Don't you hate when SHORT women require TALL men???

[Woggle]

 

Trying to rebrand the word "feminism" as something bad or anti-male is part of the problem, Woggle. It's like saying, "I don't hate blacks -- it just sucks that they achieved civil rights." Which isn't something I think you'd say or even something I think you mean to say about women but hating feminism feeds into that. I don't know if it implies a hatred of women (that seems far to me) but it does a lot to hinder the great strides women have made for themselves. Feminists ranged from mild to extreme, but the primary goal of feminism can never be described as anti-male (at times it may have felt that way to males who had to give a share in their power).

 

Most men I know, luckily, do not resent feminism or my ability or desire to live my life however I please. Nor do they think the world is locked in a grand gender war. I think it is only a small minority that do, and they probably share at least some of the beliefs in that article.

 

I know that but so many manhaters hide behind feminism that it makes some men just feel like they have to fight back against it all. Anything a woman does wrong to a man gets blamed on feminism. If your woman cheats on you then men tend to blame feminists.

 

Add to that the fact that it seems every couple of weeks there is another End of men kind of articles in a time when many working class men are really struggling and it is a perfect recipe for a lot of anger and hatred.

 

I do wish men and women would stop seeing each other as the enemy though. It would be great if we could be allies.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

 

Right, feminism doesn't really have schools, so that's simply an incorrect statement.

 

Feminist movements and ideologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Are you arguing semantics too? "Schools," "movements," you know what I meant either way.

[TheBigQuestion]

I know that but so many manhaters hide behind feminism that it makes some men just feel like they have to fight back against it all. Anything a woman does wrong to a man gets blamed on feminism. If your woman cheats on you then men tend to blame feminists.

 

Add to that the fact that it seems every couple of weeks there is another End of men kind of articles in a time when many working class men are really struggling and it is a perfect recipe for a lot of anger and hatred.

 

I do wish men and women would stop seeing each other as the enemy though. It would be great if we could be allies.

 

FWIW, I've never heard of anyone blaming feminism for cheating.

[samsungxoxo]

If you want to date women who don't see you in these terms, then you have to become celibate.

I beg your pardon? You have it mixed up. I was answering the poster.

 

Secondly, as a woman I don't really go after stereotype everyone here keeps on talking about. Actually the more and more common something is, the more of a turn-off it is (well for me it is). Imagine if everything like the same thing and went after what everyone goes?? We would have a boring world.

 

Finally, quit trolling will you!!!

[zengirl]

Feminist movements and ideologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Are you arguing semantics too? "Schools," "movements," you know what I meant either way.

 

Honestly, BQ, I really didn't know what you meant. To me, a school and a movement are not the same thing at all. The problem with semantics is in discussions (especially ones like this where terminology is at the heart of the conversation), they often actually change the perceived meaning.

 

FWIW, I've never heard of anyone blaming feminism for cheating.

 

Well, Woggle himself has. So, I think that's what he's referencing.

[dasein]

Feminism is a body of academic study.

 

Feminism is a political doctrine, an offshoot of Marxism, originating wholly in the 60s, created by Marxists/Communists. Its clear, self-stated goals are to undermine American social institutions, specifically the family unit and man's place within it, promote women as the beneficiary of discriminatory legislation, and in controlling that voting bloc, further a socialist agenda in American politics.

 

Marxists were disappointed with the performance of their "Ur proles" laborers, as revolutionaries, who tended to want a capitalist future for their children, so they cast about for a new, more effective proletariat with which to foment revolution. They needed real victims (blacks, draftees) or even fake victims (women) to further their objective. Coincident in time, the Civil Rights Movement offered up blacks as candidates, the Viet Nam war offered up disgruntled youth, but it wasn't enough. Taking pages from the recent, successful work of Mao, and some from Lenin, they decided to create women as a third victim class for purposes of forming "new proletariat." Putting one of the best career propagandists in the Communist Party on the job, Betty Friedan, they begin to appeal to poor, victimized women. Voila, feminism!

 

Ironically, independent preexisting female social activists were pushed out of the way and cannibalized, leaving no doubt that it was a political movement, not activism for women.

 

Erin Pizzey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY by ERIN PIZZEY

 

Faced with anti Communist sentiment in America's "wallet," the ones signing the tuition, campaign and donation checks, the Communists did what they do best and created very effective agitprop. This agitprop consisted of two planks 1) fabricate a "first wave" of feminism by sewing together disparate social activist movements from the past into something that could be passed off as cohesive to the gullible. People are dumb, and fall for the bogus "famous personage" interpretation of history lite every time. Tell them Mary Shelley had anything at all to do with Eleanor Roosevelt, that there was some accretive process and progress going on linking the two, and they will accept it lazily without question, regardless of actual fact.

 

"Nonono it isn't a product of 60s leftist politics, it's been going on for ages, this struggle against oppression of women! This is the -second- wave, no we didn't make this up last week, we wouldn't do that (hides Mao hat) So about that check, you are really supporting Eleanor Roosevelt and the Suffragettes! not dirty ole Mao!" And they do this ad nausea today, one of their favorite tricks.

 

Act nice >>> get check >>> revert to form.

 

This is where the "oh there are many strands of feminism" BS comes from as well as the "not all feminists are like that," and "I'm a feminist in that I want to live my life as I please with equal treatment," (which means that you are a proponent of the rule of law, nothing more)

 

Oldest political trick in the book, and they are masters of it. "Oh, no Mr. Smith, we don't teach -militant- feminism here at Donnybrooke, we teach good ole American feminism! Now will you be paying your tuition with check or CC?" Then Mary comes home wearing an "ALL SEX IS RAPE!" T-shirt during Christmas break. People are gullible, but in time, even the gullible learn.

 

2) Coopt the basic concepts associated with the "rule of law," a theory Americans are comfortable with, and isolate "equality for women" dishonestly out of "equality for all," effectively polarizing the genders one against the other in that very act. This ledgerdemain was also accomplished by drawing absurd, false comparisons between the Civil Rights Movement, which was conditioned on the very disparate experience of black Americans compared to white, and Women's Rights which contained no such disparity, or if any, negligible. Hence feminists' tendency to try to "Supercalifrag..." the term "Civilandwomen'srights," albeit unsuccessfully, to this day. You can see it all over this board.

 

Using the two basic forms of obfuscation, feminism has done an excellent job of its clearly stated objectives. That's right, they aren't "hidden" somewhere in a ritual book in a holy of holies, feminism has told us -exactly- what it is from the get-go. If someone disagrees with this, they need to do some objective reading and research, but certainly -not- go and sit in Feminism 101. That would be akin to telling someone seeking to buy a car to go to a car lot and buy whatever the salesman thinks is best for you.

 

Just like our own "rule of law" based capitalist society, it began in academia, but classifying it as just an academic study is either monumentally naive or just plain dishonest. Classifying what happens when an atomic bomb explodes as somehow distinct from Physics "because Physics is simply a "body of academic study" doesn't work with a reasonable audience, and doesn't work with feminism either.

 

That's it.

 

But whatever you do DON'T take my word for it, go and read. Avoid textbooks on feminism or anything offered in a women's studies class in the same way you don't pay attention to ads telling you Budweiser will get you laid. DIG DEEPER, and read real, unbiased HISTORY. Don't take a professor's word for anything, most of them are thoroughly coopted.

 

Only at that time when you have learned for yourself does the magnitude of the social problem emerge, and the degree of the damage already done.

[Mme. Chaucer]

More hot air trying to rationalize Chaucer's ridiculous and inaccurate insult that amounted to a lie.

 

Well, I thought it was a very accurate point I made there, and not an insult. Certainly not a "lie."

 

You seem generally confused.

 

From my perspective, your role here seems to be that as self appointed explainer of all things posted by other people. You're always telling us what was "obviously," "clearly," and "incontrovertibly" said in posts written by people other than yourself.

 

I personally don't think you are very good at it, but you seem determined to maintain the role.

 

Hm.

[dasein]

Rule of law that came about through the victories of feminism.

 

Got that backwards, the "rule of law" existed in 1921 and long before, feminism certainly did not.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Dasein, you are pitifully ill equipped to be educating anyone about feminism. Why don't you stick with subjects you have knowledge about. If there are any.

[Els]

Dasein, you are pitifully ill equipped to be educating anyone about feminism. Why don't you stick with subjects you have knowledge about. If there are any.

 

I know, right? It's like watching FrustratedStandards educate people about what gender equality really means, except that fortunately she doesn't try.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

But whatever you do DON'T take my word for it, go and read. Avoid textbooks on feminism or anything offered in a women's studies class in the same way you don't pay attention to ads telling you Budweiser will get you laid. DIG DEEPER, and read real, unbiased HISTORY. Don't take a professor's word for anything, most of them are thoroughly coopted.

 

Only at that time when you have learned for yourself does the magnitude of the social problem emerge, and the degree of the damage already done.

 

You seem like you're reasonably well-schooled on these matters. Throw some starting points at us. What books/articles/manifestos do you recommend?

[zengirl]

Got that backwards, the "rule of law" existed in 1921 and long before, feminism certainly did not.

 

That was feminism. First-wave feminism got us many rights, including property and voting rights. Of course, the rule of law in 1921 did not allow women any rights to equal education or wages -- many lower laws (not in the Constitution, but laws nonetheless) and particularly judicial rulings on laws assisted in that when society was better able to accept it.

[TheBigQuestion]

Dasein, you are pitifully ill equipped to be educating anyone about feminism. Why don't you stick with subjects you have knowledge about. If there are any.

 

TBH I haven't encountered anyone here indicating they have any in-depth knowledge of feminism, whether through the academy or independently researched. Can any one of us claim to have read more than a handful of books and a few poorly researched editorial blogs on the matter? If so, I've seen no evidence of it yet.

[WildHorses]

I'm 5'11'. I'm tired of these short women taking all of the tall ones away from me! AHHHHHH!

[Mme. Chaucer]

TBH I haven't encountered anyone here indicating they have any in-depth knowledge of feminism, whether through the academy or independently researched.

 

The inaccurate diatribe posted by dasein a couple of pages back is certainly presented as absolutely factual. I think he more than "indicates" that he possesses in depth knowledge of feminism.

 

Can any one of us claim to have read more than a handful of books and a few poorly researched editorial blogs on the matter? If so, I've seen no evidence of it yet.

 

I can make that claim.

 

I won't bother discussing feminism or any other gender issues in an environment like the one on this thread, with a pontificating figure who lays out undermining and false propaganda as facts for a starting point. That would be a stupid waste of time. There are other places for that.

[dasein]

You seem like you're reasonably well-schooled on these matters. Throw some starting points at us. What books/articles/manifestos do you recommend?

 

Note first that they don't -ever- offer any meaningful response or dispute anything, just hot air and insults.

 

To your question, it's tough, because anything I suggest will be painted as slanted as well. Start with the second Pizzey link I posted. Read it twice. Decide for yourself what that woman's axe is and whether she is grinding it unduly, whether she is making up events or not. I believe the woman has no reason to lie, and is portraying how things actually played out in the inception of feminism. But again, draw your own conclusions.

 

Next go to history, because the understanding of history, specifically economic and political history, is so vitally important to clear thinking on this issue. Two opposed POVs come from Jared Diamond in "Guns Germs and Steel," and David Landes in "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations." Both of them come from mainstream elite academia. Compare the POVs, but mainly get a grasp on the undisputed facts that both stipulate to. Then in actual historical context, begin to weigh what basis there is for the polarization of one gender's "interests and rights" from the other's, if there is any. I suggest that there is no reason at all to separate women's interest from men's, and that the rule of law serves us all nicely, but draw your own conclusions.

 

Finally, read more modern history, specifically related to the purported "first wave" of feminism. I maintain that it was composed of thoroughly unrelated activists, with disparate beliefs and intent, and quilted together to put window dressing on the true Marxist origins. Draw your own conclusions.

 

Spend some time reading about Eleanor Roosevelt, arguably the "archetypical first wave feminist" of the 20th century. Decide for yourself whether her extreme leftist politics were the product of Communist manipuation, or whether they are merely an offshoot of democratic progressivism. Decide for yourself.

 

Now it may shock some here based on what I post, but I don't have a problem with Marxism and Communism conceptually per se. What I have a problem with is the actual "praxis," the ways in which revolution is fomented, and the extreme cultural and social damage that results, exactly what we are experiencing now in the gender and culture wars. At its core, Marxism is a natural progression, but that is never how it is implemented by its adherents. And the corrosive nature of that implementation, in falsely setting one group of people against another, discriminatory goals, and the associated agitprop, is where the damage is done IMO.

 

So maybe some reading on the differences between theoretical marxism/communism, and the actual implementation by Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot is in order. Especially as concerns the family unit. Feminists in the U.S. didn't have the tools Pol Pot had available, i.e. "kill all the men and indoctrinate the women and children," but there are odious similarities between that and what has been going on in the West for decades now.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigQuestion

You seem like you're reasonably well-schooled on these matters. Throw some starting points at us. What books/articles/manifestos do you recommend?

 

Though the "expert" you're posting to has strictly forbidden it, I strongly recommend reading literature written by actual self identified feminists, if you are sincerely interested in learning about feminism.

 

If you are interested in getting a lot of ammunition to use against feminism and women in general, by all means, follow his directives exclusively.

[AD1980]

This thread is supposed to be about how undesirable short men are,make your own feminism thread

[Taramere]

TBH I haven't encountered anyone here indicating they have any in-depth knowledge of feminism, whether through the academy or independently researched. Can any one of us claim to have read more than a handful of books and a few poorly researched editorial blogs on the matter? If so, I've seen no evidence of it yet.

 

From what I can see, there's one school of thought (that dasein belongs to) which sees feminism as beginning with "The Feminine Mystique". Then there are those who see it as an evolving social movement identified by various events and movements. Where I live, the passing of The Contagious Diseases Act in the Victorian Era was one of the most defining events in raising awareness of hypocrisy and sexual double standards.

 

I've never read The Feminine Mystique, but I read various Simone de Beauvoir books in my twenties (somebody gave me the Mandarins as a present, and I loved her writing style). I can't fathom how anybody could say there was no such thing as feminism before Friedan came along with her book when de Beauvoir's The Second Sex was published in 1949 and was most definitely and intended to be, by its author, a feminist study.

 

I wonder if that's perhaps a case of insular thinking in America....that there was no such thing as feminism until an American wrote about it. The particular era in which The Second Sex was published was probably relevant. It was probably too radical a book for the US at that time when anything likely to be associated with Marxism (even though de Beauvoir herself rejected the notion that Marxism set women "free") was bound to be unpopular.

 

She takes a very philosophical approach to the matter. I think most women are never going to sit down and read through every piece of feminist literature there is to read. I know I wouldn't want to. More than anything, I see it as a philosophy that is specifically aimed at women.

 

Most women, except the most passive or ardently anti-feminist, will probably find themselves wearing the feminist label at some point. These labels are used to define people, and it becomes tiresome to go into lengthy analyses of what feminism means every time somebody chooses to put that label on you - or asks (because you happen to be a woman) whether you're a feminist.

 

Sorry AD1980. Point taken.

[TheBigQuestion]

Quote:

 

 

Though the "expert" you're posting to has strictly forbidden it, I strongly recommend reading literature written by actual self identified feminists, if you are sincerely interested in learning about feminism.

 

If you are interested in getting a lot of ammunition to use against feminism and women in general, by all means, follow his directives exclusively.

 

I've never sought ammunition to use against women in general. I've encountered quite a bit of feminist literature and some of its essential doctrines (yes, I said it and it applies here, if you don't like it, argue with Webster) throughout my education, both in the abstract and in practical applications (law and public policy in particular). I don't intentionally seek ammunition to use against feminism either.

 

With that said, ignoring his rhetoric, which one of dasein's reading suggestions would in-and-of-itself be used as ammunition against feminism? All he told me to do was read a few articles by an early feminist and a few history textbooks.

[TheBigQuestion]

This thread is supposed to be about how undesirable short men are,make your own feminism thread

 

There are hundreds if not thousands of other threads that you can read over if you want to relive/perpetuate your pity party, friend.

[dasein]

I'll add a couple of books here, Read Susan Faludi's "Backlash," and "Christina Hoff Sommers (sp?) "Who Stole Feminism." Then you be the judge.

 

And to further respond, my contention is -not- that there were no social activists focused on aspects of the experience and condition of women as a gender pre 60s, but simply that there was no or little coherence between them that would rise to the level of a "First Wave," other than one retroactively created as such towards political purpose.

 

One could go back and say that certain elements in Hobbes make him a "first wave" Marxist, that Heraclitus was a "first wave Platonist," that Kierkegaard was a "first wave existentialist," and whereas there may be some fruit in such comparative studies, they also hold severe inaccuracies. Isn't it interesting that the "first wave" terminology is a device exclusive or nearly exclusive to feminism and women's studies? Why is that?

 

I already offered my thoughts. Judge for yourself.

[zengirl]

Note first that they don't -ever- offer any meaningful response or dispute anything, just hot air and insults.

 

Oh, irnony!

 

I feel I've tried many times to engage with you on such subjects and basically only received the same -- just hot air and insults. As such, I've no desire to truly and honestly engage in such discourse with you on such matters.

 

I don't feel I addressed BQ with hot air or insults, nor do I feel he addressed me with such things -- though we may vastly disagree on certain points -- but I suppose he may have an opinion as well.

[dasein]

I feel I've tried many times to engage with you on such subjects and basically only received the same -- just hot air and insults.

 

As I've said to you in past threads, people are free to draw their own conclusions based on what I've actually posted in our exchanges.

 

And simply repeating "first wave this and first wave that" as opposed to disagreeing or denying my position that IMO there -was no- first wave is not responsive.

 

For example, a proponent of the supposed first wave could offer contentions of some connections between the supposed first wave, SDB, Mary Shelley, Eleanor Roosevelt, the suffragettes, etc., but none of you ever do no matter how many times I post my view. That's what I mean by no meaningful response or disagreement.

[dasein]

Feminist movements and ideologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Are you arguing semantics too? "Schools," "movements," you know what I meant either way.

 

Here's yet another book recommendation that will shed light on what's really going on in feminism, and lots of academia to boot.

 

"The Glass Bead Game" Herman Hesse.

 

Ask yourself how a predominately late 20th century field of study could have so many -legitimate- movements and ideologies? Ask yourself whether such a supposed "field of study" is relativistic to the point of meaninglessness? Ask yourself whether the ball is being hidden somewhere, if there is indeed a ball at all?

 

Most importantly, ask yourself whether the average street level "feminist" views feminism as some shiny "extra" thing that women get above and beyond everyone else in the rights department, and ask yourself whether or not that notion in itself, if so, constitutes de jure discrimination against the other gender?