| Comments: |
I freaking love meatloaf.
GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN
KNIT ME A SWEATER
AND BAKE ME A PIE.
<3
On a side note
I want that statue.
Floe, you and I should become anti-feminists. I already am one in the basic definition. Because personally, I think that showing thongs and clevage is empowering - as a matter of fact? Things like that display the TRUE POWER that WE AS WOMEN HAVE OVER MEN.
God gave me this body, and if there's a man or woman out there that wants to enjoy it, then by all means let them. THAT is empowering.
Bitching about a cheesy little statue is just bullshit.
YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHH >:D
It's a crying shame that we have to call the attitudes you're proclaiming "anti-feminist" these days, when they're definitely feminist concepts, in the purest form of the world. You see, modern feminism, as Floe puts it, mostly consists of a camp that tends to call itself "radical feminism," which seeks to protect women through social change. What it is, in actuality, is sexist collectivism; it's the polar opposite of the Women's Liberation movement. The other major brand of feminism is usually called liberal feminism (liberal being used in the same sense as Classical Liberalism, rather than the modern perversion of that word that generally has nothing to do with liberty).
I have my own names for these two camps: liberal feminism is feminist individualism, and radical feminism is feminist collectivism. The whole point of the feminist individualist movement was to free women from being trapped into social roles that many women were not happy fulfilling; feminist collectivism, on the other hand, seeks to place them back into specific social roles and establish a matriarchy, rather than a patriarchy- as well as inspire misandry (the opposite of misogyny), as part of the matriarchal standard.
It is my belief that in patriarchy and matriarchy alike, both the dominating gender and the submitting gender are slaves to their social roles. American social standards during the 1950s were arguably just as restrictive for men as they were for women--it would have been unheard of, back then, to be a "stay-at-home dad" (and today that is still the case, at times). Such a man would have been considered lazy, worthless, and irresponsible, as he was supposed to be the moneymaker in the family.
A new matriarchy would present the same sort of social oppression for men and women alike: Already, it is easy to see that feminist collectivism seeks to implement many of the sexual standards from the 1950s, but in a different context. This form of collectivism is sexual oppression; women would be expected to never flaunt or enjoy their sexuality, not because it is believed to harm men (which is the logic for the sexual oppression of the post-WWII era), but because it is believed to harm women. A classic example of this belief was exemplified (and in some ways invented) by feminist collectivist Andrea Dworkin, who campaigned against pornography, oftentimes declaring it a form of rape. (To be fair, she classified pretty much everything she disliked as rape, including uncomfortable medical treatment.) She also advocated gender stratification-- that is, she felt that the genders ought to be segregated from one another.
I would say, at this point, that we should all become feminist individualists, but I believe that such a view is entirely too limited. Instead, I espouse radical individualism, and you should, too. Why combat collectivism on the feminist scale, when one can work to expose it as a fraud on a global scale? Rather than seek to empower--no, let's not mince words--FREE women alone, it would be better to free all individuals, regardless of gender or race.
So yeah. Let's be anti-feminists, in the sense that we oppose the monster that feminism has become. :)
That was really long, but you made your point well.
Damn, I actually read the whole thing, and agree whole-heartedly.
But what I don't get, and this is in general and not just aimed at you or anyone else:
Why do we need to call it anything at all?
Why do we need to label a certain set of ideals?
And why do we feel the need to associate ourselves and our identities by gender?
Nature made me a female. I have a vagina, yes. But I dress in men's clothes. I'm built like a man. Maybe that alone is what makes me think so little of the "gender wars", and why I think this form of feminism is just silly, and etc etc.
"Feminism" just doesn't exist anymore, plain and simple. Know what was feminism? Getting women voting rights. Getting us into the work force. THAT'S when feminism MEANT something, when REAL feminism existed and mattered.
These days it just seems like a bunch of women who're pissed off because men stare at their boobies and want to have sex with them.
Yeah, well - men do that. Us women are any better? Really? How many feminists have ever stared at another guy (or a woman for that matter!) in the bar and gone "Mmm, nice butt." To me, it's the same thing.
There's a whole other world I'm not touching on, I know. But this is just what irks me about the whole thing.
You can either get aggravated over the fact that a man/woman finds you attractive, or you can learn to appreciate it. IMO, if a woman (or man) appreciates their OWN natural beauty, then they'll appreciate more the fact that others recognize it as well. (Even if men are so un-coordinated and OH SO insulting as to say HAAAYY BABY BABY BABY NICE TITS.)
Anyway. End rant.
I guess the reason we give labels to ideologies is to distinguish them from one another, as well as to point out that they are different. I may have to give the notion of labels some thought sometime.
Your question about gender identification is an interesting one, too. If I had to guess, it's linked largely into how obvious gender is. During reproduction, the two genders play different roles (although I don't believe they're very different), and on top of that men and women simply look different from one another. We humans tends to lend significance to these details, and so social constructs arise around them, especially the necessity of identification-- it is a facet of practically every human culture. A similar notion is that of race- the concept of race, which is in my opinion a social construct, arose because of easily-observed differences among different genera of people.
I personally have a desire to downplay gender differences, as I am convinced that there is no fundamental difference between men and women, in terms of overall psychology. That is to say, I don't agree with the "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars" philosophy. My philosophy is more along the lines of, "Men and Women Were Born on Earth and then Our Society Raised Them on Different Planets." ;)
The feminist movement today is appallingly inundated with misandry. You're right to notice that there isn't something quite right about hating men for having sexual desires. It appears that the radical feminist claim is that women do not have sexual desires, or that if they do, they do not tend to be influenced by them very often.
If you ask me, this is obviously not the case. Women in modern Western society do tend to express their sexual desires in different and more subdued ways, yes, but this is a changing fact, for one, and it is only a facet of our culture, rather than a fundamental aspect of womanhood. So yes, I believe women generally feel the same sorts of sexual desires and urges as men do, but they keep them to themselves more often because their culture dictates that they do so.
Um...I don't mean to rain on your parade, but that isn't what radical feminism is about. It has nothing to do with creating a matriarchy. It is about destroying the concept that one group of people (in this case men) is inherently better than another group (in this case women) on a *social* level.
Personally, I find all forms of feminisim interesting and I enjoy talking about them...but I think it is damaging to attack one another just because our viewpoints don't match up completely. The fight is totally not with one another, it is against sexism, and can't we unite on that?!
I mean, if anything, radical feminism *celebrates* female sexuality and doesn't oppress it! It wants to destroy the negative sterotyping such as "women who dress sexily are sluts" because that is making a judgement about someone mainly based on their gender. And that is the sort of thing that really has to be addressed on a social level.
Feminisim isn't one big hive vagina. We're gonna disagree sometimes. But do we *have* to disagree by attacking one another? You don't have to become an anti-feminist to disagree with points other feminists might make. It is perfectly valid to feel differently and the discussion of that is what drives concepts forward.
I like your ideas on radical individualism...it's something to think about!
You aren't describing radical feminism at all.
"Um...I don't mean to rain on your parade, but that isn't what radical feminism is about. It has nothing to do with creating a matriarchy. It is about destroying the concept that one group of people (in this case men) is inherently better than another group (in this case women) on a *social* level."
I never said that radical feminists claim to be trying to establish a matriarchy; I am, however, convinced that they are at least participating in the establishment of one, through their socialist ideology. "...on a *social* level" is a very vague way of putting it-- are you trying to say that it attempts to change societal views through moral suasion? If so, then you've described liberal feminism, not radical feminism. Radical feminism seeks, through the usage of law, to enforce social standards--hence why I refer to it as collectivist feminism or socialist feminism.
"...but I think it is damaging to attack one another just because our viewpoints don't match up completely. The fight is totally not with one another, it is against sexism, and can't we unite on that?!"
Collectivism is oppressive and contrary to human nature. I oppose it in whatever form it is manifested in. Both racial feminism and sexism are collectivist ideologies, and so I oppose them. My commitment is to individualism, not anti-sexism.
"I mean, if anything, radical feminism *celebrates* female sexuality and doesn't oppress it!"
No, it doesn't. It declares many forms of sexual expression by women to be harmful to women in general (e.g. posing in pornography or stripping) and ostracizes those who participate in them.
"It wants to destroy the negative sterotyping such as 'women who dress sexily are sluts' because that is making a judgement about someone mainly based on their gender."
A radical feminist would call a sexily-clad woman a slut-- see my comparison of patriarchal and matriarchal social standards in my previous comment.
"And that is the sort of thing that really has to be addressed on a social level."
Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a social level," considering that ideology in general operates on an entirely social basis.
"Feminisim isn't one big hive vagina. We're gonna disagree sometimes."
Radical feminism disagrees. It is very common, within the modern feminist community, for individualist dissenters to be accused of not actually being feminists. This is a common facet of collectivist groups: if one strays from the central ideology, they are scorned for it.
"But do we *have* to disagree by attacking one another?"
If providing honest criticism is attacking, then yes. Only through active intellectual opposition can collectivist ideology be defeated.
"You don't have to become an anti-feminist to disagree with points other feminists might make. It is perfectly valid to feel differently and the discussion of that is what drives concepts forward."
The word "feminist" does not mean the same thing today that it did during, say, the 1960s and 70s. I agree with the ideology from the 60s-70s era, commonly referred to as liberal feminism, and I oppose the modern view, which I have referred to as radical or collectivist feminism. In the modern sense, I am an anti-feminist, because I oppose all that feminism has become. Furthermore, it is entirely possible to oppose an ideology and still participate in discussion of that ideology, and the resulting conflict is what "drives concepts forward," as you put it. Charles S. Peirce argued that the state of inquiry is reached only when one encounters something sufficiently contradictory to one's beliefs, so presenting an individualist account to collectivist feminists may cause them to question their beliefs. (This is not very likely, however, as collectivist groups generally encourage their members to avoid critical thought about their beliefs.)
"I like your ideas on radical individualism...it's something to think about!"
Thanks. I thought it was relevant, considering that liberal/individualist feminism is a subset of radical individualism (if you ask me, at least).
Okay, maybe I was too vague and didn't explain my point properly. Sorry about that, I will try again!
Radical feminsim. Radical basically means of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. For radical feminism this means that a radical feminist believes that the problems with partiarchy and oppression need to be located at the very root of the problem, in attitudes and the parts of society that support them.
Liberal feminism is different (but as I said, I still believe that we should be untited on thesame cause...no, I don't think criticism is a form of attack, I think it helps you to think more carefully about what you are saying). Liberal feminsim believes that change can be initiated on a legal level rather than challenging society as a whole, unlike radical feminism.
So I do agree that liberal femisim is a more indivualistic approach rather than a collective one, but I disagree that liberal feminism is as concerned with changing the root causes of the problem. However, this does not mean I have a problem with liberal feminism (it has done great things)...I just believe that root cuases are very important to be addressed.
On the fact that feminist does not mean the same thing today that it did 40 years ago...yes, I think that is true. But it also true that what it meant 40 years ago is not exactly the same as it meant 100 years ago. That is because concepts are always pushing forward. However, the uniting concept of feminism has *never* changed. It is simply that you believe women are equal to men. That is all...our ideas on how this will be achieved may differ, but the founding concept does not.
I do believe that there are certain groups of men who have tried very hard to make feminism into a bad word...associating it with martiarchy's, censorship or "feminazis" - but on the whole, making feminism into a bad word is just a way to discredit the movement, and I don't want to be a part of that.
It seems to me that the concept of radical individualism is a meeting of both radical and liberal feminism. It would be interesting if you told me a bit more about what you are thinking on it.
(btw, I just randomly came across this post and was pretty interested in what you were saying...I wasn't trying to attack you and I apologise if I came across that way)
I should know about that TRUE POWER...
*falls at yr feet*
That picture of spiderman. O.O
Don't worry. Feministas like her made women eligible for the draft.
Krista, my boobies hang all over the place all the time. Just because they're pissed women doesn't mean they're demanding equal rights- they're just annoyed! To me, when I see people complaining about "women being objectified" and all that in places like television, comics, and movies, etc, it's like someone complaining about the holocaust. Or a bad movie. Yeah, it's bad, they're using her body to sell merchandise. But I think the human body is a beautiful thing and I wouldn't buy that statue anyway.
Were you telling me to get in the kitchen? I can't cook for shit, and I dunno where Meatloaf lives.
And to whoever made the anti-feminist comment, you pretty much described someone who was proud of their body. Not an anti-feminist. I would describe an anti-feminist as someone who would say, "Her boobs are sticking out! That is disgusting! Someone should tell her to SHAVE HER PITS! COVER HER CLEAVAGE! SHAVE HER LEGS! EW!"
"You know what, get in the fucking kitchen. My meatloaf isn't fucking done."
Floe I kinda wanna sex you just for that.
From: (Anonymous)
2007-05-18 10:41 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
The reason those responses are on a bingo card is because EVERYONE makes those arguments, and they are OBJECTIVELY wrong.
Feminism is about treating women EQUALLY the same as men. You only see it as matriarchy because you're used to being above women.
And I speak as a guy.
From: (Anonymous)
2007-05-18 10:47 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
"You won't read what someone has to say because it's on a bingo card? Sounds kind of self-riteous."
Floe, she put that disclaimer up after the people who disagreed with her stopped being nice and started trotting out rape and death threats. Up to that point, she was spiritedly debating. But if you wanna judge her, that's your perogative.
Right. And in all of the comics, MJ is doing laundry in a fucking thong. It clearly is meant to objectify women, not solely based on the provocative clothing, but in that she is doing fucking LAUNDRY in these clothes. Are you kidding me? How do you NOT see that this is an attempt to put women in their fucking place? Please tell me how washing clothes has anything to do with the comic itself.
And, no, you ignorant ass. She's not avoiding reading something because it's on a bingo card. The statements on the bingo card are put there because they are frequently used moronic arguments that are repeatedly made by people who later go on to make misogynistic remarks and so on. That's why she's not responding to them. She is telling people that if they want to use that same old shit again, they can fuck off, because it is tired. And as for freezing them? It's really tedious to have to read again and again the same goddamn threads with the same invalid "points" posed by a bunch of anti-women jackasses. Since you're part of the group of people who go around harassing feminists, it isn't easy for you to understand this concept. It's really obnoxious to make a post and have someone reply with some inane remark, followed by "Deal with it."
And as for being ANTI-FEMINIST because you like your body. Are you kidding me? Feminists encourage women to like their bodies. And, you know, if MJ were a real fucking person who willingly trotted around in that outfit, no feminist would say a damn thing. Do you even know what the fuck the definition of feminism is? If you do, then just come right out and say it: You are against equal rights among genders. Tada. Go on. It'll feel good to get it out.
Oh, and, haha, witty statement at the end. The best way to get feminists fired up is to joke about cooking. You really got us there.
| |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
floethegreat's journal
