My daddy always told me......
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:37
VIEWED: 5895
PAGE 3 of 11
Mmm. Well, I suspect you and I could have a reasoned discussion. I'd certainly be interested in your viewpoints... you see things from a different direction, and many times your directions are completely unexpected.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy
Oh, I'd be up for that over email or relocated. If we began that discussion here, it would turn into a war
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I can deconstruct feminism, but I should get into an argument with self-defined feminists who I would term "female empowerment people" vs. what i would term "female supremacists" which is what I would call the old school, but rather, I should make that deconstruction on a site or a book, and then debate it from there.
Out of curiosity, on what do you base your assumption that radical feminism that isn't focused on equality but female supremacy is the "old school" of feminism? How do you view the history of feminism?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
ALL moms are working moms!
YES. thank you!
Since I've had my daughter I've always worked outside the home. But, I take work which fits around her and there have been times when it's been hard to find.
In those thin times I worked more in the home. repairs and renovations, house work, baking, mending clothes, gardening, doing educational stuff with my daughter. Stuff I always do but when outside work is short I do more, because at that point that's my job.
I have never sat on my bum and waited for the wage earner to divvy up and I get a little ticked when what I do is not regarded as work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nowhere in nature will you find females lolling around all day, waiting for males to bring home the bacon. The whole concept is unatural.
So the idea that women don't have to be "full-time moms and wives"? It's not feminism, it's NORMAL!
It's also not really the human way to take care of kids full-time.
In most cultures, most pregnant women have continued working on whatever their job was until shortly before birth and started up soon after. Can anyone imagine a female farmer of any century just staying in the house, dusting and caring for junior's education? She put food on the table the same as the man. How else did women take care of their world when men were gone at wars?
Gender roles or not, legal inequality or not, the working women of centuries past were generally valued because -even if this was all they did, and it usually wasn't!- house work back then really was a full-time job. Hard work. Kids were the thing that you took care of in a free moment in between. Men and women both.
House-wife and stay-at-home-mom of the electric home appliances age is a life-style that mirrors what only the super-super rich of centuries past could afford. It is by no means a natural lifestyle.
In an age where we spend a lot of time physically removed from our home and our children - if we do work - however, we need to think up an unnatural lifestyle, either way. We may as well be creative and flexible about it, though, instead of declaring one thing to be the solution and maligning all other options.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Out of curiosity, on what do you base your assumption that radical feminism that isn't focused on equality but female supremacy is the "old school" of feminism? How do you view the history of feminism?
Rouka
Not arguing the topic, but on the writings of early feminists, and the status of women before and after. Sanger says explicitly that the new tasks and limitations on women must be sold to them as "rights" that they have won, otherwise, they would never accept it. They like to retroactively take credit for things like the right to vote, but actually, they have no connection to those movements.
[rant]
These new rights are the right to a job, the right to not have children, etc. These are not things that women wanted for themselves or that benefit them from an evolutionary standpoint. They benefit the govt. and people run our society.
I know lots of professional women who have zero children, thus, the intelligent women are weeded out, and do so willingly, to defend their new "rights" they also slave away at some desk job as men do, earning wages below the level of subsistence. (our labor system is screwed up, but by design, a whole other side issue.)
Anyway, contrast that with Communist China and the population control: The one child policy is a restriction, not sold as a "right." Hence, though it has the same end, it meets incredible resistance from Chinese women, and a major reason they flee China if they can. Not only is it a personal assault, it's a deep down interference in their animal evolutionary nature.
This whole idea of rights and pride is far from unique to the women's movement. Take a man and sentence him to spend half his days slaving, obeying orders, working hard, and locked in a small cube while being yelled at by overlords, and he'll revolt. Take more than that from him and pay him with a reward that he never sees, because it goes to the bills on his credit card, expenses just to live, and he will fight to keep that job, as his right, and to work it as his responsibility.
As for gender roles, they do occur in nature. But whether you have division of labor or not, it takes your typical hunter gatherer 20 hours of work to survive. Our society asks as much as it can, and its increasing.
Recently I broke this down in 3 classes of worker:
McJob, which pays minimum wage, minus entitlement tax, almost pays for you to live in squalor, and run up debt. You are bound to it, because of your debt. It usually takes 30 hours
Job, which requires a college degree. You get the degree along with debt, and now pay more taxes, and can live in an apt., but still not ever escape. It usually takes 50 hours (40+commute and prep time)
SuperJob, which requires an advanced degree, which usually means a lot of debt. You start deep in the hole, and now pay lots of taxes on your supposed high salary. This allows the employer to abandon the conventional rules of labor, so can take up to 80 hours a week, or more, when everything is included. You can live in a house, and fight endlessly against your debt.
I know people who make 100,000 a year and have no free time, and no free money, double mortgage, car payments, insurance of multiple kinds, and student loans, job related expenses, and oh yeah, pay top level federal income and entitlement taxes, state taxes, local taxes, and bills. They might have to borrow.
A couple with two workers now has earned the right to have children, but not to really ever see those children. Fortunately, there is are state run services such as school, and the illusion of an independent media (what I jokingly call the media run state.)
Oh, here's another right that we all fight and pay for: The right to an education. Really, this is the right to mingle with other humans. Informationally, there was never anything in a class really that wasn't already better said in a book. Most classes just make you read a book, then have a teacher read the book to you, and you take a test. Now of course there's the internet. The book has become free, the "education"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT -
Not going to respond to the content of your rant for now, except to say.. you didn't REALLY answer my question, did you?
It was a question about your self-defined terms of "old school" and "new school", and why you consider female supremacist "feminism" old school and equality-based feminism "new school", mainly. Was the original intent to oppress men and the equality thing came later? When do you place the origin of female supremacy feminism and when does the "new school" start?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT
There's what we tell ourselves and what really happens.
In Fiji, children are raised by grandparents, b/c an able-bodied woman is too valuable to lose as a food-producer.
In 1600 - 1800's France (and other European countries), wealthy women pawned off the care of their children onto wet-nurses, nursemaids, governesses, tutors and boarding schools b/c frankly, childcare is not all that rewarding and they had the means to do something more enjoyable. And children were considered the husband's property to be disposed of at will.
In Sparta, deficient babies were set aside to die, and young boys (6 years old) were left to roam in packs and survive the best they could by stealing and hunting - without clothes, without food, without water, without shelter.
Many, many types of societies tell themselves 'we do this b/c this is what people do and anything else is risky to life' - but it turns out there are as many ways of dividing up the labor and resources as there are societies. And this is all despite the fact that ALL people tell themselves what THEY do is 'human nature' and 'the only natural way to be'.
There are many, many, MANY forms of society that are good enough to keep children alive long enough to have children of their own. And that's the only thing that counts, because THAT is the sieve of evolution.
Everything beyond that is just a fable.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rouka
1. I'm sick, and I missed part of it
2. I'm dodging the issue as a landmine.'
I see feminism as a 20th c. post wwii movement that essentially invented a history that tied it to the suffragettes and a history of male dominance and oppression that spanned thousands of years. These people created a new ideology that was specifically targeted for simple goals:
1. Control the population. This is the first stuff published by the early feminists: Teach them that not reproducing is a right, and we can stop these women from cranking out babies before western europeans become a minority in America. It was pretty blatant. Read back, the whole "sell it as a right" thing. I ranted on because i was sick and had insomnia, but all of that is relevent to the strategy.
2. get women back to work. Women had been filling factories and sweatshops, and in the financial high of the 50s, they'd all gone home. This was viewed by feminists as some sort of conspiracy, but actually, everyone would go home if they could. At the time, there was so much cash that there was no need for a second income. The US was the producer and exporter of the goods of the world.
3. Break up the family. Make sure that children have no parenting. This is necessary for the state and media to take over the job of child raising.
4. Disempower women. Take away their sexuality, their exemption from duty, and their role as mothers, teachers, guideposts as our society. The state is mother the state is father.
The new guard are the female empowerment people. They are into the "girls can do anything" which includes being sexy, something the old guard hated, they always called it "exploitation."
I remember once someone saying to me "Playboy is just written for men to exploit women" I responded, no "Playboy is just written for women to exploit men" Who pays, who gets paid, whose careers are advanced, and who is masturbating in the bathroom, which has more power? If you look at playboy, it's carefully designed to target a female audience, to attract models, so that Hef can have a dating pool. But the men, fuck 'em. They can spank it, but they'll have to pay. Ever been to a strip bar? Who has the power.
The original feminism was about supremacy, not just female supremacy, these people were genetic supremacists, christian and jewish alike, they both share this tendency, and they're not alone (check out asia and africa in these attitudes.) The goal was to oppress women, not men.
A woman who cannot be free to live the life of choice, who must work some pitiful job just to put food on the table, who cannot raise her children, should she have any, or who rejects sex appeal and men, so she won't have any children: This was all about removing the feminine.
The hand that rocks the cradle is mocked by feminists, but it's true, that's the real power. Women had that power, they determined the future generations, what they would be like. The powers that be wanted that power for themselves, hence, women must work, kids must go to school, kids must watch television, and not listen to their parents. Best of all if there are no kids, then the woman has no power. Finally, just chain her to the desk like the men, and have another ant for your ant farm.
Man-hating lesbians were just a side effect. They came in somewhere in the middle as opportunists. They also served the agenda, because each sworn in lesbian was less likely to have children. The goal here wasn't zero children, so much as fewer children, and those that were, to have an attachment to the beliefs of school and television, and not from the family. I think we call this "liberalism" another false advertising misnormer (that's a half snark, it's also true.)
The new guard of "girl power" is not anything like the old guard. It's unfortunate that they have anchored themselves to the term. I don't think this was a re-invention by the feminists, but something that happened naturally, and the old school feminists co-opted it, and through academia told people that this is what feminism was always abou
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
Sure, there are many ways to do it, but these are the societies you want to emulate?
I'm just stating the state's motive in taking over child rearing: To create zombies. And now I see them everywhere. They don't think for themselves, they just spout what they were told. They can't see the threat because they believe that it is good for them, saving them, and they become it.
There's not a lick of difference between the left who hugs its self-genocide policies and the right who hugs nukes and bombs and guns and our great protector.
People just can't see what's right in front of them. They've been programmed otherwise. I don't want to argue these, I think the above is obvious. That's what reality is, and people who don't see that it's because they choose not to see it, not because it isn't there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME