Discussing Radical Nazi Feminista/Feminism

[John21652]

Walk around a mall here and you may well see a man and woman wearing matching jelabas. A couple of hours south in Morocco it’s the norm. They’re dignified - made of cotton they’re cool in the summer, made of wool warm in winter. Give the fashion industry time and the young will wear them in Australia too. It’s not feminism, it’s fashion.

Isn’t the word supposed to be Djellaba? And what has a Middle Eastern dress code got to do with anything? Next you’ll have us wearing unisex turbans. %between%

How about: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. – 1 Cor 34-35What has this Biblical quote got to do with the price of fish? In my parish, one priest is notorious for making sure no-one speaks in Church, man or woman.

Your post proves nothing except you have a mindset that will readily pander to the extremes of feminism. Considering the great problems Spanish society has, both social and economic, I’d have thought it might have by now re-considered its adoption of liberal agendas and morality.

 

[inocente]

Isn’t the word supposed to be Djellaba? And what has a Middle Eastern dress code got to do with anything? Next you’ll have us wearing unisex turbans. %between%

No, jellaba is good to go, the word is Moroccan rendered in Arabic script, so Western spellings are approximate (in Spanish, it’s usually chilaba). But you got my point that dress codes have nothing to do with feminism. Incidentally, Morocco isn’t in the Middle East and hot pink is a very fetching color in a turban.

Your post proves nothing except you have a mindset that will readily pander to the extremes of feminism.

So me thinking that it isn’t at all “disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (1 Cor 14:35) is pandering to “extremes of feminism”. Are you perhaps posting from the Taliban Afghanistan time-zone?

Considering the great problems Spanish society has, both social and economic, I’d have thought it might have by now re-considered its adoption of liberal agendas and morality.

Right on the nail again, all this liberal happiness and fulfillment is terribly irresponsible. Disgracefully, last time I looked, Spain was fifth in terms of child well-being, behind only such notably sinful ghettos as the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, while the US and UK came in bottom. (Apparently Australia isn’t good enough at keeping records about its children to be rated).

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, jellaba is good to go, the word is Moroccan rendered in Arabic script, so Western spellings are approximate (in Spanish, it’s usually chilaba). But you got my point that dress codes have nothing to do with feminism. Incidentally, Morocco isn’t in the Middle East and hot pink is a very fetching color in a turban.

So me thinking that it isn’t at all “disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (1 Cor 14:35) is pandering to “extremes of feminism”. Are you perhaps posting from the Taliban Afghanistan time-zone?

Right on the nail again, all this liberal happiness and fulfillment is terribly irresponsible. Disgracefully, last time I looked, Spain was fifth in terms of child well-being, behind only such notably sinful ghettos as the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, while the US and UK came in bottom. (Apparently Australia isn’t good enough at keeping records about its children to be rated).

You are the Sisu here.

 

[Sair]

Totally agree with this sentiment, thinking in reverse it makes sense. If I was having lunch with someone on a first date, I’d be comfortable with splitting the bill 50/50. Once we know each other better, I’d be happy to be treated by her paying the full bill if she earned considerably more than me. Would I want to be provided for with the assumption that I naturally needed her financial support? Not at all, I would find it highly weird. Long-term, once in a relationship, I would be happy to be a net receiver of shared income (although not by a huge amount), because of our shared life and value to each other. To be treated otherwise, to be treated like a sexist man treats a woman, would make me into a radical manist.

At least that would make you a radical manist with a cause I get the impression that some men have taken it upon themselves to oppose feminism just in principle, because it means that women are more likely to complain about their behaviour. This is, of course, much less insidious than those who insist that feminism has passed its use-by date and has nothing to fight for any longer. Such people bandy the word ‘feminist’ about as if it’s supposed to be insulting or belittling, as if to be a feminist is somehow embarrassing, and all the time implying that feminists are doing nothing more than overreacting to insignificant things now that women have gained so much in Western society. Little do these people realise that in adopting this attitude, they are perpetuating the underlying beliefs that feminism has been fighting all along.

Frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with a woman being the breadwinner in a relationship if that’s how things work out. What people bring to a relationship is up to the individuals, not dictated by their gender. Unfortunately our society does still, to a large extent, look down on men who are stay-at-home dads or house-husbands, and this is as much of a feminist issue as any deeply ingrained gender-based belief. But as I observed before, social attitudes are changing, at their usual glacial pace, spurred on by those who refuse to be intimidated by the naysayers.

 

[someperson555]

Totally agree with this sentiment, thinking in reverse it makes sense. If I was having lunch with someone on a first date, I’d be comfortable with splitting the bill 50/50. Once we know each other better, I’d be happy to be treated by her paying the full bill if she earned considerably more than me. Would I want to be provided for with the assumption that I naturally needed her financial support? Not at all, I would find it highly weird. Long-term, once in a relationship, I would be happy to be a net receiver of shared income (although not by a huge amount), because of our shared life and value to each other. To be treated otherwise, to be treated like a sexist man treats a woman, would make me into a radical manist.

the proper term is “masculinist”, not manist.

 

[John21652]

At least that would make you a radical manist with a cause I get the impression that some men have taken it upon themselves to oppose feminism just in principle, because it means that women are more likely to complain about their behaviour. This is, of course, much less insidious than those who insist that feminism has passed its use-by date and has nothing to fight for any longer. Such people bandy the word ‘feminist’ about as if it’s supposed to be insulting or belittling, as if to be a feminist is somehow embarrassing, and all the time implying that feminists are doing nothing more than overreacting to insignificant things now that women have gained so much in Western society. Little do these people realise that in adopting this attitude, they are perpetuating the underlying beliefs that feminism has been fighting all along.

Frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with a woman being the breadwinner in a relationship if that’s how things work out. What people bring to a relationship is up to the individuals, not dictated by their gender. Unfortunately our society does still, to a large extent, look down on men who are stay-at-home dads or house-husbands, and this is as much of a feminist issue as any deeply ingrained gender-based belief. But as I observed before, social attitudes are changing, at their usual glacial pace, spurred on by those who refuse to be intimidated by the naysayers.

You are lost in the past, when feminism won some significant gains for the role of women insociety. Now, you are attempting a whitewash of how feminism was hijacked long ago by the radicals. Now feminism stands for the extreme changes in society that have nothing to do with ‘equality’ and everything to do with denigrating the foundations of society even to the extent of compromising the relationships between the sexes. Evidence the feminist leaders - they have managed to trash the notion of marriage and motherhood. The very freedoms feminists demanded have resulted in a generation or two of young women trashing themselves and allowing themselves to be objectified sex objects. The advertising industry thrives on it and women lap it up like frogs slowly being boiled to death, not even realising how they’ve been sold a crock. Feminism has gone past its used by date.

 

[Sair]

You are lost in the past, when feminism won some significant gains for the role of women insociety. Now, you are attempting a whitewash of how feminism was hijacked long ago by the radicals. Now feminism stands for the extreme changes in society that have nothing to do with ‘equality’ and everything to do with denigrating the foundations of society even to the extent of compromising the relationships between the sexes. Evidence the feminist leaders - they have managed to trash the notion of marriage and motherhood. The very freedoms feminists demanded have resulted in a generation or two of young women trashing themselves and allowing themselves to be objectified sex objects. The advertising industry thrives on it and women lap it up like frogs slowly being boiled to death, not even realising how they’ve been sold a crock. Feminism has gone past its used by date.

Thank you, sir, for making my point for me I rather suspected you would…

And, of course, female degradation must be the fault of the feminists, not disgruntled male chauvinists trying to put women back in their place.

 

[John21652]

Thank you, sir, for making my point for me I rather suspected you would…

And didn’t I expect you’d avoid answering the charges.

How do you reconcile the quotes made by the leaders of modern feminism posted in post #24? They are at odds with your 1920s view of feminism.

And how do you explain away this view, in an article by a leading feminist who even co-founded a feminist magazine - Feminism was going to liberate both sexes, but instead it destroyed a generation of men

 

[Sair]

the proper term is “masculinist”, not manist.

Good point! I can’t believe I missed that, since I tend to think of myself as a grammar nazi, if not a feminazi…

 

[Sair]

And didn’t I expect you’d avoid answering the charges.

The charges are bogus - you just enjoy laying problems at the feet of a movement with which you disagree.

How do you reconcile the quotes made by the leaders of modern feminism posted in post #24? They are at odds with your 1920s view of feminism.

Anyone who stands up for gender equality and the right of every person to be evaluated as an individual is, essentially, a feminist. Tarring all feminists with the brush of the radicals is like condemning all religious worship because of the extremism of a minority of adherents - you know, like judging all Christians according to the standards of those who blow up abortion clinics and the like. Or, for that matter, judging all those who care about animal rights by the standards of PETA. It’s a lot simpler that way, of course, but also much less accurate.

The fact of the matter is that every movement for social and political change needs to come out with fists swinging and guns blazing, otherwise it will simply get buried by the moderates and have no effect. That is just the way these things work.

 

[Sair]

The fact of the matter is that every movement for social and political change needs to come out with fists swinging and guns blazing, otherwise it will simply get buried by the moderates and have no effect. That is just the way these things work.

This is speaking metaphorically, of course - violence is often a lot less effective (not to say a lot more counterproductive) than passive resistance and philosophical debate. But when it comes to the latter, it pays not to pull any punches - after all, feminism is fighting against deeply ingrained assumptions that most people don’t even realise they make.

 

[John21652]

The charges are bogus - you just enjoy laying problems at the feet of a movement with which you disagree.

Anyone who stands up for gender equality and the right of every person to be evaluated as an individual is, essentially, a feminist. Tarring all feminists with the brush of the radicals is like condemning all religious worship because of the extremism of a minority of adherents - you know, like judging all Christians according to the standards of those who blow up abortion clinics and the like. Or, for that matter, judging all those who care about animal rights by the standards of PETA. It’s a lot simpler that way, of course, but also much less accurate.

The fact of the matter is that every movement for social and political change needs to come out with fists swinging and guns blazing, otherwise it will simply get buried by the moderates and have no effect. That is just the way these things work.

White-washing again.

Did you not read the article? The demands of the radicals came to pass. The damage is wrought. Feminism fails and those who hang onto its coat-tails are perpetuating the vileness of the end result.

 

[Sair]

You are lost in the past, when feminism won some significant gains for the role of women insociety. Now, you are attempting a whitewash of how feminism was hijacked long ago by the radicals. Now feminism stands for the extreme changes in society that have nothing to do with ‘equality’ and everything to do with denigrating the foundations of society even to the extent of compromising the relationships between the sexes.

Like I said - you’re judging an entire movement by the extremist elements. That doesn’t mean the fundamental ideals of feminism are of any less value.

Evidence the feminist leaders - they have managed to trash the notion of marriage and motherhood. The very freedoms feminists demanded have resulted in a generation or two of young women trashing themselves and allowing themselves to be objectified sex objects. The advertising industry thrives on it and women lap it up like frogs slowly being boiled to death, not even realising how they’ve been sold a crock. Feminism has gone past its used by date.

Yet, strangely, there are many women who are both feminists and mothers, and many of them are even happily married - just married to men who don’t treat them as servants or chattel, or in any way inferior to themselves.

As for the self-objectifying behaviour of young women, do you really think this is more the fault of feminism than capitalism and marketing? It only requires a cursory glance through print and broadcast media to realise that advertisers play on the underlying assumption (you know, one of the ones feminism stands against) that women are only worth something if they can attract a man. Why do you think the cosmetics and fashion industries have such a hold over so many? Not because they pander to feminism, but because they pander to patriarchal assumptions.

 

[Sair]

White-washing again.

Did you not read the article? The demands of the radicals came to pass. The damage is wrought. Feminism fails and those who hang onto its coat-tails are perpetuating the vileness of the end result.

If I am whitewashing, you are tarring and feathering.

Would you prefer a return to the days when young women were essentially the property of their fathers or husbands? If that is the case, you could always move to the Middle East.

 

[John21652]

If I am whitewashing, you are tarring and feathering.

Would you prefer a return to the days when young women were essentially the property of their fathers or husbands? If that is the case, you could always move to the Middle East.

The “tarring and feathering” you are talking about is also being done by women who now realise they have been sold a crock.

Read yet another article by a feminist - The Failure of Feminism. In it she writes -

To me, feminism has backfired against women

Next, Google ‘The Failure of Feminism’ and save us all a whole lot of bother. The Internet is awash with a backlash against what feminism has done. Books are being written about it. Goggle British feminist Natasha Walter and find out how much she decries what has been done to women. Google Lily Allen’s ‘The Fear’ and read the lyrics. Start here with some research about The Sexualisation of Girls. This is what feminist leaders like Germaine Greer wanted, because she, like others, thought that the free expression of sexuality by women would be the ultimate liberation of women. The result is a big fat fail.

As for your last two sentences, obviously it was a retort of last resort. I’ll not even respond to such childishness.

 

[Sair]

The “tarring and feathering” you are talking about is also being done by women who now realise they have been sold a crock.

Women are often our own worst enemies, it’s true. The idea that women need men for personal and social validation is insidious. The greatest enemy of feminism is a lack of solidarity amongst women themselves.

Next, Google ‘The Failure of Feminism’ and save us all a whole lot of bother.

Why should I save bother for someone who is just trying to dismiss my perspective as irrelevant? Patriarchal attitudes are still rife, despite the tangible gains in women’s social and economic status that were achieved by earlier feminist activists.

The Internet is awash with a backlash against what feminism has done. Books are being written about it. Goggle British feminist Natasha Walter and find out how much she decries what has been done to women. Google Lily Allen’s ‘The Fear’ and read the lyrics. Start here with some research about The Sexualisation of Girls. This is what feminist leaders like Germaine Greer wanted, because she, like others, thought that the free expression of sexuality by women would be the ultimate liberation of women. The result is a big fat fail.

Feminism hasn’t done this - feminism has opened the avenues of debate and inquiry. The fact that some people take what they think are feminist principles to extremes, as I said, is not an indication that the value of feminist ideals has been diminished. If young women have taken upon themselves the freedoms young men have always assumed as a matter of course, this is not so much a reflection of the failure of feminism, but of the failure of interpretation that has been applied to the principles for which feminism stands - not to mention a failure of capitalist society in general to meet the needs of people over economic cycles. How can you not see that humans are fallible in their interpretations? These failures are not a reason to try to stuff feminism, as a whole, back into a box.

As for your last two sentences, obviously it was a retort of last resort. I’ll not even respond to such childishness.

And there you go again, trying to dismiss legitimate criticism. Oppression of women is still very much a reality in some parts of the world. How is this a retort of last resort? Middle Eastern societies certainly don’t suffer from the problems you highlight - widespread marital breakdown, abortion and the sexualisation of increasingly young women and girls. That’s not to say they don’t suffer from issues of their own, generated by the manifold failures of their own archaic social structures - although these are not generally attributable to rampant capitalism. The implication is that you would suggest a return to repressive social structures as a solution to the increase in rates of divorce, broken homes and also the “girls gone wild” portrayed in the popular, alarmist media.

 

[inocente]

The Internet is awash with a backlash against what feminism has done. Books are being written about it. Goggle British feminist Natasha Walter and find out how much she decries what has been done to women. Google Lily Allen’s ‘The Fear’ and read the lyrics. Start here with some research about The Sexualisation of Girls.

Strange you would link an article about the problems with anti-feminism, which talks of girls responding to male ideals of attractiveness in male dominated media.

We already know where male dominated morality leads, the days when girls were married off in their early teens and their fathers knew the meaning of hospitality: ‘Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.’ - Genesis 19:8.

We also know the psychological effect of such an “unsexualized” upbringing: ‘That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.’ - Gen 19:33-34

If anything in feminism is wrong, the blame isn’t with women, but with the men who create the conditions they react against.

 

[Sair]

If anything in feminism is wrong, the blame isn’t with women, but with the men who create the conditions they react against.

To be fair, women create some pretty nasty conditions for other women to live up to - just look at any ‘women’s’ magazine, most of which are compiled and edited by women.

Having said that, a lot of mainstream female attitudes are responses to perceived male expectations. We are taught, as I indicated, to defer to men - not so much to their command, but to their favour in general. I have seen too many women who try to be what they are not simply for the sake of impressing men.

And what makes this even worse is that if you scratch the surface, there are plenty of men who don’t subscribe to the patriarchal dictates and actually appreciate women who think and act for themselves! It’s all a very ****ed-up social milieu.

 

[John21652]

Women are often our own worst enemies, it’s true. The idea that women need men for personal and social validation is insidious. The greatest enemy of feminism is a lack of solidarity amongst women themselves.

Your first sentence is on the money. The second sentence demonstrates what happens when women are given free reign. They just do more of the same, but more aggresively. The third sentence demonstrates that not all women obviously agree with feminism.

Why should I save bother for someone who is just trying to dismiss my perspective as irrelevant?

Because you are burying your head in the sand and ignoring what women are now saying.

Patriarchal attitudes are still rife, despite the tangible gains in women’s social and economic status that were achieved by earlier feminist activists.

It’s the earlier feminist activists who are recanting. As I said, if you’d just pull your head out of the sand long enough to do the research.

Feminism hasn’t done this - feminism has opened the avenues of debate and inquiry.

Sorry, but your old feminist leaders are saying otherwise.

The fact that some people take what they think are feminist principles to extremes, as I said, is not an indication that the value of feminist ideals has been diminished.

The fact that many many women have taken feminist “ideals” to the extreme has proved the ideals were false ones.

If young women have taken upon themselves the freedoms young men have always assumed as a matter of course, this is not so much a reflection of the failure of feminism, but of the failure of interpretation that has been applied to the principles for which feminism stands

Those so called freedoms which young men have always assumed was made up by the feminist leaders to con the women into thinking that acting like rakes would be liberating. That’s exactly what Germaine Gree wrote about!

not to mention a failure of capitalist society in general to meet the needs of people over economic cycles.

Oh, blaming the economic system now, are we?!

How can you not see that humans are fallible in their interpretations? These failures are not a reason to try to stuff feminism, as a whole, back into a box.

Fallible in their interpretations? Yes. Unfortunately, the messages being interpreted were pretty explicit and the results have been devastating.

And there you go again, trying to dismiss legitimate criticism. Oppression of women is still very much a reality in some parts of the world.

Nice try, but where repression of women exists there is hardly any need for a discussion on the faults of feminism, is there!

How is this a retort of last resort? Middle Eastern societies certainly don’t suffer from the problems you highlight - widespread marital breakdown, abortion and the sexualisation of increasingly young women and girls.

You adopted the typical feminist tactic of accusing anyone, particularly a male, of being some sort of Taliban if they dare criticise feminism. Sorry, but you now need to throw such lines at those feminists who have recanted too.

That’s not to say they don’t suffer from issues of their own, generated by the manifold failures of their own archaic social structures - although these are not generally attributable to rampant capitalism. The implication is that you would suggest a return to repressive social structures as a solution to the increase in rates of divorce, broken homes and also the “girls gone wild” portrayed in the popular, alarmist media.

I never suggested a return, or even a turn, towards anything. Of course, the typical 1970s feminist attack against a male is to suggest exactly that.

 

[Sair]

Your first sentence is on the money. The second sentence demonstrates what happens when women are given free reign. They just do more of the same, but more aggresively. The third sentence demonstrates that not all women obviously agree with feminism.

“What happens when women are given free reign”? I’m afraid your privilege is showing, sir. Not all feminists even agree on what feminism is. How do you suppose you know so much more about it? Do you even know how many varieties of feminism there are and what they all stand for?

Because you are burying your head in the sand and ignoring what women are now saying. It’s the earlier feminist activists who are recanting. As I said, if you’d just pull your head out of the sand long enough to do the research.

At some point, you might learn how to distinguish extremists from moderates. I am well aware of the extremes to which feminism can and has been taken, thanks all the same, but the core principles are still worth upholding. I don’t condemn all religious ideals because some believers fly planes into buildings.

Sorry, but your old feminist leaders are saying otherwise.The fact that many many women have taken feminist “ideals” to the extreme has proved the ideals were false ones.

So the ideals of justice for women and freedom from sexism in all its guises are false, are they? Good luck defending that stance.