Goodbye Feminism

[lkanneg]

And I'd have to say, were this same "debate" happening on, oh, say, Trish's, or Hugo's, or Amp's, there would be flaming galore by the favored.

Dying of curiosity...who are Trish, Hugo or Amp?  I think I've seen references to Hugo at least on this board...

And lkanneg, my hat is off to you especially: you are asking really good questions which challenge a lot of the common beliefs around here, and you're doing it with great humor and patience!

aw, feelin warm and fuzzy.... :oops:

But seriously, thanks!  I was really interested in finding out what you-all thought and felt, NOT in doing the troll thang.  Hopefully I am succeeding.

[lkanneg]

I care about lots of issues, not just feminist issues...why do I care about "issues" in general?  Um, that would be a really long answer, full of philosophical ruminating....not sure you actually *want* me to go into that kind of detail, lol.

Oh, so evade the question.  Okay.  

I wasn't evading, I swear--or rather, I WAS evading, but not the question--I was evading a 50 page answer.  My motives are deep and convoluted and most importantly, long winded.  lol  In short...I will try to be in short...I care because I think life is hard enough without people sticking it to each other making it even harder.

That's a strange point of view.  I agree that the *act* of marital rape is anti-marriage, but the act of attempting to eliminate it certainly isnt.  A marriage without rape is a much stronger marriage than a marriage with rape, wouldn't you think?

It's not a strange point of view.  It's right on target to the intended purpose.  The issue isn't brought up to eliminate it at all.  None of the issues feminists have brought have been eliminated.

Of course marital rape was brought up to attempt to at least REDUCE it--what issues are *ever* completely eliminated?  Making rape within marriage an actual crime is nothing BUT an attempt to eliminate it, as making anything else illegal is of course always an attempt to eliminate it.

Oh, now, that's silly.  My biology does not subordinate me to men.  It makes me *different* from a man, but not *less* than one.  I don't really know what Moses thought about biology and I bet it wasn't anything useful in the 21st century, lol.

Sure it does.  I don't think you're less than a man by any means, but to day you're subordinated to men I think is quite accurate.  Women depend on men, they always have and they always will.

I don't make this statement because of sexism, or mysoginy or any other reason than objectivity.  

Genesis really knew what it was talking about.  Women by nature are dependants.  

(sigh) This is where you lose credibility..."women by nature are dependent upon men."  Well, no.  I'm a woman, and I am not by nature dependent upon *anybody,* male or female.  Do I *want* men in my life?  Oh, heck yes.  Do I NEED men in my life..?  Well, no.  I don't *need* anybody--I believe that's called "codependency."  Am I subordinate to the men in my life?  Oh, heck no.   would they like me to be...?  Well, sometimes yes, I think.  Do I ever *want* to be.  OH NO!    Seriously, not ever the slightest urge to be dependent upon anybody else, therefore, it's not "natural" to me, and since I am a woman...no.  Women are not "naturally subordinate," as a whole gender with no other criteria, to men, as a whole gender with no other criteria.

[neonsamurai]

lkanneg said:

That's easy...the culture with the greatest amount of gender, racial, ethnic etc equality, both de jure and de facto, is "correct." JMO

Well actually it's not that easy. So the country with the most 'equality' can dictate to anyone how to behave? Remember the Prime Directive from Star Trek TNG? We don't have the right to tell any other culture how to behave or act. The idea that having 'equality' makes us better than them is very arrogant. In that respect you should take all your advice from Communist China.

What's next? Sailing into the Amazon and dictating to any tribes we find how to behave?

[lkanneg]

lkanneg said:

That's easy...the culture with the greatest amount of gender, racial, ethnic etc equality, both de jure and de facto, is "correct." JMO

Well actually it's not that easy. So the country with the most 'equality' can dictate to anyone how to behave? What's next? Sailing into the Amazon and dictating to any tribes we find how to behave?

Nope, that's a different question, the question being, "Should the culture you consider most correct have the right to march into other culture's countries and *make* them follow the mores of the more correct culture.."  My answer to that question would be, "No."  I thought, originally, you were just asking me which culture I thought was more correct.

[neonsamurai]

lkanneg said:

Nope, that's a different question, the question being, "Should the culture you consider most correct have the right to march into other culture's countries and *make* them follow the mores of the more correct culture.." My answer to that question would be, "No." I thought, originally, you were just asking me which culture I thought was more correct.

Good point. But you still grade countries by equility though? So a communist country would do better than a capitalist country, for example?

[Galt]

You beat me to it, Neonsamurai.

Communism (at least theoretically) is the more "equal" society.

In practice, everyone is equal because they are all dirt poor (except for a few Bozos high up in the party), because there's no incentive to work.

Aside from that, I suppose we should encourage women to pee standing up and men to try to get pregnant.

[lkanneg]

lkanneg said:

Nope, that's a different question, the question being, "Should the culture you consider most correct have the right to march into other culture's countries and *make* them follow the mores of the more correct culture.." My answer to that question would be, "No." I thought, originally, you were just asking me which culture I thought was more correct.

Good point. But you still grade countries by equility though? So a communist country would do better than a capitalist country, for example?

Hmm...there are the *principles* of communism, and there are countries that currently and historically have *called* themselves "communist."  NOT quite the same thing...do I grade countries by equality?  Yes.  Is gender equality the *only* equality?  No, and I believe that the countries that historically/currently call themselves "communist" practice rampant forms of inequality all over the place (tbh, I have no idea what their records on *gender* equality are--hardly need to, though, considering how hideous their records on all other forms of equal treatment are--they've ALREADY failed without even *looking* at gender equality, lol)

[Galt]

Actually, your "equality" statement would be a good sound bite (maybe on Oprah), but if the statement is taken literally, then you would prefer a communist country in which the government is very oppressive, but equally oppressive to everyone, to a country in which there was less equality.

I don't think you mean that.

And sorry for the run-on sentence above.

[lkanneg]

Actually, your "equality" statement would be a good sound bite (maybe on Oprah), but if the statement is taken literally, then you would prefer a communist country in which the government is very oppressive, but equally oppressive to everyone, to a country in which there was less equality.

I don't think you mean that.

And sorry for the run-on sentence above.

I was sort of thinking along the same lines after I posted...actually, I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself.  For instance, I think in many respects capitalism, which in of itself doesn't really address the issue of gender equality, often RESULTS in it, naturally--and a natural result is by far the best result, most likely to become a fully integrated part of that culture.

[D]

Of course marital rape was brought up to attempt to at least REDUCE it--what issues are *ever* completely eliminated?  Making rape within marriage an actual crime is nothing BUT an attempt to eliminate it, as making anything else illegal is of course always an attempt to eliminate it.

Not considering its source.  The CPUSA used to spout this crapola constantly.  And they were professional liars.  Their goal was to eradicate marriage altogether.  The CPUSA is basically the founding father of 2nd wave feminism is America.  

This is why they want to have constant connotations with something that is a violent assault to equate to things like "marriage" and "dating".  It had nothing to do with ending or reducing the perticular crime but ending the relationship culture between men and women.  Which is the biggest impetus towards gaining a socialist/communist country. Emphasis theirs.

(sigh) This is where you lose credibility..."women by nature are dependent upon men."  Well, no.  I'm a woman, and I am not by nature dependent upon *anybody,* male or female.  Do I *want* men in my life?  Oh, heck yes.  Do I NEED men in my life..?  Well, no.  I don't *need* anybody--I believe that's called "codependency."  Am I subordinate to the men in my life?  Oh, heck no.   would they like me to be...?  Well, sometimes yes, I think.  Do I ever *want* to be.  OH NO!    Seriously, not ever the slightest urge to be dependent upon anybody else, therefore, it's not "natural" to me, and since I am a woman...no.  Women are not "naturally subordinate," as a whole gender with no other criteria, to men, as a whole gender with no other criteria.

We live in a simbiotic relationship to eachother.  Women are dependant on men, men are dependant on women.  Our species is bound that way.  Which is why communists hate the relationships between men and women thus create such stupid movements like 'feminism'.  Totalists want total control, therefore want you to be dependant on them.  But the problem is, governments are illusory and mostly imaginary.  Based on ideas and opinions.  Ideas and opinions die, the gender construct is reality.

If you don't think you are dependant on men go outside and take a look around.  Your dependancy on the male gender is inherent.  Not to mention the resiliency of the Y chromosome.

[Hachu]

Of course marital rape was brought up to attempt to at least REDUCE it--what issues are *ever* completely eliminated?  Making rape within marriage an actual crime is nothing BUT an attempt to eliminate it, as making anything else illegal is of course always an attempt to eliminate it.

Not considering its source.  The CPUSA used to spout this crapola constantly.  And they were professional liars.  Their goal was to eradicate marriage altogether.  The CPUSA is basically the founding father of 2nd wave feminism is America.  

This is why they want to have constant connotations with something that is a violent assault to equate to things like "marriage" and "dating".  It had nothing to do with ending or reducing the perticular crime but ending the relationship culture between men and women.  Which is the biggest impetus towards gaining a socialist/communist country. Emphasis theirs.

(sigh) This is where you lose credibility..."women by nature are dependent upon men."  Well, no.  I'm a woman, and I am not by nature dependent upon *anybody,* male or female.  Do I *want* men in my life?  Oh, heck yes.  Do I NEED men in my life..?  Well, no.  I don't *need* anybody--I believe that's called "codependency."  Am I subordinate to the men in my life?  Oh, heck no.   would they like me to be...?  Well, sometimes yes, I think.  Do I ever *want* to be.  OH NO!    Seriously, not ever the slightest urge to be dependent upon anybody else, therefore, it's not "natural" to me, and since I am a woman...no.  Women are not "naturally subordinate," as a whole gender with no other criteria, to men, as a whole gender with no other criteria.

We live in a simbiotic relationship to eachother.  Women are dependant on men, men are dependant on women.  Our species is bound that way.  Which is why communists hate the relationships between men and women thus create such stupid movements like 'feminism'.  Totalists want total control, therefore want you to be dependant on them.  But the problem is, governments are illusory and mostly imaginary.  Based on ideas and opinions.  Ideas and opinions die, the gender construct is reality.

If you don't think you are dependant on men go outside and take a look around.  Your dependancy on the male gender is inherent.  Not to mention the resiliency of the Y chromosome.

Has someone explained  (in another thread perhaps) the link between Communism and Feminism? Maatkare often sees Communism slung around here on this board.

[neonsamurai]

lkanneg said:

I was sort of thinking along the same lines after I posted...actually, I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself. For instance, I think in many respects capitalism, which in of itself doesn't really address the issue of gender equality, often RESULTS in it, naturally--and a natural result is by far the best result, most likely to become a fully integrated part of that culture.

Okay, but as Galt has pointed out a Communist society is by definition the most equal. Regardless of if it works or not, communism is about absolute equality, so therefore the most 'correct'.

Now I know that you're not a communist, otherwise you wouldn't have served you country, but saying that American men can pass judgement on the behaviour of Saudi men because the American society is the most equal, would mean that the Americans would have to look up to the communists. Now that don't ring true in my book.

I'm not an expert on societies, but I always thought a situation where everyone is brought DOWN to the same level (it can't work the other way) is counterproductive. Such a situation cannot happen naturally. Even the dumbest animals on the planet use the capitalist model, natures law of survival of the fittest.

There are more things to judge a society on than just equality, success for example.

[lkanneg]

lkanneg said:

I was sort of thinking along the same lines after I posted...actually, I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself. For instance, I think in many respects capitalism, which in of itself doesn't really address the issue of gender equality, often RESULTS in it, naturally--and a natural result is by far the best result, most likely to become a fully integrated part of that culture.

Okay, but as Galt has pointed out a Communist society is by definition the most equal. Regardless of if it works or not, communism is about absolute equality, so therefore the most 'correct'..

Read my post again...I said, "I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself."  Which lets out communism as it has been practiced in the 20th century and pretty much zeroes in on capitalism as we practice it.

[neonsamurai]

lkanneg said:

Read my post again...I said, "I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself." Which lets out communism as it has been practiced in the 20th century and pretty much zeroes in on capitalism as we practice it.

True, but as I said equality isn't natural. The natural state is survival of the fittest, without that you don't have evolution.

The only reason we have 'equality' now is through anti discrimination laws, which is a step away from true capitalism, which is only a few steps away from anarchy, like the middleages. If true equality was natural for us then we would have had it for hundreds of years, rather than the steps towards it in the last 30. Our equality is enforced by laws and is therefore artificial.

As you've said communist societies fail. They have to, because they go against the human spirit, the drive we all have to do better. The only way such societies can exist is with harsh laws and LESS freedom. As governments intervene more, we lose the edge that pushed western society to where it is today.

[Galt]

Western countries keep TRYING to go in the direction of more socialism (with more restrictive laws), and then they get bumped back into reality when they find out that unemployment gets worse, people and companies start packing up and leaving etc.

Germany is facing that right now with 10-12% unemployment under a Red / Green government.  Even Sweden had to lower its taxes a while back.