Research: Differences between Classic and Modern Feminism

Started by Pernicious, Nov 22, 2004, 08:27 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Pernicious

I have been talking to some of my friends and it appears that they are waking up more and more to the realities of current society.

One of my friends asked me about the differences between classic and modern feminism and I need a bit more help getting some more information
 do what I need to do to protect my loved ones, friends, and family. This is what men do.

D

The only difference is the sales pitch.

The radicals then are like the moderates now.  

However feminism is not perfect and adjusts to political climates.  That means it uses 'spin' just as much as any political party.

Feminism is like watching 1984.  But instead of the inner party, the outer party and the proles we are divided into gender.

They use the same 'memory holes' psychology techniques and are totalistic.

In my opinion the difference of classical feminism and modern feminism is simply expansion.

You would have to give me more details to get more of an answer.  As in, who are you calling the first feminists, what years are you calling classical feminists and who is it you are referring to specifically.  As in who were classical feminists and who are modern feminists?

A couple of outlines would help me to narrow down an answer.

bluegrass

Well it's an issue that's not just related to feminism.  It's about the perspective of all liberal causes as viewed today.  Not to sound too much like Dan Lynch, but it's the intellectual Marxist paradigm.

The defining difference between modern and classic feminism is that classic feminism simply wanted social equality regardless of gender.  Modern feminism sees the genders as eternally involved in a class conflict -- that men and women are separate social classes and that men as a class oppress women as a class through control of the cultural belief system known as patriarchy.

It's similar to the way things are looked at from the liberal angle across the board.  Take the civil rights movements of the early to mid 60's for example.  Back then people working to advance civil rights would do things like go to Mississippi to observe voting practices and work to see no one is being denied the individual right to vote as guaranteed by the Constitution.  So what they were trying to do was to change the social status quo by enforcing the robustness of individual civil rights.

Now look at the same sort of thing today.  The current liberal paradigms based in Marxism basically say that since there is an oppressive cultural system -- whether it's patriarchy or white power -- individual rights CAN'T be guaranteed until and unless the status quo of the social system is changed, which is done through the force of government.  So, we can't have equality under the law regardless of race until each race has social, political and economic parity and we need affirmative action to do it.  The sexes can't have equality until they get parity first.  Gay folks can't have equal rights until homophobia is eradicated.

So look how it's turned around backwards.  What started out as a defense of individual rights to change the status quo has turned into a forced change in the status quo in order to protect individual rights.  The irony is that if you're forcing change of the status quo through governmental power, individual rights become even more irrelevant than they were before you started trying to solve the problem!

So another way to look at it is a VERY basic shift in the ideal of what government is and where rights come from.  The founding fathers and people of the enlightenment like Locke saw civil rights as derived from Nature and in essence inalienable.  They explicity saw the ONLY ethical funciton of government is to protect the rights human being ALREADY HAVE by placing strict limits on governmental power.  Now people see rights as being CREATED by governmental power.  Rights don't exist as an innate condition of human existence.
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

D

Quote from: "bluegrass"
Well it's an issue that's not just related to feminism.  It's about the perspective of all liberal causes as viewed today.  Not to sound too much like Dan Lynch, but it's the intellectual Marxist paradigm.


Many of these causes are trying to stay alive for the benifits they organizations recieve.  Not the people they claim to help.  Sad really.

Quote

The defining difference between modern and classic feminism is that classic feminism simply wanted social equality regardless of gender.  Modern feminism sees the genders as eternally involved in a class conflict -- that men and women are separate social classes and that men as a class oppress women as a class through control of the cultural belief system known as patriarchy.


I don't see a difference in your points about modern and classic.  Looks like you agree that feminism was a necessary concept.  I do not.  Women were not oppressed by men ever.  

Your second point is their first point.  They used the "Women just want equality" speech to get the ball rolling.  There was no proof to it other than to motivate a certain demograph of people.  Of course you haven't defined who were the classics at this point.


Quote

It's similar to the way things are looked at from the liberal angle across the board.  Take the civil rights movements of the early to mid 60's for example.  Back then people working to advance civil rights would do things like go to Mississippi to observe voting practices and work to see no one is being denied the individual right to vote as guaranteed by the Constitution.  So what they were trying to do was to change the social status quo by enforcing the robustness of individual civil rights.



They were republicans. But in a two party system I believe it has more to do with the party's themselves than the people.  

Quote

Now look at the same sort of thing today.  The current liberal paradigms based in Marxism basically say that since there is an oppressive cultural system -- whether it's patriarchy or white power -- individual rights CAN'T be guaranteed until and unless the status quo of the social system is changed, which is done through the force of government.  So, we can't have equality under the law regardless of race until each race has social, political and economic parity and we need affirmative action to do it.  The sexes can't have equality until they get parity first.  Gay folks can't have equal rights until homophobia is eradicated.



This is an example of how they covertly push marxism into the system.  Hiding it behind gender, race etc....  But giving them power might be necessary to a degree.  However, I notice it's more about policies that say great women etc...  Which is why I deferr.  I've seen it to many times.  




Quote

Rights don't exist as an innate condition of human existence.


You're probably right.  Which is why getting rid of morality in the justice system is essential to their lustful greed.  Where the truth is not essential, but the 'law' is.  Big difference.  Especially in this age where our eyes, ears and voices are given to us by the media conglomerates.

bluegrass

Hey Dan-

Just to clarify because I think we probably agree more than we disagree (I wish I knew how to do the quote function as efficiently as you):

I do agree with you that women have not always been oppressed -- at least not as a class across the board.  I think there has been oppression in some cultures at some points in time, but where Western culture is concerned, women have not been oppressed as a group for the last several hundred years.  I think in many cases individual women have been oppressed by individual men and that phenomenon is used as fodder to support the idea of a cultural or institutionalized oppression of women as a class.  People today are mostly unfamiliar with the concept of stewardship that existed for 2000 years before the 1950's.

When I'm talking about social equality between men and women I'm talking about it in a very literal sense -- the equality in the right to self-determination.  Not the right simply for women to expand their roles in society and enter spheres of political power, but for men to also have the liberty of choice to resume roles in child rearing that were eradicated with the industrial revolution.
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

D

Quote from: "bluegrass"


When I'm talking about social equality between men and women I'm talking about it in a very literal sense -- the equality in the right to self-determination.  Not the right simply for women to expand their roles in society and enter spheres of political power, but for men to also have the liberty of choice to resume roles in child rearing that were eradicated with the industrial revolution.



You can simply type in [quote ] to begin a quote and [/quote ] to end a quote.  I of course left a space so I could demononstrate.  You can do this for all of the other functions as well, italics, bolding, underlining, etc...  Simply use the first letter for those, such as [i ] for italics open, and [/i ] for italics end.  Same for bold, same for underline.  And that's about the extent of my genius.   :D


I view feminism in this regards.  Think of feminism as a single party.  As in the Orwellian sence from 1984.   Most feminists make up the 'outer party' and the rest of society are the proles.  The 'inner party' is made up of in my opinion mostly men.  These men dictate and propagate for their own purposes.  

In fact giving women the right to vote I think was designed to take away the right to vote for everyone in England.   This is a theory I've been working on lately.  It comes from the City of London and was designed to give them extreme powers.  These people consider us nothing better than livestock.  

Anyways, think of a pyramid.  The top goes to the 'elite' who control the media and the workings, world finances, world banking, oil, pharmacuticals, land barrens etc...  The next is the duped masses of rising feminists in political streams.  They want 'parity' etc... and spout the dogma, write the literature, teach the classes etc...  Then the bottom is everyone else.

I'm not saying it's true.  I'm just saying it's a thought.  Something to consider, especially in regards to historical feminism.  Essentially I am saying Karl Marx was an agent of the Crown.

dr e

I have yet to meet a feminist who didn't think that women have been globally oppressed throughout history.  This is the basic misconception that all of feminism spreads and makes to try and bolster their claim on victimhood.  A reading of history gives one a very different perception, that is, men and women made decisions together throughout history that were necessitated by survival not some nefarious oppressor crap.  Seeing it as anything reeking of oppression makes a mockery of women and frames them as weaklings who are easily manipulated.   This of course disempowers them.  The lie also frames men as evil.  Both are incorrect.   We have co-created the past and now we need to co-create our future.  Framing things in terms of one gender being oppressed more than the other is a pathological distraction and a call for power due to perceived victimization.  The same sort of thing seen in a relationship would be seen as mental illness.  It's just that simple.

Not only does the emperor have no clothes, she is also mentally ill.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Double Jeopardy

What is really frustrating is that these mentally ill in zero garb are seen as victims and stronger then men at the same time, just waiting to flower and bloom. :roll:

D

Quote from: "Dr Evil"


Not only does the emperor have no clothes, she is also mentally ill.



The Nazis told the german people they were oppressed and victimized as well.   They also told them they were superior and had virtuous right as rulers of the earth.  

The two movements are verbatim.

Double Jeopardy

Bloody ironic isn't it? :shock:

D

Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Bloody ironic isn't it? :shock:



You would think.

But then again, once you look at who financed the two movements to a great deal the irony dissappears.   :D

Go Up