anti-feminists

identity-X · 02-03-2007, 06:14 PM

most of what you hate about feminism are ideas that emerged among feminist women some 50 years ago. many of these same ideas have been criticized, analyzed and dismissed by OTHER FEMINISTS and have not represented the core of feminist thought for over 20 years.

I've been meaning to do this for a while. In my quest to read everything written by bell hooks, I picked up one of her earlier more theoretical books...."Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center". Below are a number of quotes from that book. While I don't expect any anti-feminists here to agree with what she says, the important thing is to recognize that what she says IS more representative of contemporary feminist thought and that what she says runs counter to many anti-feminists conceptions of what it means to be feminist. Keep in mind this book was written in 1984. "Man hating" feminism died out before most of you were born.

AS a black, lformerly-lower-class feminist most of her book is about the following issue: that white, middle- and upper-class bourgeois women who were the figureheads in feminist movement 50 years ago “were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexist oppression”

she touches on other issues as well, including...

- the failure of 2nd wave liberal feminism
- the postivie functions of the family
- the positive functions of male/female relationships
- Western conceptions of power and their role in the perpetuatino of sexism
- the role of Western individualism in the perpetuation of sexism
- men as "comrades" in feminsist movement

read on:

"Most people in the United States think of feminism, or the more commonly used term “women’s lib,” as a movement that aims to make women the social equals of men. This broad definition, popularized by the media and mainstream segments of the movement, raises problematic questions. Since men are not equals in white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal class structure, which men do women want to be equal to? Do women share a common vision of what equality means? Implicit in this simplistic definition of women’s liberation is a dismissal of race and class as factors that, in conjunction with sexism, determine the extent to which an individual will be discriminated against, exploited, or oppressed. Bourgeois white women interested in women’s rights issues have been satisfied with simple definitions for obvious reasons. Rhetorically placing themselves in the same social category as oppressed women, they are not anxious to call attention to race and class privilege."

Women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status. Concurrently, they know that many males in their social groups are exploited and oppressed. Knowing that men in their groups do not have social, political, and economic power, they would not deem it liberatory to share their social status. While they are aware that sexism enables men in their respective groups to have privileges that are denied them, they are more likely to see exaggerated expressions of male chauvinism among their peers as stemming from the male’s sense of himself as powerless and ineffectual in relation to ruling male groups, rather than an expression of an overall privileged social status. From the very onset of the women’s liberation movement, these women were su••••ious of feminism precisely because they recognized that limitations inherent in its definition. They recognized the possibility that feminism defined as social equality with men might easily become a movement that would primarily affect the social standing of white women in middle- and upper-class groups while affecting only in a very marginal way the social status of working-class and poor women"

pg. 18-19

The positive impact of liberal reforms on women’s lives should not lead to the assumption that they eradicate systems of domination. Nowhere in these demands is there an emphasis on eradicating the politic of domination, yet it would need to be abolished if any of these demands were to be met. The lack of any emphasis on domination is consistent with the liberal feminist belief that women can achieve equality with men of their class without challenging and changing the cultural basis of group oppression. It is this belief that negates the likelihood that the potential radicalism of liberal feminism will ever be realized.

p. 21

Many feminist radicals now know that neither a feminism that focuses on woman as an autonomous human being worthy of personal freedom nor one that focuses on the attainment of equality of opportunity with men can rid society of sexism and male domination. Feminism is a struggle to end sexist oppression. Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels, as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires. Defined in this way, it is unlikely that women would join feminist movement simply because we are biologically the same. A commitment to feminism so defined would demand that each individual participant acquire a critical political consciousness based on ideas and beliefs.

p. 26

identity-X - notice nothing is said about feminism being equated with "female domination" or even "being equal" or being looked at as "equal"

Feminism defined in political terms that stress collective as well as individual experience challenges women to enter a new domain – to leave behind the apolitical stance sexism decrees is our lot and develop political consciousness. Women know from our everyday lives that many of us rarely discuss politics. Even when women talked about sexist politics in the heyday of contemporary feminism, rather than allow this engagement with serious political matters to lead to complex, in-depth analysis of women’s social status, we insisted that men were “the enemy,” the cause of all our problems. As a consequence we examined almost exclusively women’s relationship to male supremacy and the ideology of sexism. The focus on “man as enemy” created, as Marlene Dixon emphasizes in her essay: “The Rise and Demise of Women’s Liberation: A Class Analysis,” a “politics of psychological oppression” that evoked world views that “pit individual against individual and mystify the social basis of exploitation.” By repudiating the popular notion that the focus of feminist movement should be social equality of the sexes and by emphasizing eradication of the cultural basis of group oppression, our own analysis would require an exploration of all aspects of women’s political reality. This would mean that race and class oppression would be recognized as feminist issues with as much relevance as sexism.

p. 27

identity-X - in fact, here she explicitly states that a feminist movement aimed strictly at "social equality" is a step backward...

MORE TO COME...

identity-X · 02-03-2007, 06:19 PM

Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men. It has the power to transform in a meaningful way all our lives. Most importantly, feminism is neither a lifestyle nor a ready-made identity or role on can step into. Diverting energy from feminist movement that aims to change society, many women concentrate on the development of a counter-culture, a woman-centered world wherein participants have little contact with men. Such attempts do not indicate a respect or concert for the vast majority of women who are unable to integrate their cultural expressions with the visions offered by alternative, woman-centered communities.

p. 28

Focusing on feminism as political commitment, we resist the emphasis on individual identity and lifestyle. (This should not be confused with the very real need to unite theory and practice.) Such resistance engages us in revolutionary praxis. The ethics of Western society informed by imperialism and capitalism were personal rather than social. They teach us that the individual good is more important than the collective good, and consequently that individual change is of grater significance than collective change. This particular form of cultural imperialism has been reproduced in feminist movement in the form of individual women equating the fact that their lives have been changed in a meaningful way by feminism “as is” with a policy that no change need occur in the theory and praxis, even if it has little or no impact on society as a whole, or on masses of women.

p. 30-31

Contemporary feminist movement in the United States called attention to the exploitation and oppression of women globally. This was a major contribution to feminist struggle. In their eagerness to highlight sexist injustice, women focused almost exclusively on the ideology and practice of male domination. Unfortunately, this made it appear that feminism was more a declaration of war between the sexes than a political struggle to end sexist oppression, a struggle that would imply change on the part of women and men. Underlying much white women’s liberationist rhetoric was the implication that men had nothing to gain by feminist movement, that its success would make them losers. Militant white women were particularly eager to make feminist movement privilege women over men. There anger, hostility, and rage was so intense that they were unable to resist turning the movement into a public forum for their attacks. Although they sometimes considered themselves “radical feminists,” their responses were reactionary. Fundamentally, they argued that all men are enemies of all women and proposed as solutions to this problem a utopian woman nation, separatist communities, and even the subjugation or extermination of all men. Their anger may have been a catalyst for individual liberatory resistance and change. It may have encouraged bonding with other women to raise consciousness. It did not strengthen public understanding of the significance of authentic feminist movement.

Sexist discrimination, exploitation, and oppression have created the war between the sexes. Traditionally the battleground has been the home. In recent years, the battle ensues in any sphere, public or private, inhabited by women and men, girls and boys. The significance of feminist movement (when it is not co-opted by opportunistic reactionary forces0 is that it offers a new ideological meeting ground for the seces, a space for criticism, struggle, and transformation. Feminist movement can end the war between the sexes. It can transform relationships so that the alienation, competition, and dehumanization that characterize human interaction can be replaced with feelings of intimacy, mutuality, and camaraderie.

Ironically, these positive implications of feminist movement were often ignored by liberal organizers and participants. Since vocal bourgeois white women were insisting that women repudiate the role of servant to others, they were not interested in convincing men or even women that feminist movement was important for everyone. Narcissistically, they focused solely on the primacy of feminism in their lives, universalizing their own experiences. Building a mass-based women's movement was never the central issue on their agenda. After many organizations were established, leaders expressed a desire for greater participant diversity; they wanted women to join who were not white, materially privileged, middle-class, or college-educated. It was never deemed necessary for feminist activists to explain to masses of women the significance of feminist movement. Believing their emphasis on social equality was a universal concern, they assumed the idea would carry its own appeal. Strategically, the failure to emphasize the necessity for mass-based movement, grassroots organizing, and sharing with everyone the positive significance of feminist movement helped marginalize feminism by making it appear relevant only to those women who joined organizations.

p. 34-35

MORE TO COME...

identity-X · 02-03-2007, 06:27 PM

Contemporary feminist analyses of family often implied that successful feminist movement would either begin with or lead to the abolition of family……Despite sexism in the context of family, we may experience dignity, self-worth, and a humanization that is not experienced in the outside world wherein we confront all forms of oppression. We know from our lived experiences that families are not just households composed of husbands, wife, and children, or even blood relations; we also know that destructive patterns generated by belief in sexism abound in varied family structures. We wish to affirm the primacy of family life because we know that family ties are the only sustained support system for exploited and oppressed people. We wish to rid family life of the abusive dimensions created by sexist oppression without devaluing it.

…feminism is the one radical political movement that focues on transforming family relationships. Feminist movement to end sexist oppression affirms family life by its insistence that the purpose of family structure is not to reinforce patterns of domination in the interest of the state* (SEE BELOW). By challenging Western philosophical beliefs that impress on our consciousness a concept of family life that is essentially destructive, feminism would liberate family so that it could be affirming, positive kindship structure with no oppressive dimensions based on sex differentiation, sexual preference, etc.

* Politically, the white supremacist, patriarchal state relies on the family to indoctrinate its members with values supportive of hierarchical control and coercive authority. Therefore the state has a vested interest in projecting the notion that feminist movement will destroy family life

* Feminist positions on the family that devalue its importance have been easily co-opted to serve the interests of the state. People are concerned that families are breaking down, that positive dimensions of family are overshadowed by the aggression, humiliation, abuse, and violence that characterizes the interaction of family member. They must not be convinced that anti-feminism is the way to improve family life. Feminist activists need to affirm the importance of family as a kinship structure that can sustain and nourish people; to graphically address links between sexist oppression and family disintegration; and to give examples, both actual and visionary, of the way family life is and can be when unjust authoritarian rule is replaced with an ethic of communalism, shared responsibility, and mutuality. The movement to end sexist oppression is the only social-change movement that will strengthen and sustain family life in all households.

p. 38-41

Feminism defined as a movement to end sexist oppression enables women and men, girls and boys, to participate equally in revolutionary struggle So far, contemporary feminist movement has been primarily generated by the efforts of women – men have rarely participated. This lack of participation is not solely a consequence of anti-feminism. By making womens’ liberation synonymous with women gaining social equality with men, liberal feminist effectively created a situation in which they, not men, designated feminist movement “women’s work”. Even as they were attacking sex-role divisions of labor, the institutionalized sexism which assigns unpaid, devalued, “dirty” work to women, they were assigning to women yet another sex-role task: making feminist revolution. Women’s liberationists called upon all women to join feminist movement, but they did not continually stress that men should assume responsibility for actively struggling to end sexist oppression. Men, they argued, were the all-powerful, misogynist, oppressor – the enemy. Women were oppressed – the victims. Such rhetoric reinforced sexist ideology by positing in an inverted form the notion of a basic conflict between the sexes, the implication being that the empowerment of women would necessarily be at the expense of men

(CONTEXT/FOLLOW-UP from a few pages later) *As with other issues, the insistence on a “woman only” feminist movement and a virulent anti-male stance reflected the race and class background of participants. Bourgeois white women, especially radical feminists, were envious of and angry at privileged white men for denying them an equal share in class privileged

p. 68-69

Many black women refused participation in feminist movement because they felt an anti-male stance was not a sound basis for action. They were convinced that virulent expression fo these sentiments intensify sexism by adding to the antagonism which already exists between women and men. For years black women (and some black men) had been struggling to overcome the tensions and antognism between black females and males that is generated by internalized racisms (i.e., when the white patriarchy suggests one group has caused the oppression of the other). Black women were saying to black men, “We are not one another’s enemy,” “We must resist the socialization that teaches us to hate ourselves and one another. This affirmation of bonding between black women and men was part of anti-racist struggle. It could have been a part of feminist struggle had white women’s liberationists stressed then need for women and men to resist the sexist socialization that teaches us to hate and fear one another. They chose instead to emphasize hate, especially male woman-hating, suggesting that it could not be changed.

…The anti-male stance was a reactionary perspective that made feminism appear to be a movement that would enable white women to usurp white male power, replacing white male supremacist rule with white female supremacist rule.

p. 71-72

The positive implications of separatist organizing were diminished when radical feminists…proposed sexual separatism as an ultimate goal of feminist movement. Reactionary separatism is rooted in the conviction that male supremacy is an absolute aspect of our culture, tha women have only two alternatives; accepting it or withdrawing from it to create subcultures. This position eliminates any need for revolutionary struggle, and it is in no way a threat to the status quo…

…as a policy, (separatism) has helped to marginalize feminist struggle, to make it seem more ap ersonal solution to individual problems, especially problems with men, than a political movement that aims to transform society as a whole. To return to an emphasis on feminism as revolutionary struggle, women can no longer allow feminism to be another arena for the continued expression of antagonism between the sexes. The time has come for women active in feminist movement to develop new strategies for including men in the struggle against sexism.

p. 73

MORE TO COME

identity-X · 02-03-2007, 06:33 PM

Having helped and supported men for centuries by acting in complicity with sexism, women were suddenly encouraged to withdraw their support when it came to the issue of “liberation”. The insistence on a concentrated focus on individualism, on the primacy of self, deemed “liberatory” by women’s liberationists, was not a visionary, radical concept of freedom. It did provide individual solutions for women, however. It was the same idea of independence perpetuated by the imperialist patriarchal state which equates independence with narcissism, and lack of concern with triumph over others. In this way, women active in feminist movement were simply inverting the dominant ideology of the culture – they were not attacking it. They were not presenting practical alternatives to the status quo. In fact, even the statement “men are the enemy” was basically an inversion of the male supremacist doctrine that “women are the enemy” – the old Adam and Eve version of reality.

p. 78

Men who actively struggle against sexism have a place in feminist movement. They are our comrades. Feminists have recognized and supported the work of men who take responsibility for sexist oppression—mens’s work with batterers, for example. Those women’s liberationists who see no value in this participation must rethink and re-examine the process by which revolutionary struggle is advanced.

p. 82

Separatist ideology encourages us to believe that women alone can make feminist revolution – we cannot. Since men are the primary agents maintaining and supporting sexism and sexist oppression, they can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility for transforming their consciousness and the consciousness of society as a whole. After hundreds of years of anti-racist struggle, more than ever before non-white people are currently calling attention to the primary role white people must play in anti-racist struggle. The same is tru of the struggle to eradicate sexism – men have a primary role to play. This does not mean that they are better equipped to lead feminist movement; it does not mean the should share equally in resistance struggle. In particular, the area of exposing, confronting, opposing, and transforming the sexism of their male peers. When men show a willingness to assume equal responsibility in feminist struggle, performing whatever tasks are necessary, women should affirm their revolutionary work by acknowledging their struggle.

p. 83

There you have it. some of the more interesting parts of hooks' arguments. More importantly, they can provide a better understanding of contemporary feminism. I mean...this is bell fucking hooks. There isn't a contemporary feminist more popular or prolific than hooks and, at the same time, there isn't a contemporary feminist that supports and advocates love for men more than her. And THIS was how she thought over TWENTY YEARS AGO. She's refined her arguments even more over the course of the last couple decades.

KEALYBOY · 02-03-2007, 07:29 PM

I'm not reading that dumb fucking shit

The point is most women are fake feminists, defining themselves as women then complaining about being categorised as such.

identity-X · 02-03-2007, 07:57 PM

what does complaining about beiing labeled a woman have to do with feminism? or anti-feminism? or anything

KEALYBOY · 02-04-2007, 01:16 AM

Being treated shoddily jus cos ur a woman, ur complaint

if you can't even see that you're showing how truly idiotic, despite the intellectual pretense, you truly are

so obsessed with intellectualising and boxing you can't see how poor the foundations for the box are in the first place. yuve jumoped the gun.

UnbrokeN · 02-04-2007, 06:17 AM

lol....i agree that men and women need to stop regarding each other as rivals...but women have it better than ever in the west--- there is no need for feminism, never was. women outmatch men academically already...thats how far its gotten. what else do you people want? you've already suceeded in all your goals. the media continues to portray men as losers and women as all knowing goddesses.

we can talk about afghanistan or india or whatever being in need for feminist approaches..but the west? white women are hailed goddesses here..always been. always been protected. feminism is ridiculous. there has never been a struggle between the genders until feminism arrived. any kind of Feminism, is the root of all gender related problems- feminism created the problems its supposedly fighting, by itself.

menaz · 02-04-2007, 07:11 AM

This kid thinking People are anti-feminist.

LOL!

identity-X · 02-04-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnbrokeN

women have it better than ever in the west--- there is no need for feminism, never was. women outmatch men academically already...thats how far its gotten. what else do you people want? you've already suceeded in all your goals. the media continues to portray men as losers and women as all knowing goddesses.

sexist oppression can exist in spite of academic succeses. it can exist even if men are portrayed as losers in the media (which is absurd, but for the sake of argument...). being "equal" in terms of outcomes is not a goal of present day feminism, even if it might have been in the past. you're still critiquing feminist ideas that haven't been in vogue for about 2 and a half decades.

THAT'S why I posted the above selections. either you missed that or didn't read a single word.

identity-X · 02-04-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by menaz

This kid thinking People are anti-feminist.

LOL!

yeah...

people like Unbroken aren't anti-feminist or anything...

Leila Night · 02-04-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by identity-X

...didn't read a single word.

It is a lot to ask for...

Good thread. Thanks, Identity-X.

Another book for my ever expanding Amazon wish list...

"Separatist ideology encourages us to believe that women alone can make feminist revolution – we cannot. Since men are the primary agents maintaining and supporting sexism and sexist oppression, they can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility for transforming their consciousness and the consciousness of society as a whole."

So true. If only Unbroken will join the dark side...

reggie_jax · 02-04-2007, 12:12 PM

identity-x is only into feminism 2 aquire bitchez.

Leila Night · 02-04-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reggie_jax

identity-x is only into feminism 2 aquire bitchez.

Yeah, seriously, what other reason could he possibly have.
I bet Identity-X is rolling in ... bitchez.

02-03-2007, 06:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
identity-X No Talent Assclown Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: over the rainbow Posts: 13,096	anti-feminists most of what you hate about feminism are ideas that emerged among feminist women some 50 years ago. many of these same ideas have been criticized, analyzed and dismissed by OTHER FEMINISTS and have not represented the core of feminist thought for over 20 years. I've been meaning to do this for a while. In my quest to read everything written by bell hooks, I picked up one of her earlier more theoretical books...."Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center". Below are a number of quotes from that book. While I don't expect any anti-feminists here to agree with what she says, the important thing is to recognize that what she says IS more representative of contemporary feminist thought and that what she says runs counter to many anti-feminists conceptions of what it means to be feminist. Keep in mind this book was written in 1984. "Man hating" feminism died out before most of you were born. AS a black, lformerly-lower-class feminist most of her book is about the following issue: that white, middle- and upper-class bourgeois women who were the figureheads in feminist movement 50 years ago “were ultimately more concerned with obtaining an equal share in class privilege than with the struggle to eliminate sexism and sexist oppression” she touches on other issues as well, including... - the failure of 2nd wave liberal feminism - the postivie functions of the family - the positive functions of male/female relationships - Western conceptions of power and their role in the perpetuatino of sexism - the role of Western individualism in the perpetuation of sexism - men as "comrades" in feminsist movement read on: "Most people in the United States think of feminism, or the more commonly used term “women’s lib,” as a movement that aims to make women the social equals of men. This broad definition, popularized by the media and mainstream segments of the movement, raises problematic questions. Since men are not equals in white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal class structure, which men do women want to be equal to? Do women share a common vision of what equality means? Implicit in this simplistic definition of women’s liberation is a dismissal of race and class as factors that, in conjunction with sexism, determine the extent to which an individual will be discriminated against, exploited, or oppressed. Bourgeois white women interested in women’s rights issues have been satisfied with simple definitions for obvious reasons. Rhetorically placing themselves in the same social category as oppressed women, they are not anxious to call attention to race and class privilege." Women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social status. Concurrently, they know that many males in their social groups are exploited and oppressed. Knowing that men in their groups do not have social, political, and economic power, they would not deem it liberatory to share their social status. While they are aware that sexism enables men in their respective groups to have privileges that are denied them, they are more likely to see exaggerated expressions of male chauvinism among their peers as stemming from the male’s sense of himself as powerless and ineffectual in relation to ruling male groups, rather than an expression of an overall privileged social status. From the very onset of the women’s liberation movement, these women were su••••ious of feminism precisely because they recognized that limitations inherent in its definition. They recognized the possibility that feminism defined as social equality with men might easily become a movement that would primarily affect the social standing of white women in middle- and upper-class groups while affecting only in a very marginal way the social status of working-class and poor women" pg. 18-19 The positive impact of liberal reforms on women’s lives should not lead to the assumption that they eradicate systems of domination. Nowhere in these demands is there an emphasis on eradicating the politic of domination, yet it would need to be abolished if any of these demands were to be met. The lack of any emphasis on domination is consistent with the liberal feminist belief that women can achieve equality with men of their class without challenging and changing the cultural basis of group oppression. It is this belief that negates the likelihood that the potential radicalism of liberal feminism will ever be realized. p. 21 Many feminist radicals now know that neither a feminism that focuses on woman as an autonomous human being worthy of personal freedom nor one that focuses on the attainment of equality of opportunity with men can rid society of sexism and male domination. Feminism is a struggle to end sexist oppression. Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels, as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires. Defined in this way, it is unlikely that women would join feminist movement simply because we are biologically the same. A commitment to feminism so defined would demand that each individual participant acquire a critical political consciousness based on ideas and beliefs. p. 26 identity-X - notice nothing is said about feminism being equated with "female domination" or even "being equal" or being looked at as "equal" Feminism defined in political terms that stress collective as well as individual experience challenges women to enter a new domain – to leave behind the apolitical stance sexism decrees is our lot and develop political consciousness. Women know from our everyday lives that many of us rarely discuss politics. Even when women talked about sexist politics in the heyday of contemporary feminism, rather than allow this engagement with serious political matters to lead to complex, in-depth analysis of women’s social status, we insisted that men were “the enemy,” the cause of all our problems. As a consequence we examined almost exclusively women’s relationship to male supremacy and the ideology of sexism. The focus on “man as enemy” created, as Marlene Dixon emphasizes in her essay: “The Rise and Demise of Women’s Liberation: A Class Analysis,” a “politics of psychological oppression” that evoked world views that “pit individual against individual and mystify the social basis of exploitation.” By repudiating the popular notion that the focus of feminist movement should be social equality of the sexes and by emphasizing eradication of the cultural basis of group oppression, our own analysis would require an exploration of all aspects of women’s political reality. This would mean that race and class oppression would be recognized as feminist issues with as much relevance as sexism. p. 27 identity-X - in fact, here she explicitly states that a feminist movement aimed strictly at "social equality" is a step backward... MORE TO COME... __________________ Check out reviews (or provide your own!) of the latest and greatest albums hip hop albums in the... USER REVIEWS FORUM Last edited by identity-X; 02-04-2007 at 04:47 PM.

02-03-2007, 06:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
identity-X No Talent Assclown Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: over the rainbow Posts: 13,096	Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men. It has the power to transform in a meaningful way all our lives. Most importantly, feminism is neither a lifestyle nor a ready-made identity or role on can step into. Diverting energy from feminist movement that aims to change society, many women concentrate on the development of a counter-culture, a woman-centered world wherein participants have little contact with men. Such attempts do not indicate a respect or concert for the vast majority of women who are unable to integrate their cultural expressions with the visions offered by alternative, woman-centered communities. p. 28 Focusing on feminism as political commitment, we resist the emphasis on individual identity and lifestyle. (This should not be confused with the very real need to unite theory and practice.) Such resistance engages us in revolutionary praxis. The ethics of Western society informed by imperialism and capitalism were personal rather than social. They teach us that the individual good is more important than the collective good, and consequently that individual change is of grater significance than collective change. This particular form of cultural imperialism has been reproduced in feminist movement in the form of individual women equating the fact that their lives have been changed in a meaningful way by feminism “as is” with a policy that no change need occur in the theory and praxis, even if it has little or no impact on society as a whole, or on masses of women. p. 30-31 Contemporary feminist movement in the United States called attention to the exploitation and oppression of women globally. This was a major contribution to feminist struggle. In their eagerness to highlight sexist injustice, women focused almost exclusively on the ideology and practice of male domination. Unfortunately, this made it appear that feminism was more a declaration of war between the sexes than a political struggle to end sexist oppression, a struggle that would imply change on the part of women and men. Underlying much white women’s liberationist rhetoric was the implication that men had nothing to gain by feminist movement, that its success would make them losers. Militant white women were particularly eager to make feminist movement privilege women over men. There anger, hostility, and rage was so intense that they were unable to resist turning the movement into a public forum for their attacks. Although they sometimes considered themselves “radical feminists,” their responses were reactionary. Fundamentally, they argued that all men are enemies of all women and proposed as solutions to this problem a utopian woman nation, separatist communities, and even the subjugation or extermination of all men. Their anger may have been a catalyst for individual liberatory resistance and change. It may have encouraged bonding with other women to raise consciousness. It did not strengthen public understanding of the significance of authentic feminist movement. Sexist discrimination, exploitation, and oppression have created the war between the sexes. Traditionally the battleground has been the home. In recent years, the battle ensues in any sphere, public or private, inhabited by women and men, girls and boys. The significance of feminist movement (when it is not co-opted by opportunistic reactionary forces0 is that it offers a new ideological meeting ground for the seces, a space for criticism, struggle, and transformation. Feminist movement can end the war between the sexes. It can transform relationships so that the alienation, competition, and dehumanization that characterize human interaction can be replaced with feelings of intimacy, mutuality, and camaraderie. Ironically, these positive implications of feminist movement were often ignored by liberal organizers and participants. Since vocal bourgeois white women were insisting that women repudiate the role of servant to others, they were not interested in convincing men or even women that feminist movement was important for everyone. Narcissistically, they focused solely on the primacy of feminism in their lives, universalizing their own experiences. Building a mass-based women's movement was never the central issue on their agenda. After many organizations were established, leaders expressed a desire for greater participant diversity; they wanted women to join who were not white, materially privileged, middle-class, or college-educated. It was never deemed necessary for feminist activists to explain to masses of women the significance of feminist movement. Believing their emphasis on social equality was a universal concern, they assumed the idea would carry its own appeal. Strategically, the failure to emphasize the necessity for mass-based movement, grassroots organizing, and sharing with everyone the positive significance of feminist movement helped marginalize feminism by making it appear relevant only to those women who joined organizations. p. 34-35 MORE TO COME... __________________ Check out reviews (or provide your own!) of the latest and greatest albums hip hop albums in the... USER REVIEWS FORUM Last edited by identity-X; 02-03-2007 at 06:27 PM.

02-03-2007, 06:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
identity-X No Talent Assclown Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: over the rainbow Posts: 13,096	Contemporary feminist analyses of family often implied that successful feminist movement would either begin with or lead to the abolition of family……Despite sexism in the context of family, we may experience dignity, self-worth, and a humanization that is not experienced in the outside world wherein we confront all forms of oppression. We know from our lived experiences that families are not just households composed of husbands, wife, and children, or even blood relations; we also know that destructive patterns generated by belief in sexism abound in varied family structures. We wish to affirm the primacy of family life because we know that family ties are the only sustained support system for exploited and oppressed people. We wish to rid family life of the abusive dimensions created by sexist oppression without devaluing it. …feminism is the one radical political movement that focues on transforming family relationships. Feminist movement to end sexist oppression affirms family life by its insistence that the purpose of family structure is not to reinforce patterns of domination in the interest of the state* (SEE BELOW). By challenging Western philosophical beliefs that impress on our consciousness a concept of family life that is essentially destructive, feminism would liberate family so that it could be affirming, positive kindship structure with no oppressive dimensions based on sex differentiation, sexual preference, etc. * Politically, the white supremacist, patriarchal state relies on the family to indoctrinate its members with values supportive of hierarchical control and coercive authority. Therefore the state has a vested interest in projecting the notion that feminist movement will destroy family life * Feminist positions on the family that devalue its importance have been easily co-opted to serve the interests of the state. People are concerned that families are breaking down, that positive dimensions of family are overshadowed by the aggression, humiliation, abuse, and violence that characterizes the interaction of family member. They must not be convinced that anti-feminism is the way to improve family life. Feminist activists need to affirm the importance of family as a kinship structure that can sustain and nourish people; to graphically address links between sexist oppression and family disintegration; and to give examples, both actual and visionary, of the way family life is and can be when unjust authoritarian rule is replaced with an ethic of communalism, shared responsibility, and mutuality. The movement to end sexist oppression is the only social-change movement that will strengthen and sustain family life in all households. p. 38-41 Feminism defined as a movement to end sexist oppression enables women and men, girls and boys, to participate equally in revolutionary struggle So far, contemporary feminist movement has been primarily generated by the efforts of women – men have rarely participated. This lack of participation is not solely a consequence of anti-feminism. By making womens’ liberation synonymous with women gaining social equality with men, liberal feminist effectively created a situation in which they, not men, designated feminist movement “women’s work”. Even as they were attacking sex-role divisions of labor, the institutionalized sexism which assigns unpaid, devalued, “dirty” work to women, they were assigning to women yet another sex-role task: making feminist revolution. Women’s liberationists called upon all women to join feminist movement, but they did not continually stress that men should assume responsibility for actively struggling to end sexist oppression. Men, they argued, were the all-powerful, misogynist, oppressor – the enemy. Women were oppressed – the victims. Such rhetoric reinforced sexist ideology by positing in an inverted form the notion of a basic conflict between the sexes, the implication being that the empowerment of women would necessarily be at the expense of men (CONTEXT/FOLLOW-UP from a few pages later) As with other issues, the insistence on a “woman only” feminist movement and a virulent anti-male stance reflected the race and class background of participants. Bourgeois white women, especially radical feminists, were envious of and angry at privileged white men for denying them an equal share in class privileged p. 68-69 Many black women refused participation in feminist movement because they felt an anti-male stance was not a sound basis for action. They were convinced that virulent expression fo these sentiments intensify sexism by adding to the antagonism which already exists between women and men. For years black women (and some black men) had been struggling to overcome the tensions and antognism between black females and males that is generated by internalized racisms (i.e., when the white patriarchy suggests one group has caused the oppression of the other). Black women were saying to black men, “We are not one another’s enemy,” “We must resist the socialization that teaches us to hate ourselves and one another. This affirmation of bonding between black women and men was part of anti-racist struggle. It could have been a part of feminist struggle had white women’s liberationists stressed then need for women and men to resist the sexist socialization that teaches us to hate and fear one another. They chose instead to emphasize hate, especially male woman-hating, suggesting that it could not be changed. …The anti-male stance was a reactionary perspective that made feminism appear to be a movement that would enable white women to usurp white male power, replacing white male supremacist rule with white female supremacist rule. p. 71-72 The positive implications of separatist organizing were diminished when radical feminists…proposed sexual separatism as an ultimate goal of feminist movement. Reactionary separatism is rooted in the conviction that male supremacy is an absolute aspect of our culture, tha women have only two alternatives; accepting it or withdrawing from it to create subcultures. This position eliminates any need for revolutionary struggle, and it is in no way a threat to the status quo… …as a policy, (separatism) has helped to marginalize feminist struggle, to make it seem more ap ersonal solution to individual problems, especially problems with men, than a political movement that aims to transform society as a whole. To return to an emphasis on feminism as revolutionary struggle, women can no longer allow feminism to be another arena for the continued expression of antagonism between the sexes. The time has come for women active in feminist movement to develop new strategies for including men in the struggle against sexism. p. 73 MORE TO COME __________________ Check out reviews (or provide your own!) of the latest and greatest albums hip hop albums in the...* USER REVIEWS FORUM Last edited by identity-X; 02-03-2007 at 06:31 PM.

02-03-2007, 06:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
identity-X No Talent Assclown Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: over the rainbow Posts: 13,096	Having helped and supported men for centuries by acting in complicity with sexism, women were suddenly encouraged to withdraw their support when it came to the issue of “liberation”. The insistence on a concentrated focus on individualism, on the primacy of self, deemed “liberatory” by women’s liberationists, was not a visionary, radical concept of freedom. It did provide individual solutions for women, however. It was the same idea of independence perpetuated by the imperialist patriarchal state which equates independence with narcissism, and lack of concern with triumph over others. In this way, women active in feminist movement were simply inverting the dominant ideology of the culture – they were not attacking it. They were not presenting practical alternatives to the status quo. In fact, even the statement “men are the enemy” was basically an inversion of the male supremacist doctrine that “women are the enemy” – the old Adam and Eve version of reality. p. 78 Men who actively struggle against sexism have a place in feminist movement. They are our comrades. Feminists have recognized and supported the work of men who take responsibility for sexist oppression—mens’s work with batterers, for example. Those women’s liberationists who see no value in this participation must rethink and re-examine the process by which revolutionary struggle is advanced. p. 82 Separatist ideology encourages us to believe that women alone can make feminist revolution – we cannot. Since men are the primary agents maintaining and supporting sexism and sexist oppression, they can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility for transforming their consciousness and the consciousness of society as a whole. After hundreds of years of anti-racist struggle, more than ever before non-white people are currently calling attention to the primary role white people must play in anti-racist struggle. The same is tru of the struggle to eradicate sexism – men have a primary role to play. This does not mean that they are better equipped to lead feminist movement; it does not mean the should share equally in resistance struggle. In particular, the area of exposing, confronting, opposing, and transforming the sexism of their male peers. When men show a willingness to assume equal responsibility in feminist struggle, performing whatever tasks are necessary, women should affirm their revolutionary work by acknowledging their struggle. p. 83 There you have it. some of the more interesting parts of hooks' arguments. More importantly, they can provide a better understanding of contemporary feminism. I mean...this is bell fucking hooks. There isn't a contemporary feminist more popular or prolific than hooks and, at the same time, there isn't a contemporary feminist that supports and advocates love for men more than her. And THIS was how she thought over TWENTY YEARS AGO. She's refined her arguments even more over the course of the last couple decades. __________________ Check out reviews (or provide your own!) of the latest and greatest albums hip hop albums in the... USER REVIEWS FORUM Last edited by identity-X; 02-03-2007 at 06:36 PM.

02-03-2007, 07:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
KEALYBOY Ignorant is a pedophile Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: England Posts: 450	I'm not reading that dumb fucking shit The point is most women are fake feminists, defining themselves as women then complaining about being categorised as such. __________________ "Nigga you got feminine ways, I heard you got 4 lips and bleed for 7 days" "(sarcasm tone) And there's just so many tricks for you to learn: lick that, suck that, swallow that lollipop" "My gun go off!"

02-03-2007, 07:57 PM	#6 (permalink)
identity-X No Talent Assclown Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: over the rainbow Posts: 13,096	what does complaining about beiing labeled a woman have to do with feminism? or anti-feminism? or anything __________________ Check out reviews (or provide your own!) of the latest and greatest albums hip hop albums in the... USER REVIEWS FORUM

02-04-2007, 01:16 AM	#7 (permalink)
KEALYBOY Ignorant is a pedophile Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: England Posts: 450	Being treated shoddily jus cos ur a woman, ur complaint if you can't even see that you're showing how truly idiotic, despite the intellectual pretense, you truly are so obsessed with intellectualising and boxing you can't see how poor the foundations for the box are in the first place. yuve jumoped the gun. __________________ "Nigga you got feminine ways, I heard you got 4 lips and bleed for 7 days" "(sarcasm tone) And there's just so many tricks for you to learn: lick that, suck that, swallow that lollipop" "My gun go off!"

02-04-2007, 06:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
UnbrokeN Registered User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Badstreet, USA Posts: 17,046	lol....i agree that men and women need to stop regarding each other as rivals...but women have it better than ever in the west--- there is no need for feminism, never was. women outmatch men academically already...thats how far its gotten. what else do you people want? you've already suceeded in all your goals. the media continues to portray men as losers and women as all knowing goddesses. we can talk about afghanistan or india or whatever being in need for feminist approaches..but the west? white women are hailed goddesses here..always been. always been protected. feminism is ridiculous. there has never been a struggle between the genders until feminism arrived. any kind of Feminism, is the root of all gender related problems- feminism created the problems its supposedly fighting, by itself. __________________ lol.. the day Hogan dies, he'll just say "No, I won't lay down for you,brother"!!! he will become the only man in history to actually no sell death.

02-04-2007, 07:11 AM	#9 (permalink)
menaz Nomenklatura демокр Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: ST.Louis, Mo. Posts: 16,802	This kid thinking People are anti-feminist. LOL! __________________ "Spending for the common good" is not equitable to "spreading the wealth." Taxation for spending for the common good is paying a fee for services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and I get military/police/fire protection, infrastructure improvements, and mail services. Taxation for spreading the wealth is paying a fee for no services rendered. For example, I pay a tax and it goes in the form of a check to someone who pays no taxes.-menaz The Communist Manifesto's second plank is, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."-Marx & Engles http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357 January 20th, 2009. A date which will live in infamy.

02-04-2007, 12:12 PM	#13 (permalink)
reggie_jax rapper noyd Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: lake worth Posts: 766	identity-x is only into feminism 2 aquire bitchez.