NEW BROWN CLOUDS? IF YOU ASK A PHILOSTOPHER, HE'LL SEE THAT YOU PAYS! etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Philosophers think, politicians (though nearly not enough) take action. I never said politicians don't take any action. I was simply toying with the idea of whether or not we need politicians. When, in your great perfect society without politicians the philosophers take over (I assume this is what you want) they become politicians themselves. Read Plato and Aristotle on this. Unproven assumptions have no place in philosophical proofs. To address your point about philosophers becoming politicians, no indeed they will not. You think too lightly of philosophers. Philosophers are not supposed to be subjective and materialistic. They are supposed to transcend the boundaries of subjectivism and materialism in implementing systems and thought processes. Politician is simply a label. If you consider the person who gets to sit in a president's office a politician, then a philosopher who gets to sit in that office (not the temporary act of sitting, I'm talking about serving a presidency term) would be considered a politician, yes. But would he cease to be a philosopher? Read Plato and Aristotle on this. And one would've thought that someone who makes his living on Philosophy would've read Plato and Aristotle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Another thing that really annoys me is the fact that we have a special literature course (thank god only optional!!) dedicated solely to American Women Writers, but not a single one dedicated solely to (American) Male Writers, even though the regular literature courses deliberately omit some of the best authors (who happen to be male) by replacing them with their mediocre female counterparts, simply because they are women. Even worse, the women get most of the attention in these regular courses, again, simply because they are women and not because they are good authors. It's even sadder to see these (radical) feminist professors drool all over these female authors just because they happen to be of the same sex. Reminds of Armenian nationalists drooling over a past and present that only exists in their wildest fantasies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Ha!!! Nairi, well said!!! Exactly what I've thought frequently! I remember taking a course in Elizabethan and Jacobean literature, and half the poets were women (Isabella Whitney, Anne Cecil De Vere, Anne Dowriche, Mary Sidney, Aemilia Lanyer, Mary Wroth, Rachel Speght, etc.)... With all due respect to all the women on here and all the feminists and all the woman poets, I don't consider them gifted at all (some were good, most were not). Definitely not comparable to Sir Phillip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the rest of them "misogynists"..... it's a shame that academic curricula are being altered for the sake of political correctness. And what's with Virginia Woolf? I think she's pretty horrible for a writer... Her essays are boring and so hateful of men. If you've read "A Room of One's Own," you'd see what I mean (although it doesn't extend throughout the essay). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 Another thing that really annoys me is the fact that we have a special literature course (thank god only optional!!) dedicated solely to American Women Writers, but not a single one dedicated solely to (American) Male Writers, even though the regular literature courses deliberately omit some of the best authors (who happen to be male) by replacing them with their mediocre female counterparts, simply because they are women. Even worse, the women get most of the attention in these regular courses, again, simply because they are women and not because they are good authors. It's even sadder to see these (radical) feminist professors drool all over these female authors just because they happen to be of the same sex. Reminds of Armenian nationalists drooling over a past and present that only exists in their wildest fantasies. Nairi jan, I understand where you are coming from, but leaving out my feminist platform I must say that you are a bit off this time. And I can say this with a certainty that even anti-feminists would agree with me, literature IS predominately a male arena. The percentage of female writers compare to the one of male writers throughout history is miniscule. Think of most literature courses we have taken, I for one remember intensively covering Maya Angelou and Emily Dickinson in high school and none in college. All of the readings I’ve encountered were that of male authors. Not that I mind, since I could care less who wrote it as long it’s worthy material, although I do admit I get a little giddy when I come across prominent female writers (on my own reading time), since it really isn’t that often. So to bring all of this to a final point, I really have to ask… IS there any point of having American Male Writers? And for men, do you really think that there is any sense of having a course on Male Writers? And I don’t pose this question with a preordained answer on my part, just a simple opinion from a male perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.