anti-feminists

[Leila Night]

Originally Posted by McGirth

in the same way you build a building strong foundations before you start concerning yourself with things like a sunroom and how many bathrooms you want.
Instead every member of ideology wants its own way, as a result we have a pluralist system where we end with a huge sunroom, 10 bathrooms, but no foundations to our house. Unfortunately we then have to live in it.

Questions: how do you suppose we build a 'good' foundation? Who decides what's good or isn't? Do you think I can have my own sunroom? I like palladian-style windows, Turkish and gothic arches and ionic columns. Do you think we can incorporate all my favourite styles?


hahahaha @ pimp patriarch. I want one. Badly.

[x - calibur]

good post..

i think the popular perception of feminism being some controlling/paranoid/man-hating idealogy has slowed it down.

i always saw the more extreme feminism as being like marxism. except instead of the working class, women.. and instead of the ruling elite, men.

the middle ground is less noticed.. but if its one thing extremists do, its draw attention to themselves

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by McGirth

The only three questions we should be asking is is what is occuring with society good? is what is occuring with society just? and is it sustainable?

these are questions most feminists ask. the difference is that they ask and answer an additional question before asking the other three...that being "does sexual oppression exist?" their answer, like mine, is yes.

then they can ask "is it good?", "is it just?", and "is it sustainable?"

their answers, like mine, are usually 1) no, 2) no, and 3) yes but it shouldn't be...

i don't see how that's incompatible with feminism

[identity-X]

and like leila said...

"justice" and "good" are subjective terms...who determines what constitutes each?

i know a lot of people like to fall back on a functionalist approach where "that which works is good and just", but they fail to ask 1) if it works for everyone and 2) if there are alternatives that would "work" just as well

[UnbrokeN]

whats sexual opression? come on such thing doesnt exist..

young men have it harder than ever to exel, especially when they arent coming from a rich background...ohhh the backlash my friends. I already feel it coming- society should break down and reorganize itself one day

[identity-X]

you've opened my eyes Unbroken...

women have equal access to great paying jobs. women and men share in running the household. women have equal input in pushing through policy that affect men and women alike. women's voices are sought in government and corporate offices.

though evidence shows that all of the above is not true, I have seen the light! I've seen the truth, and it is beautiful!

[UnbrokeN]

about time u give in...

[McGirth]

Originally Posted by identity-X

these are questions most feminists ask. the difference is that they ask and answer an additional question before asking the other three...that being "does sexual oppression exist?" their answer, like mine, is yes.

then they can ask "is it good?", "is it just?", and "is it sustainable?"

their answers, like mine, are usually 1) no, 2) no, and 3) yes but it shouldn't be...

i don't see how that's incompatible with feminism

what you mentioned is in specific contexts/for specific intersts. its not at all the same thing. Again, my prior post covered why, no point repeating myself.

[McGirth]

Originally Posted by Leila Night

Questions: how do you suppose we build a 'good' foundation? Who decides what's good or isn't? Do you think I can have my own sunroom? I like palladian-style windows, Turkish and gothic arches and ionic columns. Do you think we can incorporate all my favourite styles?

good is good, you don't decide whats good in the same way you don't decide what are good architectural principles.
The good architectural principles exist; either you choose to follow them or not when building your house. Either you don't follow them and your house colapses, or you do follow them and it doesn't.
The question of "who decides what's good or isen't?" is nonsensical in building.

If the house is built with good principles - then you can have your own sunroom. If the house is built with sunrooms in mind first - you won't even end up with a sunroom. Just a pile of rubble.

The basic underlying TENET that underlies feminism, nazism, communism, marxism, other-post modern ideologies etc... is that you can actually decide the good completely. There is not set human nature so you can build them to yours whims/preference.
This is what I say is fundamentally incorrect. They want to build houses ignoring the laws of construction.

Of course this is not to say there is no room for preference; in fact, as i've eluded to; if we construct our society towards my 3 issues then well actually have room to pursue our prefences. Our houses foundation will be solid; we can have a sunroom & several bathrooms!

By posing the questions iv'e posed it puts the focus on trying to figure out what the good/sustainable/just is - from these things proper consideration of each ideology naturally stems. Once you understand the rules of architecture, even if not completely, just by asking the right questions and seeking to answer them, your house has the potential to have more bathrooms and sunrooms then if you do not put these things first.

[McGirth]

Originally Posted by UnbrokeN

whats sexual opression? come on such thing doesnt exist..

young men have it harder than ever to exel, especially when they arent coming from a rich background...ohhh the backlash my friends. I already feel it coming- society should break down and reorganize itself one day

i think the saddest part of all that femisnists need to realize is that DISENFRANCHISING young men has led to an increase in:
1-prostitution/other forms of sexual exploitation among poor young women.
-As less and less men have the means to get a wife/get property, their sexual drives still exist. As a result they are placated by prostitutes and pornography. Young women, lured by big money or even worse forced in by men who are lured by big money, join the rank of prostitutes/strippers/etc.. more than in the past.

2-less options for poor young women who aren't academically gifted as the marriage option is more and more taken off the table - In the past these women could get married, there was an ample pool of men who could earned a large enough wage to have a single income family with a housewith life in the suburbs. This is no longer possible. The men cannot afford these things. As such poor women who aren't academically gifted have less options on the table for life, more and more these days they are turning towards option 1.

3-an amount of young men who spend their time trying to trick girls into having sex with them - Young men who are uneducated simply cannot afford have wives. They frankly can't afford to have serious relationship/wife since they have no money So what do they do? Go to clubs pretending to be something they are not in the hope of scoring for the night. They do this till they are 30 then they realize they accomplished nothing in life and go work, defeated and disenfranchised, in menial jobs. I think we've gotten to the point where women don't even care anymore about this; since the real thing is in short supply (i.e. a man who they can start a family with this); they also placate themselves with a fantasy for a night. But of course, in reality they are fundamentally unhappy. Further, with the price of property these days its not like the average women with a BA can buy a house. Fact is they can't - it takes 2 medium incomes to get a morgage these days. So their left in their condo going to clubs for a fantasy they want but can't have.

In sum; pro-female policies are actually making things worse for women. Men and women don't live in segregated sections in society - policies that effect MEN negatively and makes them disenfranchised also effects women invariably; particularly poor not-academically gifted women.

Pro-Female policy not only disenfranchises young men - it, in its implication, leads to the "sexual opression" of women.

We don't quite live in the rubble yet; but we have to ask ourselves after 50+ years of the feminist experiment; should we adjust things or ignore the emperical facts and just continue "forward"? Or whether we should re-set the goals towards justice/the good/sustainable society first and womens and put womens and other issues second.

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by McGirth

good is good, you don't decide whats good in the same way you don't decide what are good architectural principles.
The good architectural principles exist; either you choose to follow them or not when building your house. Either you don't follow them and your house colapses, or you do follow them and it doesn't.
The question of "who decides what's good or isen't?" is nonsensical in building.

that's a lot of writing to explain what good isn't.

how would you operationally define what IS good?

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by McGirth

i think the saddest part of all that femisnists need to realize is that DISENFRANCHISING young men has led to an increase in:

It's not a zero-sum game. I'm interested in what ways, specifically, policies aimed at giving women the same opportunities as men - opportunities that, at one point, did not exist - has led to men being disenfranchized?

Overwhelmingly, I don't think this has been the case

Originally Posted by McGirth

1-prostitution/other forms of sexual exploitation among poor young women.
-As less and less men have the means to get a wife/get property, their sexual drives still exist. As a result they are placated by prostitutes and pornography. Young women, lured by big money or even worse forced in by men who are lured by big money, join the rank of prostitutes/strippers/etc.. more than in the past.

Exploitation of women hasn't increased because of policies aimed at helping women...it's simply CHANGED because of practicies that continue to hurt women.

The lure of big money wouldn't be so strong if women weren't making $.75 to a man's $1.00 for the equally as well for the EXACT same jobs. The lure wouldnt' be so strong if there weren't a glass ceiling in nearly every corporation in America.

Originally Posted by McGirth

2-less options for poor young women who aren't academically gifted as the marriage option is more and more taken off the table - In the past these women could get married, there was an ample pool of men who could earned a large enough wage to have a single income family with a housewith life in the suburbs. This is no longer possible. The men cannot afford these things. As such poor women who aren't academically gifted have less options on the table for life, more and more these days they are turning towards option 1.

This glosses over another point. While men cannot afford these things any more, women haven't and STILL cannot afford these things. See above.

At least you see, unlike many, how class and gender work together to oppress women differently than the way men are oppressed

Originally Posted by McGirth

3-an amount of young men who spend their time trying to trick girls into having sex with them - Young men who are uneducated simply cannot afford have wives. They frankly can't afford to have serious relationship/wife since they have no money So what do they do? Go to clubs pretending to be something they are not in the hope of scoring for the night. They do this till they are 30 then they realize they accomplished nothing in life and go work, defeated and disenfranchised, in menial jobs. I think we've gotten to the point where women don't even care anymore about this; since the real thing is in short supply (i.e. a man who they can start a family with this); they also placate themselves with a fantasy for a night. But of course, in reality they are fundamentally unhappy. Further, with the price of property these days its not like the average women with a BA can buy a house. Fact is they can't - it takes 2 medium incomes to get a morgage these days. So their left in their condo going to clubs for a fantasy they want but can't have.

what does this have to do with feminist policy? You're framing this as, fundamentally, a class issue. I can't say I disagree and, of course, gender role and expectations play a part in how this class issue plays out.

But to paint this as an effect of feminism....

Originally Posted by McGirth

In sum; pro-female policies are actually making things worse for women. Men and women don't live in segregated sections in society - policies that effect MEN negatively and makes them disenfranchised also effects women invariably; particularly poor not-academically gifted women.

Pro-Female policy not only disenfranchises young men - it, in its implication, leads to the "sexual opression" of women.Pro-Female policy not only disenfranchises young men - it, in its implication, leads to the "sexual opression" of women.

again, it's not a zero-sum game. Pro-female policies do NOT have to be policies that affect men negatively.

THIS IS THE POINT OF MUCH OF WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE, and a basic tenet of feminism as it's existed over the past 15-20 years.

We KNOW that policies that affect men negatively can affect women negatively. That's why there's been a push away from it since the third-wave.

Originally Posted by McGirth

We don't quite live in the rubble yet; but we have to ask ourselves after 50+ years of the feminist experiment; should we adjust things or ignore the emperical facts and just continue "forward"? Or whether we should re-set the goals towards justice/the good/sustainable society first and womens and put womens and other issues second.

there's no point in painting a picture of feminism as a static, never-changing, monolithic ideology...it's an argument you'll lose

in the 100+ years of the "feminist experiment", much has changed. This includes HUGE changes in recent years from the anti-male feminism of 50 years ago.

feminism hasn't simply "pushed forward"...it has CHANGED because those involved realized the old way wasn't working.

feminism isn't simply about women's issues. it's about societal issues....and that includes a push for a "just"/"good"/sustainable society...no matter what form that takes...

[Ghet for Prez]

All movements degrade into cults, ID-X. Full of ritual and hymns that exist to try and reignite that initial spark that made people convert to begin with. This Third Wave crap is no different than Christians in 500 AD trying to remember what they all have in common.

Feminism has refused to addresss that the empowerment they seek has resulted in an "arms" race.

[identity-X]

hence the push by many fighting for the end of sexist oppression to define their actions as "movement" (verb) instead of a "movement" (noun)

:D

[Sodium]

Ay G i like where you took this one. the bad foundations analogy was real solid/. I got confused on the effects of female empowerment as a catalyst for male disenfranchisement though. As a whole it sounds as though the - 3 problems you address result more from inadequacies in the way the economy is structured than from women who choose to be independent from male financial support. These inadequacies would be things such as the cost of living and the type of jobs that are actually, realistically available to most people. ultimately, these are problems of completely different stripe.

- as to what is a solid foundation (good/just/sustainable)
i propose that everything good/just/sustainable in society ultimately flows from an attempt to ensure that children are raised well. if one looks at society as though it were a superorganism, then it would make sense that, like humans, society's ability to reproduce itself would be its most important function. and like humans, every aspect of the way society is structured can ultimately be traced back to the way in which it reproduces. for humans to reproduce, they must be of sound physical and mental health. similarly, for society to reproduce, it must be good/just/sustainable. thus, its my belief that these concepts, at their core, exist as a means to ensure that children are raised well.

by extension this would imply that anything not conducive to this will hurt and perhaps destroy society. for society to be good/just/sustainable it must ultimately seek to adequately nurture its children. the Question feminism (and any other ideology) must ask itself is; is your ideology built around this imperative?