INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Jesse on December 12, 2018, 10:31:03 PM
-
:MLA: :hitler:
Thoughts? After our current leader I think so. Somebody needs to snip some of the President's powers
Joe Arpaio comes to mind. The man was a criminal but was pardoned, :laugh:
Either way, this whole fiasco has me thinking yeah. I mean Executive orders, protections, proclamations, hell. He is in charge of the armed forces ffs.
One man or woman should not weild so much power.
-
Yes. He shouldn't be allowed to speak or tweet.
-
:laugh: :lol1:
-
I think they should be forced to submit to a mental evaluation before running. They do a physical and results are made public, mental is just as important if not more so...it's a high stress position, the public should know if they might not be up to the task or lack basic self control before they hand them the nuke codes.
I think taxes should be made public or subject to independent review no matter how "complicated" they may be.
...and don't get me started on the subject of nepotism... and the separation of church and state. Wall? Build one between the latter and keep the evangelists out of the oval office meetings.
-
I think they should be forced to submit to a mental evaluation before running.
Pfft...if the voters wanted sane, they'd elect it.
-
:MLA: :hitler:
Thoughts? After our current leader I think so. Somebody needs to snip some of the President's powers
Joe Arpaio comes to mind. The man was a criminal but was pardoned, :laugh:
Either way, this whole fiasco has me thinking yeah. I mean Executive orders, protections, proclamations, hell. He is in charge of the armed forces ffs.
One man or woman should not weild so much power.
No issue with Obama's pardons though, huh
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons
-
:MLA: :hitler:
Thoughts? After our current leader I think so. Somebody needs to snip some of the President's powers
Joe Arpaio comes to mind. The man was a criminal but was pardoned, :laugh:
Either way, this whole fiasco has me thinking yeah. I mean Executive orders, protections, proclamations, hell. He is in charge of the armed forces ffs.
One man or woman should not weild so much power.
No issue with Obama's pardons though, huh
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons
You can not challenge President Obama! Nothing he ever did was completely wrong.
/snarkasm
But, yeah, some of his pardons did fill in the gaps in his messages.
-
Honestly, I am just glad that they seem to have quit calling Trump "The Donald."
To me "The Donald" wears a sailor uniform, keeps his bill shiny and speaks with a richly defined quackcent.
-
If we give him enough power will he electrocute himself?
-
I think they should be forced to submit to a mental evaluation before running. They do a physical and results are made public, mental is just as important if not more so...it's a high stress position, the public should know if they might not be up to the task or lack basic self control before they hand them the nuke codes.
I think taxes should be made public or subject to independent review no matter how "complicated" they may be.
...and don't get me started on the subject of nepotism... and the separation of church and state. Wall? Build one between the latter and keep the evangelists out of the oval office meetings.
Agreed on all points Icequeen.
-
No issue with Obama's pardons though, huh
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons
Obama was a president so I have issues with any presidential pardon
Better luck next time?
-
I think they should be forced to submit to a mental evaluation before running.
Pfft...if the voters wanted sane, they'd elect it.
:laugh: :plus:
-
If we give him enough power will he electrocute himself?
Hahaha. :CanofWorms: :plus:
-
No issue with Obama's pardons though, huh
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons
MOST of O'Bombem's pardons were a partial attempt to correct a problem Congress just dealt with.
He (like all presidents) had politically motivated ones though.
(Nickle Bag Joe) Arpaio (trust me - I lived under his jurisdiction) should have been indicted on murder charges, as
well as other far uglier things. He was in league with the Atrocious General of the state in a scheme to
intimidate federal judges, among other things. This was just what they could easily prove on him.
The man cost his county a fortune in Civil lawsuits, due to his administration of inmates.
-
Honestly, I am just glad that they seem to have quit calling Trump "The Donald."
To me "The Donald" wears a sailor uniform, keeps his bill shiny and speaks with a richly defined quackcent.
Speaks better too. And would be more qualified to run this country.
-
He is supposedly taking a "mental health day" today.
I don't see it helping him much at all, but it will surely benefit the country IF he doesn't use the day to tweet.
-
He's taking WHAT?
-
He's taking WHAT?
Basically a tantrum.
He's been rage tweeting since I posted that.
Latest was "WITCH HUNT" in all caps. Wondering where his handlers are?
-
You would think that Canada would learn from watching the :poo: south of us and then Ontario goes and elects his mini me Doug Ford as Premier. He's the brother to the crack smoking mayor that used to run Toronto.
-
He's taking WHAT?
Basically a tantrum.
He's been rage tweeting since I posted that.
Latest was "WITCH HUNT" in all caps. Wondering where his handlers are?
He's fired them all.
-
You would think that Canada would learn from watching the :poo: south of us and then Ontario goes and elects his mini me Doug Ford as Premier. He's the brother to the crack smoking mayor that used to run Toronto.
OMG - I was not aware of this.
-
MOST of O'Bombem's pardons were a partial attempt to correct a problem Congress just dealt with.
What's that problem? Most appeared to be drug related.
-
You would think that Canada would learn from watching the :poo: south of us and then Ontario goes and elects his mini me Doug Ford as Premier. He's the brother to the crack smoking mayor that used to run Toronto.
OMG - I was not aware of this.
He's such an ass. He's cutting vital programs constantly (mostly aimed at people with disabilities) but he's super proud of his buck a beer program he started and the massive signs to put along the Ontario borders saying "open for business" meanwhile he can't hold on to companies like GM who are closing up their plants entirely and leaving. It's infuriating. And he's changing the list of qualifications for high level positions so he can hire personal family friends. ::)
-
Yes.
We need to restructure. Every community of 300 people max needs a community council. That council ought to send 2 folks to represent the interests of the neighborhood to their city council. The city council ought to send 2 folks to represent the interests of the city to the county. The county ought to send 2 to represent the county to the voting district. The voting district council then ought to vet the nominations for mayor and state congress members.
Then everyone ought to have their vote counted, and majority rule.
We shouldn't have a power-head. No president. Simply a congress. And there can be a cabinet that could represent the executive branch, but no singular head.
Nothing is cohesive in this country. With all our diversity, we need a better system. It wasn't designed for cohesion or for diverse interests- it was designed for competing factions to be sustained, and avoid tyranny of a "majority" among the interests of a far more homogeneous group of citizens.
At least, this is roughly what I imagine would work. Of course- I'm no expert, and I have not studied this very in depth. Its just my opinion/hypothesis.
-
MOST of O'Bombem's pardons were a partial attempt to correct a problem Congress just dealt with.
What's that problem? Most appeared to be drug related.
Yeah. Mandatory minimums on non-violent drug offenders.
Basically, the shit that Clinton caused.
Unlike most pardons, these were designed to address (slightly) a general problem,
rather than help out donors.
-
And he's changing the list of qualifications for high level positions so he can hire personal family friends. ::)
Aw...too bad it's too late for Rob.
-
I think they should be forced to submit to a mental evaluation before running. They do a physical and results are made public, mental is just as important if not more so...it's a high stress position, the public should know if they might not be up to the task or lack basic self control before they hand them the nuke codes.
I can't imagine a way to implement that that wouldn't not only be corruptible, but be literally immediately corrupted or at least subject to question.
-
And he's changing the list of qualifications for high level positions so he can hire personal family friends. ::)
Aw...too bad it's too late for Rob.
Apparently Rob left Doug in charge of his estate and guess whose widow isn't getting the money she's owed. It's a frickin circus. Everything in that family is drama and backdoor deals. The OPP have released a statement saying that due to Doug's hiring practices, the independence of the OPP from his office is now in question and he's putting pressure on them for favours.
-
I thought Canadians were nice. Just goes to show you can't trust a stereotyped idea.
-
We can be just as messed up as anyone else. But there definitely is overall a sense of kindness that a lot of Canadians have.
-
I thought Canadians were nice. Just goes to show you can't trust a stereotyped idea.
Yeah. The Rob Ford story shocked me when it came out.
Shouldn't Dudley Do Right have stopped him earlier or something?
-
That Toronto Mayor was Hilarious. You know hat's how I imagine most politicians are :laugh:
-
I thought Canadians were nice. Just goes to show you can't trust a stereotyped idea.
Yeah. The Rob Ford story shocked me when it came out.
Shouldn't Dudley Do Right have stopped him earlier or something?
Dudley Do Right was one of my favorite cartoon characters. I remember going with my Mom to see the movie. There were only 2 other people in the theatre. We laughed so loud, long and hard that both of them turned around and looked at us as if to say, "You find this funny??????????" Still one of my favorite comedies.
-
I thought Canadians were nice. Just goes to show you can't trust a stereotyped idea.
Yeah. The Rob Ford story shocked me when it came out.
Shouldn't Dudley Do Right have stopped him earlier or something?
Who? Trudeau? He's got no pull with who reps the Conservatives in the province. The last premiere, Kathleen Wynne, was one of his people and she pissed off so many people there was no coming back from that but why the heck the province thought that another Ford brother was a good idea, is mind boggling. Like didn't we learn ANYTHING from the debacle that was the crack smokin Rob? Or Trump? Dougie really likes the orange Cheeto in charge.
-
MOST of O'Bombem's pardons were a partial attempt to correct a problem Congress just dealt with.
What's that problem? Most appeared to be drug related.
Yeah. Mandatory minimums on non-violent drug offenders.
Basically, the shit that Clinton caused.
Unlike most pardons, these were designed to address (slightly) a general problem,
rather than help out donors.
Wasn't even aware of this bill. Do you think it will pass?
-
MOST of O'Bombem's pardons were a partial attempt to correct a problem Congress just dealt with.
What's that problem? Most appeared to be drug related.
Yeah. Mandatory minimums on non-violent drug offenders.
Basically, the shit that Clinton caused.
Unlike most pardons, these were designed to address (slightly) a general problem,
rather than help out donors.
Wasn't even aware of this bill. Do you think it will pass?
It's traditional to capitalize names, and obviously.
Oh...the one in Congress? I assume so.
-
No. Not only has the country been on autopilot for a long time, the president gets anything he tries to enforce repealed. He’s a puppet and is not very aware of it.
-
You're the puppet
-
You’re the hand up my back. :P
-
You'd like that too much
-
Make me a sammich.
-
I'll see what I can find in there for you
-
You don't wanna eat no sammich that 'ee's gone and dug up for you. You don't know where it's been dug up, or rather OUT, from.
Or rather, you've probably a pretty fair idea if you make an educated guess. And it's not anywhere you want to eat a sammich from.
As for the mayor smoking crack...LOL.
Although that said, so fucking what, just so long as he isn't using ANY public funds to do so, that he spends only his own money on it, and commits no acquisitive crime (by this, I mean, to obtain funds or goods to fence to procure funds or rock itself, not acquisition of the stone, which IMO isn't a real crime in the first place. Only crime is being caught and that oughtn't to be)
If he wants to do it with his own money, on his own time, then so be it, let him.
It's his behaviour otherwise that matters.
-
No, it wasn't just that he smoked crack. He was a drunken, racist, wife abusing prick who fucked up a lot of things.
-
Fair does then, he needs someone's foot up the chocolate starfish. Sideways. Up to the bellybutton of the deliverer's leg.
Sounds like a right royal sucker of cocks. Although they'd probably have crucified him if he was an all but literal halo-and-wings-and-holy-flaming-sword archangel, if all he'd done was smoked rock, and hell, done it once, they'd have strung him up. Not that I'm advocating smoking crack in general. But it doesn't automatically make you a lying skeezy cheating thieving scumbag whore on the street. I've tried it myself and I'm none of those things.
Well unless the filth are involved, to them, I could, would, and will lie to christ on the cross and keep a straight face. But generally, I'm a man of my word, when dealing with actual PEOPLE.
(no, I don't smoke it as a matter of course, I've just tried it a few times over the course of a lifetime, maybe 5-6 times tops, but probably more along the likes of 4 maybe 5 times. Definitely four at least, not sure about five. Can't say as I find it particularly special, and certainly wouldn't consider blowing out loads of money on it, even if I HAD shittons of money. And if I had shittons of crack, I'd just sell it instead, and keep back a few rocks for myself after selling 95% of it. I'd far prefer the money to the crack, thats for sure. I don't seem to recall ebay having an option saying 'pay for your lab supplies in crack cocaine' :P, a couple of eastern european contacts might take such an offer, not that I've asked them or am ever likely to, but ebay and most of my proper contacts wouldn't be too happy about being paid on stone haha.
Might be able to get through times of no crack by pawning glassware, but the reverse doesn't hold true, I shouldn't think. So no thanks :P I'm rather attached to my pretties....myyyyyyy pppreeeecciiiooouuuusss.....:tard:
Fucking DESPISE women abusers. Thats one of those relatively few things where my first instinct is to let my knuckles to all the talking.
-
Anyone follow the Cohen testimony?
-
Oh yes. Great entertainment. I especially loved the ineptness of the republicans, attacking him rather than asking actual questions.
-
Oh yes. Great entertainment. I especially loved the ineptness of the republicans, attacking him rather than asking actual questions.
Why would they ask HIM questions?
-
Anyone follow the Cohen testimony?
I did, nothing revealed IMO I didn't already suspect.
Do I believe him? Yes.
Do I feel sorry for him? No.
I feel bad for his kids and wife.
"When you dance with the devil..."
-
Oh yes. Great entertainment. I especially loved the ineptness of the republicans, attacking him rather than asking actual questions.
Why would they ask HIM questions?
Well...if they were interested in finding stuff out.
But you're right - their only interest is in trying to provide cover.
It's funny how republics collapse.
-
Oh yes. Great entertainment. I especially loved the ineptness of the republicans, attacking him rather than asking actual questions.
It's really embarrassing actually. :-[
-
Anyone follow the Cohen testimony?
I did, nothing revealed IMO I didn't already suspect.
Do I believe him? Yes.
Do I feel sorry for him? No.
I feel bad for his kids and wife.
"When you dance with the devil..."
I'm along the same lines- less sorry for the wife though, more sorry for the kids. Hopefully they have good support systems.
I do believe him though.
-
Oh yes. Great entertainment. I especially loved the ineptness of the republicans, attacking him rather than asking actual questions.
Why would they ask HIM questions?
If the president you helped get elected is suspected of having done multiple illegal things, I assumed that you'd want to learn what you can from the person who supposedly carried out some of these illegal things, if only to try to prove him wrong.
I would have thought this to be fairly obvious, Al. You'd make a terrible lawyer.
-
Anyone follow the Cohen testimony?
I did, nothing revealed IMO I didn't already suspect.
Do I believe him? Yes.
Do I feel sorry for him? No.
I feel bad for his kids and wife.
"When you dance with the devil..."
I'm along the same lines- less sorry for the wife though, more sorry for the kids. Hopefully they have good support systems.
I do believe him though.
I think what he says is plausible and most likely true, and entirely in line with what we know about the subject. Plus, the paperwork he brought with him is pretty damning evidence. If Trump isn't impeached soon, by some miracle, he will be charged the day he leaves office. He's going to wear an orange jumpsuit regardless.
-
He's going to wear an orange jumpsuit regardless.
It'll be the greatest jumpsuit anyone has ever worn. So Great. Massively important. Really really big news The Most.
-
Oh yes. Great entertainment. I especially loved the ineptness of the republicans, attacking him rather than asking actual questions.
Why would they ask HIM questions?
If the president you helped get elected is suspected of having done multiple illegal things, I assumed that you'd want to learn what you can from the person who supposedly carried out some of these illegal things, if only to try to prove him wrong.
I would have thought this to be fairly obvious, Al. You'd make a terrible lawyer.
Nah. It's the same as politics normally is. It is pretty rare for someone to break partisan lines,
even when a crime has been committed.
-
He's going to wear an orange jumpsuit regardless.
It'll be the greatest jumpsuit anyone has ever worn. So Great. Massively important. Really really big news The Most.
:lol1:
-
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-275e365d4e28c77a705fa79bf3e0b0ce-c)
Wearing a bright orange jumpsuit has the flattering effect of making Trump's skin look a lot less orange. Quite flattering.
-
Looks great on him, it's totally his style.
-
I get that you hate him, it's just that he annoys people. So I like him.
-
I don't hate him. I think he is dangerously unfit for the position. He's an utter moron, laughably incompetent, and ridiculously inept in pretty much every way I can bother to define, which is exactly why he is so dangerous.
-
I don't hate him. I think he is dangerously unfit for the position. He's an utter moron, laughably incompetent, and ridiculously inept in pretty much every way I can bother to define, which is exactly why he is so dangerous.
I read to the part where you said you think, then dismissed what came after it.
-
That's because reading is difficult for you.
-
It's OK, though. I'll not make fun of you. Reading disabilities are real.
-
That's because reading is difficult for you.
No, its simply that i doubt your ability to think.
-
59-41 vote against the wall in congress. Including 12 Republicans siding with the Democrats. Not quite the two-thirds majority they need to override Trump's fake emergency.
-
59-41 vote against the wall in congress. Including 12 Republicans siding with the Democrats. Not quite the two-thirds majority they need to override Trump's fake emergency.
But a very clear indication to most sentient beings that people are not buying his bs.
-
59-41 vote against the wall in congress. Including 12 Republicans siding with the Democrats. Not quite the two-thirds majority they need to override Trump's fake emergency.
But a very clear indication to most sentient beings that people are not buying his bs.
"People" generally? Or the Democrats and Republicans establishment in Congress?
-
Haha, when even the republicans have had enough of the orange moron, all of the sudden they're "the establishment". You're pathetic.
If you ignore the fan base for a moment (and that includes you, btw), yes, I do mean people generally. Sentient beings. Not that you'd know what it means.
-
Haha, when even the republicans have had enough of the orange moron, all of the sudden they're "the establishment". You're pathetic.
If you ignore the fan base for a moment (and that includes you, btw), yes, I do mean people generally. Sentient beings. Not that you'd know what it means.
You are the poster boy for Pathetic. Proclaiming me or anyone else pathetic is of no consequence.
They were not "suddenly" establishment. What an entirely stupid thing to say.
Until recently there was very little difference in the two parties governance. Jeb Bush was not likely to offer much in the way of difference to Hillary. The Democrats and the Republicans had a sameness about them and were it not for abortion and Second Amendment polarisation , there was little between them. The Republican party was forever apologising for accusations of them being the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobes they were always getting accused of by the Democrats and would back away from positions to be the bigger person and the Democrats would get their way through identity politics. Ultimately it was just a little theatre put on for the public as they all dined from the same swill bucket.
Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio all liked the status quo.
Along came Trump and threw cold water at that. Saying that the likes of Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney are establishment is hardly a shocking pronouncement.
Saying that the Congress mirrors the constituent's desires is hardly a truth claim.
-
Context is everything. You're trying to move the goalposts.
What a sad excuse of a human being you are.
-
Context is everything. You're trying to move the goalposts.
What a sad excuse of a human being you are.
You are the unwelcome and unknown squelch under one's boot.
An idiot would believe I was moving the goalpost.
-
Al, an idiot does what you do. But then, you wouldn't know because you are that idiot.
-
Al, an idiot does what you do. But then, you wouldn't know because you are that idiot.
Ah, but then I neither move the goalposts nor make claims that I do. You make such claims when no goalposts are moved. That makes you the idiot in this situation. Sucks to be you.
-
I thought Canadians were nice. Just goes to show you can't trust a stereotyped idea.
They're passive aggressive.
-
Al, an idiot does what you do. But then, you wouldn't know because you are that idiot.
Ah, but then I neither move the goalposts nor make claims that I do. You make such claims when no goalposts are moved. That makes you the idiot in this situation. Sucks to be you.
Like I said. You are that idiot.
-
Al, how is it that you know so much about American politics?
I'm genuinely curious. I've been slightly following Brexit and have an inkling of whats going on politically, but not really. Plus I am aware that my understanding of the culture is mostly nothing, and it fascinates me to learn about the different ways folks think in different situations. Added later: My understanding mostly comes from the news to be fair, and watching footage of parliament once in awhile. Mostly I get world perspective from talking to someone from the area, and picking their brain about different issues.... For instance, politics in India, from what I've heard, is really intense and dramatic. I can make comparisons on certain things, such as their equivalent of affirmative action for the dalit caste.
All that said, I can only imagine it would be difficult to gauge American political environs (among its people) without being here and feeling the frustration, such as loosing insurance, being a part of generation with ridiculous debt, trying to get a job that pays more than poverty wages, the situation with government being shut down as a strong-arm move, or dealing with school children who are increasingly out of control- partially related to the chaos in the government and the examples they see being set, and those examples which they imitate when they want to be brats. Not to mention having to hold back vomit when folks entertain the idea that climate change is not real, and having to be cognizant of the increasing gall of right wing nationalist groups. Not to mention the general depressive mood that many women have been experiencing due to politics. And then the international embarrassment. Making threats, pulling out of deals, saying stupid shit. And now testimony WITH evidence that confirms criminal behaviour.
Embarrassing.
At the same time there is incredible hope, but being in the middle of it all, I can say, the majority of people i know (across demographic and political lines) are either "WTF", or questioning everything, or stuck on Abortion as their one Issue. A minority are not questioning anything and they watch FOX news- which isn't even news in a literal sense. I only have one uncle who is gung ho on trump and he is actually loosing his mind. he's also gung ho on Jesus, in a Southern Baptist way.
At least this has been my experience. Even people who voted for Trump are not usually gung ho on him. Many of the more conservative folks I know really think that the government is screwed up, and dont trust politicians, but vote on issues that they think will benefit them.
-
Al, how is it that you know so much about American politics?
I'm genuinely curious. I've been slightly following Brexit and have an inkling of whats going on politically, but not really. Plus I am aware that my understanding of the culture is mostly nothing, and it fascinates me to learn about the different ways folks think in different situations. Added later: My understanding mostly comes from the news to be fair, and watching footage of parliament once in awhile. Mostly I get world perspective from talking to someone from the area, and picking their brain about different issues.... For instance, politics in India, from what I've heard, is really intense and dramatic. I can make comparisons on certain things, such as their equivalent of affirmative action for the dalit caste.
All that said, I can only imagine it would be difficult to gauge American political environs (among its people) without being here and feeling the frustration, such as loosing insurance, being a part of generation with ridiculous debt, trying to get a job that pays more than poverty wages, the situation with government being shut down as a strong-arm move, or dealing with school children who are increasingly out of control- partially related to the chaos in the government and the examples they see being set, and those examples which they imitate when they want to be brats. Not to mention having to hold back vomit when folks entertain the idea that climate change is not real, and having to be cognizant of the increasing gall of right wing nationalist groups. Not to mention the general depressive mood that many women have been experiencing due to politics. And then the international embarrassment. Making threats, pulling out of deals, saying stupid shit. And now testimony WITH evidence that confirms criminal behaviour.
Embarrassing.
At the same time there is incredible hope, but being in the middle of it all, I can say, the majority of people i know (across demographic and political lines) are either "WTF", or questioning everything, or stuck on Abortion as their one Issue. A minority are not questioning anything and they watch FOX news- which isn't even news in a literal sense. I only have one uncle who is gung ho on trump and he is actually loosing his mind. he's also gung ho on Jesus, in a Southern Baptist way.
At least this has been my experience. Even people who voted for Trump are not usually gung ho on him. Many of the more conservative folks I know really think that the government is screwed up, and dont trust politicians, but vote on issues that they think will benefit them.
"Culture is downstream from Politics"
Atheism Plus is the reason. Atheism Plus and everything after that. Since that time I have made every effort to look to the US particularly when it comes to the nightmare that is Progressivism. It is like the worst elements of Marxism, Feminism, Globalism, PC culture, Socialism and Authoritarianism all rolled into one poisonous ideology.
Liberals on the Left caved pretty quickly. They were supposed to be the tolerant and open-minded side and they did not want to get cast as the bigots and so they let Progressive in and usurp any voice and set the terms. They took over Academia, Media and Hollywood and they set the terms. Politics for the most part have kowtowed to the Progressive/Globalist agenda. A Marxist/Leftist ideology of course it found its home in the Left and the Democrat Party in US. But the Right was tied to it somewhat through the Globalist ideals. This meant the the Right establishment could be controlled by being painted whenever they disagreed with the Progressives by calling them bigots or the like in which case the Right would apologise and/or defend themselves and give up their positions and roll over, to be the "better" people.
Progressive was the fad. Everyone was on board from Obama to Merkel. Every country was the same as another and tied by various multi country agreements that favoured no one and killed off the uniqueness of the individual nations states. No one questioned and no one dared. Politics were established and uniform and marched in lockstep together ever towards the cultural cliff.
Australia too took its lead as they do from US mainly with UK as a secondary influence and Europe generally as a tertiary influence (and Asia as an afterthought). Every Western Country was towing the progressive/Globalist line, why not follow them? Then along came Trump. He was not like any other politicians before and a lot of the "worst elements of Marxism, Feminism, Globalism, PC culture, Socialism and Authoritarianism all rolled into one poisonous ideology" he was not down with.
So now I am interested and motivated to learning everything I can and being an advocate and supporter of the anti-Progressivism, Anti-Establishment, Anti-Globalist, Anti-Feminist, Anti-PC culture, Anti-outrage Culture and Anti-Marxism, Anti-Socialism, Anti-Authoritarianism. Yes, damn all that to Hell.
-
You speak as if ideologies were sentient aliens that could "invade" industries, like Hollywood. There are a lot of problems with Hollywood...I would say progressivism is among the least of their concerns.
Also, what do you have against feminism?
I was taught that feminism is the awareness of and commitment towards the fair, non-demeaning treatment of females and femmes in all areas of school, work, family, and politics. Basically, for the elevated dignity of women to the status of human beings. It wasn't until I began working that I realised the burgeoning necessity of feminism, and of being aware of discriminatory practices (this is based on what I saw happen with my coworkers). Now, people can take this concept of feminism and apply it in different ways, and I would say I dont necessarily agree with all feminists, but I agree with their freedom to question the status quo. In the same way I don't agree with all human rights activists, but I understand their desire to be treated with dignity.
That said, I would consider myself a feminist, and what does my feminism look like? I am very conscious when I am with children (any gender) to show and speak of female role models along with males. I am conscious at work to not underestimate the strength of my colleagues, and to avoid making comments/jokes about sex (female/male), and to not engage in the sorts of man-bro convos that can demean a whole gender. Now, am I known at work to be overly vocal or a police? Nope. I'm friends with most everyone and we are much like a family. Admittedly, many of us are aware of feminism, civil rights, and other diversity based issues and we tend to create a safe dignified environment for our team.
At any rate- feminism doesn't invade, neither does anything else. People turn to politics and ideologies as a way to help express something they are feeling, or that they agree with. My theory is that some people use hate as their base for a politic, and hate as a base for any politic automatically disqualifies it as viable for a general population, because hate in its core means that it will be dangerous to part of the population. I wouldn't trust a political argument that hated men, nor an argument that hated the rich. On the other end, one doesnt have to make love the base, although that usually is a more inclusive base for a politic...but some good bases are truth (paying attention to facts), dignity (striving for dignified treatment), diversity (putting a spotlight on improvements in inclusion), life (paying attention to conditions for health and good living).
Trumps politics are, at their core, about division and hatred. The statements he has made reflect this. The statements his "base" have been making reflect this. He is also about feeding his ego, which is a type of carelessness just as bad as hatred, when left unchecked. This is enough for me to be repulsed by his person, his party, and all those who shrug their shoulders at his carelessness-so long as they aren't the target.
He is simply not a leader, and should never have been put into the position to do something he does not know how to do, well or at all. That is my observation.
-
You speak as if ideologies were sentient aliens that could "invade" industries, like Hollywood. There are a lot of problems with Hollywood...I would say progressivism is among the least of their concerns.
Also, what do you have against feminism?
I was taught that feminism is the awareness of and commitment towards the fair, non-demeaning treatment of females and femmes in all areas of school, work, family, and politics. Basically, for the elevated dignity of women to the status of human beings. It wasn't until I began working that I realised the burgeoning necessity of feminism, and of being aware of discriminatory practices (this is based on what I saw happen with my coworkers). Now, people can take this concept of feminism and apply it in different ways, and I would say I dont necessarily agree with all feminists, but I agree with their freedom to question the status quo. In the same way I don't agree with all human rights activists, but I understand their desire to be treated with dignity.
That said, I would consider myself a feminist, and what does my feminism look like? I am very conscious when I am with children (any gender) to show and speak of female role models along with males. I am conscious at work to not underestimate the strength of my colleagues, and to avoid making comments/jokes about sex (female/male), and to not engage in the sorts of man-bro convos that can demean a whole gender. Now, am I known at work to be overly vocal or a police? Nope. I'm friends with most everyone and we are much like a family. Admittedly, many of us are aware of feminism, civil rights, and other diversity based issues and we tend to create a safe dignified environment for our team.
At any rate- feminism doesn't invade, neither does anything else. People turn to politics and ideologies as a way to help express something they are feeling, or that they agree with. My theory is that some people use hate as their base for a politic, and hate as a base for any politic automatically disqualifies it as viable for a general population, because hate in its core means that it will be dangerous to part of the population. I wouldn't trust a political argument that hated men, nor an argument that hated the rich. On the other end, one doesnt have to make love the base, although that usually is a more inclusive base for a politic...but some good bases are truth (paying attention to facts), dignity (striving for dignified treatment), diversity (putting a spotlight on improvements in inclusion), life (paying attention to conditions for health and good living).
Trumps politics are, at their core, about division and hatred. The statements he has made reflect this. The statements his "base" have been making reflect this. He is also about feeding his ego, which is a type of carelessness just as bad as hatred, when left unchecked. This is enough for me to be repulsed by his person, his party, and all those who shrug their shoulders at his carelessness-so long as they aren't the target.
He is simply not a leader, and should never have been put into the position to do something he does not know how to do, well or at all. That is my observation.
Make no mistake, i do not mistake Progressivism for sentient being. It would be so much easier to deal with a sentient being (it could be taken out back and shot). Nothing more powerful than an idea.
What i have against Feminism? It is at its heart a poisonous idea that in the righteous name of equality, rewrites history, demonises men, removes agency from women and does so with the backing of so many.
You know one thing really dishonest feminists have done that a lot of ignorant feminists believe? They believe that throughout history men collectively viewed women as valueless and kept rights from them to keep them down and hated women. That it was only through the efforts of Feminism that there was equal opportunity.
It is an illiterate reading of history but peopñe unquestioning believe it and act accordingly. Thus Patriarchy and Male Privilege become an original sin for men and women get to blame failure on men and a society that works against their interest and feel resentful towards men that apparently have and do conspire against women for some nefarious intent.
Except it was and always will be bullshit. Thank God i raised my daughter not to be Feminist. She has agency, pride, self-determinism and a help respect for men and women (except Feminists. She is not a fan of them - it was a necessary trade off)
Here is a weird concept i know but, treating people decently is not dependent on Feminism nor does it require it. There are always going to be people than demean, disrespect and bully. Just like there will always be rapists, murderers and thiefs.
People can be good or bad but being good or bad or making good or bad choices is no predtermined by the colour of someone's skin or the genitals they have. People ought not demean or bully people it really has nit a thing to do with whether they are female or not.
Progressivism is poisonous. It is absolutely inclusive and tolerant up to the point where you question or don't tow the line (like brett weinstein) then they will unperson, ban, deplatform, fire, censor or moderate yoy and smear you aa a bigot.i do not have any store in it at all.
As for Trump. I like his America for Americans, "Make America Great Again". He is looking after ALL of America's citizens. More power to him. Its his job. Very inclusive policy as his citizens are all the races, nationalities, race, creed and genders. His policies seek to look after them.
-
She has agency, pride, self-determinism and a help respect for men and women (except Feminists. She is not a fan of them - it was a necessary trade off)
That is one of the most ironic statements I have seen on I^2.
-
She has agency, pride, self-determinism and a help respect for men and women (except Feminists. She is not a fan of them - it was a necessary trade off)
That is one of the most ironic statements I have seen on I^2.
There is irony just not in the way you probsbly see it
-
You're probsbly right there.
I just thought there might have been a touch of irony in not needing stupid evil feminism because of.... all the cool stuff that feminism has given women. Your daughter sounds awesome Al, but I think you're both probsbly wrong about this one.
-
You're probsbly right there.
I just thought there might have been a touch of irony in not needing stupid evil feminism because of.... all the cool stuff that feminism has given women. Your daughter sounds awesome Al, but I think you're both probsbly wrong about this one.
Exactly my point. Not in the way you think of it.
Let's talk forces that allowed for a prosperous equal society.(In no particular order)
Vaccines
Pension
Superannuation
Better Birthing practices
Sanitary products for women
Welfare
Birth control
Which of the above things necessary for equality in society was Feminism responsible for and which was the result of modernity?
Why may men and women have been trapped into defined traditional gendered roles and not been in a position in society to NOT make men RESPONSIBLE for everything (and therefore have the "rights" to fulfill his OBLIGATIONS) whilst women were not responsible for anything outside of rearing babies and hoping that any given pregnancy did not kill them and that they could keep as many of their children alive as they could to look after them in old age?
Do you imagine that was because of Feminism or some of those things I listed above?
Did Feminism create opportunity and equality for my daughter OR did society evolve to a point where it was moving to a point where that was viable and then Feminism announced itself as the causal reason?
I will extend a little olive branch here. It is not that women's rights and Feminism had NO say in things. In the period from say 1900-1960 or better yet 1930-1960 a SHITLOAD of changes went down which changed the world forever. Now these changes were society affecting and were always going to open up opportunity in society. Would that mean that society within 30 or 40 years would go from mostly strict traditional roles to a less restrictive and equal rights and responsibilities across the board? Probably not. The changes of a millennium of society history will likely take longer to change. Probably no THAT long as it was heading to that space but a little longer maybe. Society would negotiate and adapt and feel out what to do with the new changes. Might take 50 or 60 years to adapt, unforced.
Feminism and women's right activists probably helped force this through a bit quicker. They were not the cause but they helped it through by organised political activism and sped the process up. Then promptly took all responsibility and pronounced themselves the cause of the success in equality.
Here is how I see it in an analogy.
Imagine a long baton relay race the runners have all played their part in pushing towards the finish line that was so very far away not that long ago. As they close in, a sprinter fresh and warmed up but not a part of the race, dresses in a team's outfit and runs stealthy up alongside the team he is dressed as, steals the baton as races across the finish line. The become a darling of the media and state how they won the race by themselves and held the baton from the start of the race. It does not get questioned. They played a part maybe but did not push it more than the end sprint. They were not responsible for the whole race nor did they run far and the person they snatched the baton from was still arriving just not quite as quickly as they.
-
Are you saying you're mad because "Feminism" sped up an inevitable process and then took credit for speeding it up?
I'm confused.
Why are you mad about this? You're mad because you don't think women's movements should take credit for the good work they did, because society was supposedly headed there anyways (even though there's no way to prove this now)?
-
Mad? I am not mad. I am answering your questions.
Feminism was founded on a pretty monumental lie. I can't think of a bigger one. On such foundations and poisoned ideology it developed its lies to better promote itself.
I mean we can easily reverse engineer my theory easily enough. I made a list of things modernity of society has bought. So if equality in society was as a result of Feminism like Feminists claim, it should be easy to show me a third world or developing society where access to birth control, hygiene products, vaccines, welfare, pension and superannuation do not exist or are limited only to the very well off and tell me how far Feminism has worked there. Not so well? I wonder why? Must be the men right?
But of course IF it was simply a case that Feminism was simply a case feminism being there as part of a process to sped up equal distribution of rights, i would say hat tip well done. But they did not. They lied.
Not only did they lie but in creating this saviour of society narrative they created this narrative of Patriarchy and Male Privilege. Both of which on their face are ridiculous. They also positioned themselves all too very neatly in the Quasi-Marxist Progressivism, and are a relatively high pegging on the oppressive Progressive Stack.
Of course Male Privilege and Patriarchy is a lie too, but it is worse than that. It is simply a club to beat men and a crutch to remove agency from women. If you view 50% of the population a systematically and intrinsically oppressed and the other 50% as victims, there is absolutely no good to come of this. Women will be excused and coddled and men demonised. It will be an original sin. A taint.
How the Hell does that leave society better? They won't stop there of course. In addition to all this, pay gap. The average that men and women earn in fulltime wages is different. Is this because of A) women and men in general choice to make different work and lifestyle choices or B) Patriarchy. Also is equality of opportunity the same as equality of outcome?
Feminism falls over the examination of these issues it purports to be activist for.
Feminism as squandered the very little benefit and capital the had decades ago. Society would have been better without it because what little benefits were conferred by the short dash have been decimated by its dishonesty, corruption of agenda, oppressive narratives and it tearing down both men and women
-
I went to a feminist picnic once. It was pretty awesome, except for the fact no one made sandwiches. :zoinks:
-
All social progress, including women's rights, have been achieved through hard-fought struggle. Often taking many decades. I can give you a bunch of examples, including feminism. Any counter-examples? Didn't think so.
Regressives tend to be a bit thick, and to see where we are today in terms of equal rights as a natural state of affairs that they would have agreed to all along. Which is, of course, nonsense, as people exactly like those regressives were the reason those struggles were so bloody difficult in the first place.
-
All social progress, including women's rights, have been achieved through hard-fought struggle. Often taking many decades. I can give you a bunch of examples, including feminism. Any counter-examples? Didn't think so.
Regressives tend to be a bit thick, and to see where we are today in terms of equal rights as a natural state of affairs that they would have agreed to all along. Which is, of course, nonsense, as people exactly like those regressives were the reason those struggles were so bloody difficult in the first place.
Any changes in society lead to adaption. That process often is not instantaneous but it not being instantaneous or confusion and/or initial resistance to change doesn't mean that change is not happening or going to happen. Hell, change for change sake is terrible and society needs to negotiate. It is the Liberal thing to do.
-
Ah, the penny is starting to drop. "Society needs to negotiate". Regressives resist change, progressives promote change, society meets somewhere in the middle. And then the middle becomes the new baseline for social progress, the line that the regressives think is far enough, and that the progressives think is not nearly far enough, and the negotiation for a compromise continues.
//edit: just to add, that is how it normally works. Certain regressive political leaders can turn the clock back decades.
-
Ah, the penny is starting to drop. "Society needs to negotiate". Regressives resist change, progressives promote change, society meets somewhere in the middle. And then the middle becomes the new baseline for social progress, the line that the regressives think is far enough, and that the progressives think is not nearly far enough, and the negotiation for a compromise continues.
//edit: just to add, that is how it normally works. Certain regressive political leaders can turn the clock back decades.
Cute.
Progressives with any power tend towards Authoritarianism.....and insanity.
Now the Progressives are progressive. They do not progress society in any reasonable way. The do attempt to change things certainly and all without negotiation or exporation. They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists". They embody and prach at the altar of Progressivism which is ever bad idea taken to ridiculous extremes and the perversion of every decent idea.
The problem was that in the past the Left was full of strong Liberal. Moderate critical thinking folks that wanted to introduce reasonable and rational ideas into society. Conservatives did not particularly like them because they prefer traditions and status quo. But Liberals could address reasoned positions and defend values allow the words and deeds to be shown as principled.
They were open to change and tolerant of difference and pretty accepting. The screeching crazy radicals were an insubstantial minority and seen as a joke.
Then the Progressives suddenly were not insubstantial and took over the Left and discourse. I have no idea what is even seen as "radical left"? What is disavowing radical leftism?
The Progressives do not allow negotiation and the Liberals cannot moderate them as THEY are in the minority and have to rely on their ideological counterparts of years gone, Conservatives to try to counter balance or moderate their extremism
-
The conservatives are now the liberals of old, the liberals are supine and the progressives are extremists.
-
The conservatives are now the liberals of old, the liberals are supine and the progressives are extremists.
Yes the Liberals, Libertarians and moderate right of Centres are evermore being push to embrace Conservativism.
I think it is absolutely true that Conservative are more reasoned and reasonable..............now.
But it won't be forever. In time Progressives will hopefully lose their power and the Conservatives will gain real power. Then what?
Conservatives won't be so reasonable and Liberal of old will build on the other side. I will back Liberals then
-
They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".
I'm sure I'll regret jumping in here, but can we can one thing straight?
Nobody wants to call themself a "Cultural Marxist"" because there's no such thing. So far as I can gather, it's just an alternative term of abuse for an SJW. We all know you hate SJW's , Al. Doesn't everybody ? But please stop palming them off on the political left. We don't want them any more than you do.
SJWs are just the modern equivalalent of the smug, self-righteous Victorian do-gooder. Except they're uglier and doing much less good.
Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition. Somebody who's absolutely fine with Capitalism, just so long as the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.
Wikipedia has a pretty good definition...
Marxism is a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation...
...According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit.
Now I surely don't expect you to agree with that philosophy Al. But do you honestly think that your average SJW would agree with it? :LOL:
-
They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".
Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition. Somebody who's absolutely fine with Capitalism, just so long as the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.
Yep.
Also......what is an SJW?
-
They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".
Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition. Somebody who's absolutely fine with Capitalism, just so long as the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.
Yep.
Also......what is an SJW?
SJW is one of those useful expressions that lets you know that whoever used it unironically, thinking it's a real thing, is drinking the right wing kool aid and not worth taking any notice of. (Obviously not including my fellow SJW Walkie in that assessment).
Nominally it means "social justice warrior". It is a sneer term.
-
They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".
I'm sure I'll regret jumping in here, but can we can one thing straight?
Nobody wants to call themself a "Cultural Marxist"" because there's no such thing. So far as I can gather, it's just an alternative term of abuse for an SJW. We all know you hate SJW's , Al. Doesn't everybody ? But please stop palming them off on the political left. We don't want them any more than you do.
SJWs are just the modern equivalalent of the smug, self-righteous Victorian do-gooder. Except they're uglier and doing much less good.
Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition. Somebody who's absolutely fine with Capitalism, just so long as the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.
Wikipedia has a pretty good definition...
Marxism is a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation...
...According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit.
Now I surely don't expect you to agree with that philosophy Al. But do you honestly think that your average SJW would agree with it? :LOL:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Cultural Marxism explained. It's a hoot.
Normally before one goes on a rant about cultural Marxism one should preface one's rant with "I know this is gonna sound crazy but....".
-
They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".
I'm sure I'll regret jumping in here, but can we can one thing straight?
Nobody wants to call themself a "Cultural Marxist"" because there's no such thing. So far as I can gather, it's just an alternative term of abuse for an SJW. We all know you hate SJW's , Al. Doesn't everybody ? But please stop palming them off on the political left. We don't want them any more than you do.
SJWs are just the modern equivalalent of the smug, self-righteous Victorian do-gooder. Except they're uglier and doing much less good.
Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition. Somebody who's absolutely fine with Capitalism, just so long as the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.
Wikipedia has a pretty good definition...
Marxism is a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation...
...According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit.
Now I surely don't expect you to agree with that philosophy Al. But do you honestly think that your average SJW would agree with it? :LOL:
It is the problem with soundbye definitions. What did Marxists think of Capitalism? What did they think of they people that benefited from Capitalism? What did they think of workers?
The virtous and noble struggling working class were oppressed by evil lazy oppressive business owners. The business owners were hording the means of production and keeping the working class in thrall. If you were a worker you were the noble victim. And if you were a business owner you were an immoral slaver.
Now from here you can associate all members of society into one of these positions the struggling artist for example would be noble. The aristocrat a lazy immoral degenerate benefiting on the misery of millions. Now you have divide a society AND promoted your want for workers to own the means of production.
But where else do we find a whole group of people painted as the victim and the other as the oppressor? Where the mere being in that group defines you as oppressed or oppressor irrespective of anything you have done or said or believe?
Feminism. To be an oppressor you have only to be a man. If you are a man you are necessarily part of the Patriarchy, and probably better just shut up and check your privilege. You did not think Feminism was simply the movement for men and women to be equal did you? Dammit mansplaining...
Progressive created the Progressive Stack and this drive their actions not the guise of help or progresive society or pretending they just want inclusivity and equality.
The Progressive Stack is Marxist divisiveness on steroids. How many ways CAN you (in the guise of wanting equality and inclusiveness) divide and polarise a society?
Now it is not at all to say that there should not be inclusiveness or equality or any of these kind of things but can we at least admit that the Progressivism movement that seeks to silence voice different to their own, call anyone who disagrees with them some kind of bigot and unperson them if they are able to, is interested only in equality of outcome not equality of opportunity, and all with a seeks to cast people as either oppressed or oppressors based only on broad collectivist assumptions nor specific to any one person but speaking generally on all based on a stupid ideology and dishonest narratives that underpin it?
-
It is the problem with soundbye definitions.
Yeah, there are a heckova lot of problems with soundbyte definititions. I dont think you've quite managed to nail one of them down yet though.
What did Marxists think of Capitalism?
The virtous and noble struggling working class were oppressed by evil lazy oppressive business owners. The business owners were hording the means of production and keeping the working class in thrall. If you were a worker you were the noble victim. And if you were a business owner you were an immoral slaver.
Er...you've heard of the Straw Man Fallacy, I'm sure. And you think it's OK to use low-down debating tactics, so long as you're in the right? Or do you honestly believe that twaddle and can't be arsed with referring to actual sources?
That sentimentalised, moralising narrative (in the quote abiove) bears about the same relationship to Marxism that "hating the sinner but loving the sin "bears to Christianity.
To extend that analogy, an actual Marxist (as opposed to the caricature Marxist who lives inside inside your head) would say that we're all in the thrall of Capitalism, in much the same way that the Material World is in the thrall of an evil god called Satan, according to Christian mythology). The difference betwen the Marxist and the Christan is that a Marxist frames the problem (and the solution) in materialistic, mechanistic terms , rather than quasi-spiritual terms .
Anyone who thinks that a better solution to the evils of this world is to name , shame and castigate the all-too-human so-called evildoers is neither Marxist, Christian , nor even altogether sane.
Now from here you can associate all members of society into one of these positions the struggling artist for example would be noble. The aristocrat a lazy immoral degenerate benefiting on the misery of millions. Now you have divide a society AND promoted your want for workers to own the means of production.
will you please stop fleshing out that cartoon figure in your head and arguing with him? He's not worth wasting your breath on.
But where else do we find a whole group of people painted as the victim and the other as the oppressor? Where the mere being in that group defines you as oppressed or oppressor irrespective of anything you have done or said or believe?
Feminism. To be an oppressor you have only to be a man. If you are a man you are necessarily part of the Patriarchy, and probably better just shut up and check your privilege. You did not think Feminism was simply the movement for men and women to be equal did you?
Nope. To admit a shameful truth to you, I used to be almost as pissed off with Feminism as you are, Al, because I judged it by it's loudest, brashest , stupidest so-called exponents, same as you. Besides which I smugly asssumed that men and women were equal already, and that anyone who thought otherwise was a brainless dinosaur. Besides which, my vapid, utterly self-centred, blonde-haired bimbo of a girfriend liked to call herself a Feminist, which didn't help. ( I was going though a bit of funny phase, and loved her precisely because she wasn't my type, not even my usual gender-preference, in case you wonder)
Then I was forced to read a teeny bit of Feminist psychology as part of a course i was doing, and it sounded remarkably intelligent and thought-provoking. And then I (entirely volutarily) read a whole book on Feninist Psychotherapy (by a man) and it blew my brains out, and forced me to reconstruct my ideas about Feminism from scratch ....
Well, well, well, we can all be stupid , even me. :LOL:
How many ways CAN you (in the guise of wanting equality and inclusiveness) divide and polarise a society?
Yep, that's a very pertinent question which I very often wonder about myself. It's truly scary. But I'm taking this out of context , I know. What youseem to be doing is mindlessly lampooning a bunch of crazed cultural figureheads , without ever seriously asking where they're really coming from , and who or what might be pulling their strings? which, to my way of thinking. would be to swallow the exact same bait that their disciples swallow, to no better effect.
The Progressive Stack is Marxist divisiveness on steroids.
Here we go. Just countering one brand of twaddle with a different brand of twaddle. Marxism is anything but divisive. So the moment you insert a phrase like ""Marxist divisiveness" into it, your argument serves no purpose whatsoever, except to reinforce a prejudice (in this case, against the political left)
Now it is not at all to say that there should not be inclusiveness or equality or any of these kind of things but can we at least admit that the Progressivism movement that seeks to silence voice different to their own, call anyone who disagrees with them some kind of bigot and unperson them if they are able to, is interested only in equality of outcome not equality of opportunity, and all with a seeks to cast people as either oppressed or oppressors based only on broad collectivist assumptions nor specific to any one person but speaking generally on all based on a stupid ideology and dishonest narratives that underpin it?
Um, yeah, this begins to sound like sort of genuine and reasonable argument at last. But I can't asess it, because, frankly, ins 5.48 am here in Britain, and you just did my brain in, Al.
-
Walkie, I know it looked very tiny and insignificant in between all those massive walls of text, but did you see the link that I provided to the rationalwiki page on Cultural Marxism? The TLDR version is that it doesn't exist, that it's a batshit crazy conspiracy theory. But I'm assuming that you already guessed that.
I've only ever known one full-blown Marxist in meatspace. If he is still alive he would be more than 100 years old now. He was very wealthy and also highly unethical when it came to financial dealings, and when called out on his financial dishonesty he would simply say that he was doing what you are supposed to do in a capitalist system (make as much money as you can). He had traveled around Soviet Russia with a KGB agent assigned to keep an eye on him (in case he was a double agent).
He told me stories about the days when Stalin was still alive, how the Sydney communists would get hold of the English transcripts of his speeches shortly after he gave them and then call a secret meeting where the speech would be read out. At the end of the speech they would give a standing ovation for 20 minutes or so, until someone rang a bell to signal them to stop.
Interesting character but dementia had started to set in by the time he wrote his book (you can look it up, "Looking Ahead" by David Rydstrand, and you can still buy it. I remember when he had it published, he only managed to sell 6 copies out of the 5,000 that he had printed. Those were the copies that he sold at full retail price to his own children, who wanted copies for his grandchildren).
Anyway, he was the most misogynistic prick I ever met. Despised any woman who wouldn't make him a cup of coffee without having to be asked. Thought women were unproductive workers and should be paid a lot less than they were. Used to say that beaten wives were evidence of how annoying women are. So when people try to draw connections between Marxism and feminism and other forms of social progressiveness, I find it quite amusing.
-
Not sure if I ever met an actual Marxist. Commies, sure, but Marxists, I don't think so.
-
Walkie, I know it looked very tiny and insignificant in between all those massive walls of text, but did you see the link that I provided to the rationalwiki page on Cultural Marxism? The TLDR version is that it doesn't exist, that it's a batshit crazy conspiracy theory. But I'm assuming that you already guessed that.
Yep, saw the link, pretty much guessed the content, and plussed you for the accompanying comment
Normally before one goes on a rant about cultural Marxism one should preface one's rant with "I know this is gonna sound crazy but....".
:LOL: Haven't read it yet, but intend to, next time i need a good laugh.
Found another funny web page I was gonna post back at ya, but when I hunted through my overloaded browser for it, seized instead on a supermarket page for ""Liberto Organic & Vegan Pate" which instantly humbled me, like it would :LOL:
-
Not sure if I ever met an actual Marxist. Commies, sure, but Marxists, I don't think so.
Wow. Well maybe there's not such a pressing need for Marxism in your neck of the woods. When you live in the post-industrial North and Midlands of England, the all-to-real consequences of social inequality are costantly in your face .
In my city , we have three competing Marxist parties ( at least one of which is actually thriving ) as well as one lone Communist who bravely sets up stall in the City Centre whenever the sun shines. I've inadvertently hung around Marxists all my adult life. I mean, I was staunchly attempting to completely ignore Politics, but most of the people to whom I've been naturally drawn (purely on grounds of intelligence, creativity, character etc ) turned out to be Marxist on closer inspection. No getting away from the buggers. :LOL:
And you never met a single one? wow!
-
It is the problem with soundbye definitions.
Yeah, there are a heckova lot of problems with soundbyte definititions. I dont think you've quite managed to nail one of them down yet though.
What did Marxists think of Capitalism?
The virtous and noble struggling working class were oppressed by evil lazy oppressive business owners. The business owners were hording the means of production and keeping the working class in thrall. If you were a worker you were the noble victim. And if you were a business owner you were an immoral slaver.
Er...you've heard of the Straw Man Fallacy, I'm sure. And you think it's OK to use low-down debating tactics, so long as you're in the right? Or do you honestly believe that twaddle and can't be arsed with referring to actual sources?
That sentimentalised, moralising narrative (in the quote abiove) bears about the same relationship to Marxism that "hating the sinner but loving the sin "bears to Christianity.
To extend that analogy, an actual Marxist (as opposed to the caricature Marxist who lives inside inside your head) would say that we're all in the thrall of Capitalism, in much the same way that the Material World is in the thrall of an evil god called Satan, according to Christian mythology). The difference betwen the Marxist and the Christan is that a Marxist frames the problem (and the solution) in materialistic, mechanistic terms , rather than quasi-spiritual terms .
Anyone who thinks that a better solution to the evils of this world is to name , shame and castigate the all-too-human so-called evildoers is neither Marxist, Christian , nor even altogether sane.
Now from here you can associate all members of society into one of these positions the struggling artist for example would be noble. The aristocrat a lazy immoral degenerate benefiting on the misery of millions. Now you have divide a society AND promoted your want for workers to own the means of production.
will you please stop fleshing out that cartoon figure in your head and arguing with him? He's not worth wasting your breath on.
But where else do we find a whole group of people painted as the victim and the other as the oppressor? Where the mere being in that group defines you as oppressed or oppressor irrespective of anything you have done or said or believe?
Feminism. To be an oppressor you have only to be a man. If you are a man you are necessarily part of the Patriarchy, and probably better just shut up and check your privilege. You did not think Feminism was simply the movement for men and women to be equal did you?
Nope. To admit a shameful truth to you, I used to be almost as pissed off with Feminism as you are, Al, because I judged it by it's loudest, brashest , stupidest so-called exponents, same as you. Besides which I smugly asssumed that men and women were equal already, and that anyone who thought otherwise was a brainless dinosaur. Besides which, my vapid, utterly self-centred, blonde-haired bimbo of a girfriend liked to call herself a Feminist, which didn't help. ( I was going though a bit of funny phase, and loved her precisely because she wasn't my type, not even my usual gender-preference, in case you wonder)
Then I was forced to read a teeny bit of Feminist psychology as part of a course i was doing, and it sounded remarkably intelligent and thought-provoking. And then I (entirely volutarily) read a whole book on Feninist Psychotherapy (by a man) and it blew my brains out, and forced me to reconstruct my ideas about Feminism from scratch ....
Well, well, well, we can all be stupid , even me. :LOL:
How many ways CAN you (in the guise of wanting equality and inclusiveness) divide and polarise a society?
Yep, that's a very pertinent question which I very often wonder about myself. It's truly scary. But I'm taking this out of context , I know. What youseem to be doing is mindlessly lampooning a bunch of crazed cultural figureheads , without ever seriously asking where they're really coming from , and who or what might be pulling their strings? which, to my way of thinking. would be to swallow the exact same bait that their disciples swallow, to no better effect.
The Progressive Stack is Marxist divisiveness on steroids.
Here we go. Just countering one brand of twaddle with a different brand of twaddle. Marxism is anything but divisive. So the moment you insert a phrase like ""Marxist divisiveness" into it, your argument serves no purpose whatsoever, except to reinforce a prejudice (in this case, against the political left)
Now it is not at all to say that there should not be inclusiveness or equality or any of these kind of things but can we at least admit that the Progressivism movement that seeks to silence voice different to their own, call anyone who disagrees with them some kind of bigot and unperson them if they are able to, is interested only in equality of outcome not equality of opportunity, and all with a seeks to cast people as either oppressed or oppressors based only on broad collectivist assumptions nor specific to any one person but speaking generally on all based on a stupid ideology and dishonest narratives that underpin it?
Um, yeah, this begins to sound like sort of genuine and reasonable argument at last. But I can't asess it, because, frankly, ins 5.48 am here in Britain, and you just did my brain in, Al.
No, "at last" about it, but your disagreeing does not bother me in the least. Perhaps trying to parse it out at dawn was not advised.
The reason why the last section makes sense is because of the context of the early arguments. If I convinced you that men COLLECTIVELY were oppressing you and trying to raise themselves up at your expense and that you were a victim of this gendered tyranny, do you think this would still fall under equality and inclusiveness and tolerance? Do you think you would easily accept the concept of Patriarchy? Privilege? Mansplaining, Manspreading, Bro-terruptions, Manslamming? Do you think that when faced with the reality that men and women on average earn a different year income? Would you readily endorse that as oppression without considering that not only do women choose (on average) lower paid work than men do on average and are less likely to do STEM degrees, specialised degrees, or work with a remote allowance, danger money or excessive overtime. IF they do this then on average they will get paid less BUT if you were convinced this was injustice due to male oppression and Patriarchy, right?
If you were thinking these things as a natural extension of this oppressor/oppressed polarised gender model, did this come out of.....Humanism which is about equality of everyone or egalitarianism with is about everyone being equal? Was it perhaps coming out of Feminism? Being that these concept are not only derived from Feminist ideology but is ingrained in Feminist theory and academia, it is hardly surprising that this motivates people to operate out of a righteous indignation of the oppressed. A male does not need to do anything to be "Part of the Patriarchy" or to be considered to have "privilege" or be "Oppressive". This is an original sin. A taint ascribed to him by virtue not of what he has said or done by because of his genital and/or chromosomes. Yet the people who will devalue if not demonise men thusly are often believing doing this is benefiting women and society. They believe this is in the name of equality and inclusiveness and tolerance. All whilst doing this shit.
So you will forgive me if I do not meekly submit to the whole Feminism is simply the want of equality of the genders bullshit and that the crazy Feminists are the only ones who submit to the crazed notions about Patriarchy et al. Soundbyte definitions are not worth shit.
The reason why we have the rape culture, pay gap, safe space, privilege, manspreading, hate speech, outrage culture bullshit is due to the Progressives. Only precisely NONE of that is Progressive nor inclusive nor equalising.
Have you looked at the Progressive Stack? Look at it not within the definition it claims of itself but with the polarisation of the Us vs Them, with each "competing group". View it with the oppressor/oppressed binary. Its a trainwreck.
In respect to the "only loud voices", what you mean the talking heads? The Academics, the Media, the Hollywood celebs, the Political powerhouses and every Feminist figure with a platform? If you do not mean these people but you know some perfectly nice people that call themselves Feminists....I do not much care. If you say that they live perfectly decent lives and do not espouse the kind insanity I described above, I again don't care. THEY do not change the world for the worse. They can call themselves whatever they like.
As to your comments about religion? I do not much care about religion either. If you wanted to make the point about ideology and zealots and such, yes, it is in religion too. Ideological conformity and Authoritarianism and the like does exist in religion and religious practice as does the concept of original sin and the righteous conviction and want of some to display to all their righteous purity.
I am actually not a fan of religion and wonder if that is a point you wanted me to agree to or not.
-
Wow. Well maybe there's not such a pressing need for Marxism in your neck of the woods. When you live in the post-industrial North and Midlands of England, the all-to-real consequences of social inequality are costantly in your face.
Shut up Ken Loach. Where I'm from in the North most of us are Tories. Labourites haven't got a cat in hell's chance of getting in. My MP is a Brexiteer. It'x a far cry from Benefit Street Labour only a few miles down the road. The people who vote Labour here are fucking the candidate and sending her a sympathy vote.
-
My MP is a Brexiteer.
Oh? which party? I only know of two parties that strongly supported Brexit. Those were The socialist Party (Marxist) and Farage's lot, UKip, of course. Both the Tory party and the Junior Tories (AKA Labour) were split down the middle by the issue, as everybody knows....In short, I get the very strong impression that I'm supposed to draw a conclusion from that info, but that just isn't realistic if you think about it.
Shut up Ken Loach
I imagine that's intended as a critique of his recent film "I, Daniel Blake" ? I suppose it's too much to hope that you actually troubled to watch it before forming an opinion?
The people who vote Labour here are fucking the candidate and sending her a sympathy vote.
Well . it's lucky for your MP (whoever s/he is) that he didn't have you campaigning on his behalf. I reckon you'd have lost him/her even the sympathy vote, with that attitude. Seriously, you've certainly lost mine already.
-
They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".
I'm sure I'll regret jumping in here, but can we can one thing straight?
Nobody wants to call themself a "Cultural Marxist"" because there's no such thing. So far as I can gather, it's just an alternative term of abuse for an SJW. We all know you hate SJW's , Al. Doesn't everybody ? But please stop palming them off on the political left. We don't want them any more than you do.
SJWs are just the modern equivalalent of the smug, self-righteous Victorian do-gooder. Except they're uglier and doing much less good.
Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition. Somebody who's absolutely fine with Capitalism, just so long as the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.
Wikipedia has a pretty good definition...
Marxism is a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation...
...According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit.
Now I surely don't expect you to agree with that philosophy Al. But do you honestly think that your average SJW would agree with it? :LOL:
It is the problem with soundbye definitions. What did Marxists think of Capitalism? What did they think of they people that benefited from Capitalism? What did they think of workers?
The virtous and noble struggling working class were oppressed by evil lazy oppressive business owners. The business owners were hording the means of production and keeping the working class in thrall. If you were a worker you were the noble victim. And if you were a business owner you were an immoral slaver.
Now from here you can associate all members of society into one of these positions the struggling artist for example would be noble. The aristocrat a lazy immoral degenerate benefiting on the misery of millions. Now you have divide a society AND promoted your want for workers to own the means of production.
But where else do we find a whole group of people painted as the victim and the other as the oppressor? Where the mere being in that group defines you as oppressed or oppressor irrespective of anything you have done or said or believe?
Feminism. To be an oppressor you have only to be a man. If you are a man you are necessarily part of the Patriarchy, and probably better just shut up and check your privilege. You did not think Feminism was simply the movement for men and women to be equal did you? Dammit mansplaining...
Progressive created the Progressive Stack and this drive their actions not the guise of help or progresive society or pretending they just want inclusivity and equality.
The Progressive Stack is Marxist divisiveness on steroids. How many ways CAN you (in the guise of wanting equality and inclusiveness) divide and polarise a society?
Now it is not at all to say that there should not be inclusiveness or equality or any of these kind of things but can we at least admit that the Progressivism movement that seeks to silence voice different to their own, call anyone who disagrees with them some kind of bigot and unperson them if they are able to, is interested only in equality of outcome not equality of opportunity, and all with a seeks to cast people as either oppressed or oppressors based only on broad collectivist assumptions nor specific to any one person but speaking generally on all based on a stupid ideology and dishonest narratives that underpin it?
Al, I really think you give these movements more power than what they really encompass. The more people involved in a movement the less "secret motives" they can get away with. Isn't it possible that people, in a wave of change, can just agree on things, and then use their purchasing power and voting power to support their beliefs? If you call that progressivism or feminism with sinister and secret motives, I think that is inaccurate. Its the same way as viewing any other movements or paradigm shifts. Like when some mass shooter goes crazy- are all the mass shooters conspiring? Are all the mass shooters Nazi-obsessed who play video games to shoot Jews? Or are they all incels with a deep seated hatred against women? Are they are mentally ill and taking medications? No. Some believe they are related, or faked, or all part of some vendetta against guns. But they are real people, with real fucked up ideas, and even more fucked up actions.... So in the same way, a person who calls themself a liberal or a conservative are not conspiring to infiltrate this country's media or with some hidden agenda to oppress men. That's just plain inaccurate.
Also I disagree that to be an oppressor according to feminism you have to be a man. Society, if you look back in history, WAS lopsided with regards to the rights a man or woman had, to choose, and be many things. The same structure oppressed men who crossed gender lines as well. And that whole society was held up by both men and women seeking to fit in. That is until minorities began to push back and demand the freedom to do so. American society was structured not in the favor of crossing gender lines, and certainly not in women's favour. we can agree on this because of historical facts and laws. Well overtime the "legalised" right to oppress women was dismantled, along with the rights to oppress people of colour (civil rights). Culturally things were and are slower to change. Culturally there has to be a consensus about the value of each other's lives, and pursuit of happiness. But at least legally we can keep things equal.
So we have two kinds of movements really...the one that pushes against legalised/state sanctioned oppression of folks based on some naturally occurring characteristic (could be gender, disability, race, etc), and then the other movement to support actions and ideas to move us to a place where there is more acceptance and understanding about the differences and diversity of people. Both are crucial for a peaceful society (a peaceful society being a safe society for as many as possible). And you can have asshats in any place (thats pretty much how humanity works), but I can guarantee that the asshats are not representative of everyone. And even asshats can change their ways when its demonstrated that theres a better way.
-
SG, extremely well put. Thanks for that.
That's the kind of post that makes it worthwhile being a member here.
-
Yep, knew I was gonna regret jumping into this thread :LOL:
Al, why the heck did you quote my whole post in full , if you only really wanted to refer to precisely five words of the thing? And then you had to re-quote them didn't you, ( misquoting three :LOL:) cos they were lost in the wall of text . I'm sure nobody wanted to read the whole argument over again. and even if they did, they only needed to scroll up a little way . Is there something wrong with your "delete"" button?
The reason why the last section makes sense ...
after reading further, I've changed my mind about it making sense. . I admit, I wasn't reading it that closely, and -for whatever reason- failed to grasp that it was just another diatribe against Feminism.
....is because of the context of the early arguments. If I convinced you that men COLLECTIVELY were oppressing you and trying to raise themselves up at your expense and that you were a victim of this gendered tyranny, do you think this would still fall under equality and inclusiveness and tolerance? Do you think you would easily accept the concept of Patriarchy? Privilege? Mansplaining, Manspreading, Bro-terruptions, Manslamming? Do you think that when faced with the reality that men and women on average earn a different year income? Would you readily endorse that as oppression without considering that not only do women choose (on average) lower paid work than men do on average and are less likely to do STEM degrees, specialised degrees, or work with a remote allowance, danger money or excessive overtime. IF they do this then on average they will get paid less BUT if you were convinced this was injustice due to male oppression and Patriarchy, right?
If you were thinking these things as a natural extension of this oppressor/oppressed polarised gender model, did this come out of.....Humanism which is about equality of everyone or egalitarianism with is about everyone being equal? Was it perhaps coming out of Feminism? Being that these concept are not only derived from Feminist ideology but is ingrained in Feminist theory and academia, it is hardly surprising that this motivates people to operate out of a righteous indignation of the oppressed. A male does not need to do anything to be "Part of the Patriarchy" or to be considered to have "privilege" or be "Oppressive". This is an original sin. A taint ascribed to him by virtue not of what he has said or done by because of his genital and/or chromosomes. Yet the people who will devalue if not demonise men thusly are often believing doing this is benefiting women and society. They believe this is in the name of equality and inclusiveness and tolerance. All whilst doing this shit.
These ""I"'s and "" yous" are pretty damned confusing here, Al. Took me several readings to suss that it's not supposed to bear any relation to what I think (up until which point , i felt really offended) nor even is it about what you think , but rather what "they" think , in your view.
I've already told you what i think of those who think that moralising and demonising one another is in any sense progressive.
Anyone who thinks that a better solution to the evils of this world is to name , shame and castigate the all-too-human so-called evildoers is neither Marxist, Christian , nor even altogether sane.
which observation is meant to include all such idiots , not just the two named varieties, as I (mistakenly) thought would be obvious. I specified Christianity rather than Feminism because the case for the moraliser/ demonisers being poor representatives of whatever philosophy they claim to represent is more debatable in the case of Feminism... especially when talking to yourself :LOL: Before tackling that , i wanted to make it very clear that I'm not in agreement with any such people, nevermind what they call themselves;
Heck, If I judged all belief systems by their loudest , most morally righteous re[resentatives, then I would have to become a Nihilist. And I gathered (maybe wrongly) that these are the people that you're really taking to task, when you slam into Feminism.
So you will forgive me if I do not meekly submit to the whole Feminism is simply the want of equality of the genders bullshit and that the crazy Feminists are the only ones who submit to the crazed notions about Patriarchy et al. Soundbyte definitions are not worth shit.
I don't expect you you meelky submit to anything , Al. I'll be more than happy if you can manage to grasp other people's POV, then have an open-minded discussion about it, But the moment someone says a word like Patriarchy, you see red and project all sorts of shit at them, then attack that same shit.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Patriarchy:
Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage
Such social systems certainly do exist, and there's a neutral sort of definition for you. Acknowledging their existence doesn't make someone a rabid feminist (nor a rabid anything at all, just a realist) , nor does speculating to what extent it influence people's psyches when they grow up in that kind of culture. But hey! I just recalled a thread where you blew up at everybody else, just because we were trying to discuss that.
Specifical;ly, you wouldn't have it that rape might have anything to do with cultural influences (such as Patriarchy, obviously ) it had to be committed by inherently evil people. End of.
The reason why we have the rape culture, pay gap, safe space, privilege, manspreading, hate speech, outrage culture bullshit is due to the Progressives. Only precisely NONE of that is Progressive nor inclusive nor equalising.
Ah yeah. here we go again. Can't have a rape culture. Well, let's re-phrase that : we can have a rape culture, unfortunately, but we can't have a word for it. because AL believes that very phrase is prejudicial and inherently demonises men. But then you had a go at the rest of us for making excuses for rapists , as you saw it. So ...were we demonising those men, or were we being too kind to them? which? and why should anyone care? becvause i think it's all-too-clear that your emotion gets the better of your brain on that subject.
As for the pay-gap, well, that too actually exists, for all sorts of reasons that might or might not have anything to do with prejudice against women. . I'm sure you'd argue it has nothing to do with prejudice, nor with gender stereotyping. But if you want to write that phrase out of the dictionary , then tough , you can't take part in attempting to explain it away can you?
I really don't llike it when people want to write words out of the dictionary just because those words act like red rags to them ; just because those words can be used in some ugly prejudicial way, if some ugly prejudiced person uses them. I don't like it when Feminists take that attitude, and guess what? i don't like it when you do either, Al. I see no reason on earth to make a special exception for you.
In respect to the "only loud voices", what you mean the....?
Thats a near-total misquote, but nvm, I meant the sort of so-called feminist who snaps "check your privilege "at any man who ventures an opinion. Ugh. But if you're tarring all feminsts sts with the same brush , then I guess that makes you no better. Some feminists are prjudiced against all men and some men are prjudiced all feminists. So it goes. Everybody's prejudiced in one way or another. It's the people who get self-righteous with it who really get up my nose.
As to your comments about religion? I do not much care about religion either. If you wanted to make the point about ideology and zealots and such, yes, it is in religion too. Ideological conformity and Authoritarianism and the like does exist in religion and religious practice as does the concept of original sin and the righteous conviction and want of some to display to all their righteous purity.
I am actually not a fan of religion and wonder if that is a point you wanted me to agree to or not.
No, you missed the point entirely , even given three guesses. My thinking ran thus: Al doesn''t know jack shit about Marxism , but he surely knows a bit about Christianity, so if I draw a parallel here, then he'll more easily grasp what Im trying to say. Epic fail on my part, evidently.
My point was that holier-than-thou moralising isn't worth shit, and does nothing to whatsoever to reduce the evil in the world . never mind what phiosophy you purport to follow: Feminist, Marxist, Christianity, Conservative , whatever. Marxism isn't about Holier-than-thou moralising, it's about looking at the bigger picture. As is Christianity, though not all so-called Christians see it that way , do they? And same goes for Feminism, to the best of my knowlege, come to that. So judging Marxism on the basis of the ravings of holier-than-thou Feminists is doubly unfair to Marxism was what i was getting at there.
Pick any -ism yopu like, then you always get the divisive holier-than-thous making the loudest noise about it ,and totally misrepresenting it (in most cases). That's a basic law of human nature.
It would be nice if you agreed with my POV above, but I'll settle for you understanding it. F ailing that, I'll settle for getting the hell out of this thread. cos it's getting to be too much like hard work already :LOL:
-
Also I disagree that to be an oppressor according to feminism you have to be a man. Society, if you look back in history, WAS lopsided with regards to the rights a man or woman had, to choose, and be many things. The same structure oppressed men who crossed gender lines as well. And that whole society was held up by both men and women seeking to fit in. That is until minorities began to push back and demand the freedom to do so. American society was structured not in the favor of crossing gender lines, and certainly not in women's favour. we can agree on this because of historical facts and laws. Well overtime the "legalised" right to oppress women was dismantled, along with the rights to oppress people of colour (civil rights). Culturally things were and are slower to change. Culturally there has to be a consensus about the value of each other's lives, and pursuit of happiness. But at least legally we can keep things equal.
Phew! somebody who's read the same sort of Feminist books that Ive read :hug: :plus:'
And who's brave enough to attempt to explain all that to Al .
I agree with MSOW, that was a really good post (I mean, all-in-all. not just the bit I quoted)
-
I’ve not read those books on feminism that Walkie and SG must have read, nor any books on feminism at all in reality. The idea of women being equal to men and of there being structures within society (nowadays mostly cultural in the places where most of us live - correct me if I'm wrong please) preventing that has always been pretty darn obvious to me. The idea that, after thousands of years of stark inequality, that we would change a few laws and all of the associated cultural baggage would just magically disappear, always seemed patently ridiculous to me.
Every now and then I encounter an expression like “rape culture” or “toxic masculinity” and I make a genuine effort to find out what it’s about from all points of view, and form a balanced opinion based on what I learn, combined with my own experiences and knowledge. I could always just go to some MRA website and form my opinion based on what they tell me to think, but I hope I'm not that kind of idiot.
And, like most people these days, I used to naively buy into the idea of the toxic, man-hating, nasty, extreme feminists who were trying to take feminism to places that it never needed to go. But, rather than creating some kind of a caricature of these people in my own mind, based on what their detractors say about them…. when I heard someone described as an extreme man-hating feminazi I made an effort to seek out what they were saying in their own words. Usually by tracking down articles they had written. And so far… I’ve found the criticisms to be largely based on cherry picked and misrepresented and out-of-context words. And I've learned a lot in the process. And made a few mental notes along the lines of “I’m going to have to buy at least one of her books” (which I tend not to follow up on).
Okay, that’s my virtue signaling quota for today. We should start up some topics on specific feminism talking points at least once a week, just to keep things interesting around here. I'm sure we can turn Al into a progressive feminist with a bit of gentle encouragement.
-
I'm sure we can turn Al into a progressive feminist with a bit of gentle encouragement.
:LMAO:
-
Not sure if I ever met an actual Marxist. Commies, sure, but Marxists, I don't think so.
Wow. Well maybe there's not such a pressing need for Marxism in your neck of the woods. When you live in the post-industrial North and Midlands of England, the all-to-real consequences of social inequality are costantly in your face .
In my city , we have three competing Marxist parties ( at least one of which is actually thriving ) as well as one lone Communist who bravely sets up stall in the City Centre whenever the sun shines. I've inadvertently hung around Marxists all my adult life. I mean, I was staunchly attempting to completely ignore Politics, but most of the people to whom I've been naturally drawn (purely on grounds of intelligence, creativity, character etc ) turned out to be Marxist on closer inspection. No getting away from the buggers. :LOL:
And you never met a single one? wow!
I've met several who *claimed to be* Marxists. Every single one was actually a Communist. There is a difference.
-
I'm sure we can turn Al into a progressive feminist with a bit of gentle encouragement.
:LMAO:
MOSW owes me a keyboard now. There's coffee all over it.
-
Oh? which party? I only know of two parties that strongly supported Brexit. Those were The socialist Party (Marxist) and Farage's lot, UKip, of course.
My MP is a Tory Brexiteer. I was UKIP. I never joined the Brexit Party. The far-right and two of the NI unionist parties supported Brexit, as well as the continuing Liberal Party.
In short, I get the very strong impression that I'm supposed to draw a conclusion from that info, but that just isn't realistic if you think about it.
I live in the sunlit uplands of a glorious Tory stronghold, with beautiful countryside only a stone's throw away. The city can keep their crime.
It's true about the candidate. Dirty people, Labour.
I imagine that's intended as a critique of his recent film "I, Daniel Blake" ? I suppose it's too much to hope that you actually troubled to watch it before forming an opinion?
I've seen his stuff before. When you actually drill down into the story, you end up having not a lot of sympathy. Blake was having sex with her. In Ladybird Ladybird she was hanging around with deadbeats and not looking after her kids. It's Tory hate with Ken Loach. It'd be alright if he had a point.
-
Al, I really think you give these movements more power than what they really encompass. The more people involved in a movement the less "secret motives" they can get away with. Isn't it possible that people, in a wave of change, can just agree on things, and then use their purchasing power and voting power to support their beliefs? If you call that progressivism or feminism with sinister and secret motives, I think that is inaccurate. Its the same way as viewing any other movements or paradigm shifts. Like when some mass shooter goes crazy- are all the mass shooters conspiring? Are all the mass shooters Nazi-obsessed who play video games to shoot Jews? Or are they all incels with a deep seated hatred against women? Are they are mentally ill and taking medications? No. Some believe they are related, or faked, or all part of some vendetta against guns. But they are real people, with real fucked up ideas, and even more fucked up actions.... So in the same way, a person who calls themself a liberal or a conservative are not conspiring to infiltrate this country's media or with some hidden agenda to oppress men. That's just plain inaccurate.
Also I disagree that to be an oppressor according to feminism you have to be a man. Society, if you look back in history, WAS lopsided with regards to the rights a man or woman had, to choose, and be many things. The same structure oppressed men who crossed gender lines as well. And that whole society was held up by both men and women seeking to fit in. That is until minorities began to push back and demand the freedom to do so. American society was structured not in the favor of crossing gender lines, and certainly not in women's favour. we can agree on this because of historical facts and laws. Well overtime the "legalised" right to oppress women was dismantled, along with the rights to oppress people of colour (civil rights). Culturally things were and are slower to change. Culturally there has to be a consensus about the value of each other's lives, and pursuit of happiness. But at least legally we can keep things equal.
So we have two kinds of movements really...the one that pushes against legalised/state sanctioned oppression of folks based on some naturally occurring characteristic (could be gender, disability, race, etc), and then the other movement to support actions and ideas to move us to a place where there is more acceptance and understanding about the differences and diversity of people. Both are crucial for a peaceful society (a peaceful society being a safe society for as many as possible). And you can have asshats in any place (thats pretty much how humanity works), but I can guarantee that the asshats are not representative of everyone. And even asshats can change their ways when its demonstrated that theres a better way.
NO. SG, I really think you let these history revisionists give you a very ideological skewed view of history.
"we can agree on this because of historical facts and laws. Well overtime the "legalised" right to oppress women was dismantled"
That is your take and your interpretation of history but sure as fuck is not mine. So NO we can't agree just because you say we can. Perhaps best to at least try to not assume you know what anyone else is thinking.
Why did men have more rights and women less. I will give you two choices:
1) because men were legalising themselves to oppress women because that was a thing men collectively liked doing.
2) Lack of modernity and all it entailed mean BOTH men and women were STUCK in really restrictive roles BECAUSE that was the only viable option for them and to ensure the survival of the species, AND in these roles men were trapped as the breadwinner with most of their time spent at work trying to earn money and killing themselves trying to earn the money to support their very dependent and ever growing family and the women were trapped at home having more and more kids and dependent on their husbands to stay away from home working themselves to death and missing out on their kids that they never got any peace from, AND only ONE of these two people HAD earnings and the ability to pay and contract and be responsible for the rest of the people in that family and THAT was NOT the Wife or kids. If the wife earned what the husband gave her as allowance or whatever, who was responsible for taxes, rates, damages, or any other obligation? Wife who is not earning or husband. Who NEEDS rights to extinguish responsibilities. If HE has the responsibilities WHO needs the rights?
See a lot is said about rights and very little about obligations. A lot is said about how hard it was on women and very little about how hard it was on men. Like men were on some fucking holiday retreat with the wives as slaves. Why is it cast with such emphasis?
Truth is that it was a giant shit sandwich and has really fuck all with how much men wanted to be women or women wanted to be men. It was that things were shit all around. Imagine the relationship you would have with your family as a Father. Every time your wife is pregnant there is the fear she will die and you will lose the love of your life as so many other wives die in childbirth and the kid is likely as not to die in childbirth or soon after from various diseases. An extra mouth to feed means more hours or more laborious or remote job or more hours. Even if you could prevent having kids, and you can't, there is always the fact that who is going to look after you when you are busted up and worn out and too old to work any more? Who was going to look after your wife and any of the little ones left that may be too young to work or marry? That is on the off-chance that you live that long and are not killed in work and your wife does not die in labour. Hardly a holiday.
What if you are a woman? From late teens - early twenties, get married and start having child after child. Nursing, pregnant, recovering from childbirth (hopefully) and so on, which trying to look after your hardly every increasing brood at home with the pay your hardly at home husband brings in and trying to ensure as many of the kids as can survive through childhood illnesses and accidents. Because if they can survive, when your husband is dead or incapacitated, one or more of your children will take you in and look after you. Hardly a lady of leisure.
ANY of this sounds like one party oppressing the other or did it kind of sound like two people both trying to just get on best they can? So no, I do not accept your understanding and it does not reflect mine.
Why do Feminist texts NOT display the male female power roles and as above? I think we all know the reason and it has NOTHING to do with Feminists ALL just wanting men and women to be equal? Right? More about pushing divisive oppressor/oppressed narratives?
Yep, knew I was gonna regret jumping into this thread :LOL:
Al, why the heck did you quote my whole post in full , if you only really wanted to refer to precisely five words of the thing? And then you had to re-quote them didn't you, ( misquoting three :LOL:) cos they were lost in the wall of text . I'm sure nobody wanted to read the whole argument over again. and even if they did, they only needed to scroll up a little way . Is there something wrong with your "delete"" button?
The reason why the last section makes sense ...
after reading further, I've changed my mind about it making sense. . I admit, I wasn't reading it that closely, and -for whatever reason- failed to grasp that it was just another diatribe against Feminism.
....is because of the context of the early arguments. If I convinced you that men COLLECTIVELY were oppressing you and trying to raise themselves up at your expense and that you were a victim of this gendered tyranny, do you think this would still fall under equality and inclusiveness and tolerance? Do you think you would easily accept the concept of Patriarchy? Privilege? Mansplaining, Manspreading, Bro-terruptions, Manslamming? Do you think that when faced with the reality that men and women on average earn a different year income? Would you readily endorse that as oppression without considering that not only do women choose (on average) lower paid work than men do on average and are less likely to do STEM degrees, specialised degrees, or work with a remote allowance, danger money or excessive overtime. IF they do this then on average they will get paid less BUT if you were convinced this was injustice due to male oppression and Patriarchy, right?
If you were thinking these things as a natural extension of this oppressor/oppressed polarised gender model, did this come out of.....Humanism which is about equality of everyone or egalitarianism with is about everyone being equal? Was it perhaps coming out of Feminism? Being that these concept are not only derived from Feminist ideology but is ingrained in Feminist theory and academia, it is hardly surprising that this motivates people to operate out of a righteous indignation of the oppressed. A male does not need to do anything to be "Part of the Patriarchy" or to be considered to have "privilege" or be "Oppressive". This is an original sin. A taint ascribed to him by virtue not of what he has said or done by because of his genital and/or chromosomes. Yet the people who will devalue if not demonise men thusly are often believing doing this is benefiting women and society. They believe this is in the name of equality and inclusiveness and tolerance. All whilst doing this shit.
These ""I"'s and "" yous" are pretty damned confusing here, Al. Took me several readings to suss that it's not supposed to bear any relation to what I think (up until which point , i felt really offended) nor even is it about what you think , but rather what "they" think , in your view.
I've already told you what i think of those who think that moralising and demonising one another is in any sense progressive.
Anyone who thinks that a better solution to the evils of this world is to name , shame and castigate the all-too-human so-called evildoers is neither Marxist, Christian , nor even altogether sane.
which observation is meant to include all such idiots , not just the two named varieties, as I (mistakenly) thought would be obvious. I specified Christianity rather than Feminism because the case for the moraliser/ demonisers being poor representatives of whatever philosophy they claim to represent is more debatable in the case of Feminism... especially when talking to yourself :LOL: Before tackling that , i wanted to make it very clear that I'm not in agreement with any such people, nevermind what they call themselves;
Heck, If I judged all belief systems by their loudest , most morally righteous re[resentatives, then I would have to become a Nihilist. And I gathered (maybe wrongly) that these are the people that you're really taking to task, when you slam into Feminism.
So you will forgive me if I do not meekly submit to the whole Feminism is simply the want of equality of the genders bullshit and that the crazy Feminists are the only ones who submit to the crazed notions about Patriarchy et al. Soundbyte definitions are not worth shit.
I don't expect you you meelky submit to anything , Al. I'll be more than happy if you can manage to grasp other people's POV, then have an open-minded discussion about it, But the moment someone says a word like Patriarchy, you see red and project all sorts of shit at them, then attack that same shit.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Patriarchy:
Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage
Such social systems certainly do exist, and there's a neutral sort of definition for you. Acknowledging their existence doesn't make someone a rabid feminist (nor a rabid anything at all, just a realist) , nor does speculating to what extent it influence people's psyches when they grow up in that kind of culture. But hey! I just recalled a thread where you blew up at everybody else, just because we were trying to discuss that.
Specifical;ly, you wouldn't have it that rape might have anything to do with cultural influences (such as Patriarchy, obviously ) it had to be committed by inherently evil people. End of.
The reason why we have the rape culture, pay gap, safe space, privilege, manspreading, hate speech, outrage culture bullshit is due to the Progressives. Only precisely NONE of that is Progressive nor inclusive nor equalising.
Ah yeah. here we go again. Can't have a rape culture. Well, let's re-phrase that : we can have a rape culture, unfortunately, but we can't have a word for it. because AL believes that very phrase is prejudicial and inherently demonises men. But then you had a go at the rest of us for making excuses for rapists , as you saw it. So ...were we demonising those men, or were we being too kind to them? which? and why should anyone care? becvause i think it's all-too-clear that your emotion gets the better of your brain on that subject.
As for the pay-gap, well, that too actually exists, for all sorts of reasons that might or might not have anything to do with prejudice against women. . I'm sure you'd argue it has nothing to do with prejudice, nor with gender stereotyping. But if you want to write that phrase out of the dictionary , then tough , you can't take part in attempting to explain it away can you?
I really don't llike it when people want to write words out of the dictionary just because those words act like red rags to them ; just because those words can be used in some ugly prejudicial way, if some ugly prejudiced person uses them. I don't like it when Feminists take that attitude, and guess what? i don't like it when you do either, Al. I see no reason on earth to make a special exception for you.
In respect to the "only loud voices", what you mean the....?
Thats a near-total misquote, but nvm, I meant the sort of so-called feminist who snaps "check your privilege "at any man who ventures an opinion. Ugh. But if you're tarring all feminsts sts with the same brush , then I guess that makes you no better. Some feminists are prjudiced against all men and some men are prjudiced all feminists. So it goes. Everybody's prejudiced in one way or another. It's the people who get self-righteous with it who really get up my nose.
As to your comments about religion? I do not much care about religion either. If you wanted to make the point about ideology and zealots and such, yes, it is in religion too. Ideological conformity and Authoritarianism and the like does exist in religion and religious practice as does the concept of original sin and the righteous conviction and want of some to display to all their righteous purity.
I am actually not a fan of religion and wonder if that is a point you wanted me to agree to or not.
No, you missed the point entirely , even given three guesses. My thinking ran thus: Al doesn''t know jack shit about Marxism , but he surely knows a bit about Christianity, so if I draw a parallel here, then he'll more easily grasp what Im trying to say. Epic fail on my part, evidently.
My point was that holier-than-thou moralising isn't worth shit, and does nothing to whatsoever to reduce the evil in the world . never mind what phiosophy you purport to follow: Feminist, Marxist, Christianity, Conservative , whatever. Marxism isn't about Holier-than-thou moralising, it's about looking at the bigger picture. As is Christianity, though not all so-called Christians see it that way , do they? And same goes for Feminism, to the best of my knowlege, come to that. So judging Marxism on the basis of the ravings of holier-than-thou Feminists is doubly unfair to Marxism was what i was getting at there.
Pick any -ism yopu like, then you always get the divisive holier-than-thous making the loudest noise about it ,and totally misrepresenting it (in most cases). That's a basic law of human nature.
It would be nice if you agreed with my POV above, but I'll settle for you understanding it. F ailing that, I'll settle for getting the hell out of this thread. cos it's getting to be too much like hard work already :LOL:
"Is there something wrong with your "delete"" button? " Fucking stupid question isn't it Walkie? Don't bother. Yes it was and it was no less disingenuous than any of the rest that followed.
Lot of strawmanning and I don't know an expectation that you have that I may own your thoughts of what I think about things I don't actually think of for reasons that I am not invested in. A Wikipedia definition? Hilarious, because Wikipedia always gets it right *cough* Gamergate *cough* and after insulting me, strawmanning me, making a few ridiculous assertions in an attempt to try to make some vague point you get to an indignant flounce.
Yeah Walkie, Good luck with that. Ridiculous effort.
-
Fuck Al, I've only got 56 Gb for the month on my mobile plan. Every time I flick past one of your posts there's another Gb up in smoke.
Quite the historian aren't we? Both the choices you presented to SG to explain the historical second-class status of women were ludicrous. Maybe Walkie or SG can recommend some good feminist books that will get you more in touch with your feminine side?
-
Sorry MOSW...this is a long one too... :zoinks:
Al, I think women having the right to divorce their husbands, to not be counted as property of their husbands, to take part in party politics, to vote, to take control of their own reproduction, to get into institutions of higher learning and work as professionals in high paying positions... those are things which women could be deprived of and had no legal protections against their discrimination. dismantling those in the justice system has been happening. For example, women can now vote....and they don't even need their husband's (or father's) permission.
So yeah, historically, and legally, things have changed. I don't see how we can disagree on those salient points. You don't even need to read a book to check those facts, but I'm sure there are very good ones out there. And yes, the oppressive attitudes towards women affect men as well, for men too were&are often expected to fill a role regardless whether or not they can, or want to. Its a societal structure that hurts both because it doesn't accept and utilise the talents and gifts of everyone, only because of some assumption about characteristics...
In relationships there should be no expectations such as "you are wife so you should....you are husband so you should...". Instead the couple ought to be mature, and free, enough to decide among themselves what roles and obligations each will fill. And the children, who now have rights, ought to be able to live a life that prepares them for the roles THEY choose or develop within themselves. Depriving children of education, nutrition, and rest are all things that could be legally done in the past, but nowadays cannot. It affected boys, and also affected girls who could be deprived of education and learning skills that would have advanced them past the sentence of sitting wife.
Anyways, are people in general mature enough to build relationships where division of labour and roles are thoughtfully agreed upon? Or are people usually impulsive, and tend to default to established stereotypes and schemas? I don't know if many people think very deeply... there hasn't been a culture of deep thinking, of meditation and reflection. Most people when they encounter another person, particularly one who is different, default to stereotypes as their basis of a relationship. you can see the problems with this...particularly if the person forming the assumptions is in a position of power.
very seldom is a person reflective enough to default to a higher foundation for building relationships: that of a human being. When they meet another person they might be aware of stereotypes, but the idea of a human being must be stronger in order to build a good foundation with the other person. Its easier to see certain people as full human beings than others given our exposure to some versus others (and the type of exposure), and that is the cultural fallacy we have to combat. Esp as people who are different or stigmatised. We have to be seen, and then we have to have a spotlight shone upon our humanity. That is what moves people to push back against stereotypes.
you see, when we meet another person we automatically need to form ideas about whether the person is a threat, whether they are related, whether they are in a position of power, whether we can trust them, etc. To make these snap decisions, most of us use what we know from stereotypes, media portrayals, stories we've heard, etc. Then we feel confident enough to approach them from that standpoint, which can be harmful if the standpoint is implicitly biased. This bias will affect how people feel about the persons emotions, anger, work, progress, and any other number of things. it can create reactions that are unfairly harsh, or dismissive.
To combat this bias, movements can do two things: they can either change the portrayals and stereotypes using media exposure and other types of exposure (But this way doesn't change our thinking, it just changes our information). Or they can seek to change the grounds upon which we meet and judge people (by seeking deeper consideration for what it means to be human, and how to recognise and elevate the humanity of each other). Being aware of stereotypes is important, but having a grasp of seeing the humanity and individuality of each person is maybe more important. it takes practice and work so its harder......but once grasped, it is incredibly liberating.
-
No SG
Most of what you are doing is exactly what an ideology like Feminism would have you do because an ideology is designed to view everything through that filter. That is what you are doing.
When you say "And yes, the oppressive attitudes towards women affect men as well, for men too were&are often expected to fill a role regardless whether or not they can, or want to. Its a societal structure that hurts both because it doesn't accept and utilise the talents and gifts of everyone, only because of some assumption about characteristics"
Well yes BUT not only is this view in slightly the wrong context BUT it is secondary to the main thrust of your argument which is essentially "Women were possessions of men throughout history until Feminism came along and change that and Feminism fought for civil rights and so how can you not love this?"
Well.....mainly because it is wet soggy bullshit. It is that filter you view it through. I know you may find this hard to believe but Feminist books are likely to frame things to support Feminist ideas.
So women were men's property until Feminism came along? My Grandfather owned my Grandmother. His Father owned his mother? Yes or no? Okay, let's visit that BIG assumption. I want you to be honest. You want to buy cattle? Where would you have gone to buy cattle? How many could you buy? What restrictions where on you to buy them? What if you wanted to buy a house? Same questions. What if you wanted to buy a motor car? What if you wanted to buy another wife to add to the collection? Same question. What? But aren't they just "property"?
Okay new set of questions. You have a piece of art and you do not like it anymore. You decide you want to break it. Are you allowed to completely break it into pieces? What about your house? You decide you want to knock it down and build a new one. Are you allow to do that? You have decided you hate your car. Are you allow to take a sledgehammer to it? You do not like one of your cattle. You decide to "put it down". Are you allowed to do that. Grandpa does not like Grandma. IS he allowed as her "owner" to destroy and dismember her? She IS his possession and property right?
No SG, do not say that she is his property but a different class of property or that the examples are unfair. The comparison to women being a man's property were ALWAYS bullshit and NEVER stood up to even cursory examination. YES I DO know this came out of a reference to women being chattel of a man and yes I know the Feminist spin was to take this on without examination to what context it was used in or for.
I have already addressed how it was used. Financially responsible for. If a wife of a man went into a store and convinced a shopkeeper that she would buy the dress to take now and her husband would pay, the husband was on the hook for that cash. If she caused damage, he would be up for that too, in contracting or financial obligation was not on her, it was on him. The same way our children whilst not being our property, we are responsible for. If little Johnny sets the school on fire or little Jill break her little friend's teeth, Little Johnny and Little Jill's parents are going to have to face lawsuits and financial punishment. In times gone by the husband was solely on the financial brunt of that. THAT is how it was used.
"But why would they use that specific term to describe women"? Don't know and I don't fucking care. Maybe the people who were wrote that could not think of a particular word or did not want to parse out what they meant, maybe they were un-PC, maybe they did not like their wife and were thinking of them when they wrote it, maybe they were dyed in the wool misogynists?
Don't care.
What I DO care about is the fucking lie I am indicating above being used with all the other dishonest narratives to fuel an ideology to demonise men and boys and remove agency from women and girls, in righteous moralisation, all whilst purporting being for equality and inclusivity and tolerance.
Its bullshit.
Worse still Feminists are pretending that their station somehow ties them to the ACTUAL slavery and plight of Black people sent to the Americans. "Yes we were essentially slaves too and good on you fighting the oppressor comrade" Load of bullshit.
Again, harking back to the earlier point of yours.
"And yes, the oppressive attitudes towards women affect men as well, for men too were&are often expected to fill a role regardless whether or not they can, or want to. Its a societal structure that hurts both because it doesn't accept and utilise the talents and gifts of everyone, only because of some assumption about characteristics"
This is the point but even as you bring it to light you conclude wrongly.
In no particular order:
Birth control
Better childbirthing practice to reduce both infant morality and mothers dying in labour
Vaccines to the worse diseases in society
Sanitary pads, tampons, and other hygiene items.
Social security - Welfare and Pensions.
Better health care
Better sanitation
Better work safety
Now remove them and what do you have? If you are struggling, look to a second world country or third world country. Whilst any individualised desire to break social conformity may be nestled in your heart, you are shit out of luck and it is not your fault NOR is it some Patriarchal conspiracy. It is simply that the society needs to modernise BEFORE this can happen. Pretty much all of these things need to happen. No use better birth control if diseases are rife and the chance of your children dying young and not being able to look after you in old age is high, you necessarily need to have a lot of kids. No use just getting better sanitation because there are still no vaccines and diseases are still passed on quickly and ruthlesly in the young and the sick and the old. So again stow that but I want to dream of not being that which society tells me, because you had better hope that charity and goodwill will look after you when you get old cannot work or otherwise support yourself and there are no adult children to look after you in your old age.
Society worked not because it was its best form but because based on what it had this was the optimal way of progressing at that time. Rights were afforded to those that need them to execute their societal obligations and responsibilities. Neither gender was being ill-treated even though things were hard on each person and everyone was trapped in the rigid roles of society.
If ALL these things changed (and they did in a really short period of time - think from 1900-2019 or better 1930's-1960's for HUGE changes) in ALL of those above points what happens to society? Is it NOW moving into an era where society does not need to be as rigid?
1. Your kids have a reasonable expectation to live into adulthood so there is a better chance that load of expense can be split over more children
2. But you do not need to have as many children because now they do not need to take that burden.
3. Because you do not need to have as big of a family, you do not need to have as many kids and you can now moderate how many you have
4. Better still because your wife is no longer at risk of dying every year of yet another childbirth and does not have to dedicate her time trying to ensure all of her brood will survive through to adult hood AND she now has tampons and the like, the ability to access the workforce is really opened.
NOW ALL of that going on and society is now READY for big changes. Without it...not so much, but now it is.
Left up to its own resources things will start to gradually filter down. There will be fear and resistance and negotiation, and gradually the changes will be made, incrementally.
But what happens when you add Feminism into the mix? A well organised activist movement pushing for the very changes that your society is now primed to slowly make? They get made a little quicker. Them pushing for something that becomes the status quo mean they were the cause as they claim? No. That they set the stage for equality and equal rights for women? No. That equal rights exist ONLY because of Feminism and would not without them? No.
Feminism of old had A place in the changing of society to where we are now but it was FAR from causal. Feminism of new is a fucking joke. Feminist ideology that it has manufactured for itself is fucking disgraceful and those that worship at its altar are doing themselves no favours. They help propagate the Feminist lies and misrepresentations.
-
I've met several who *claimed to be* Marxists. Every single one was actually a Communist. There is a difference.
I know there's a difference; or rather several alternative differences depending on which definitions you buy. And, ofc, it's entirely possible to be both Communist and Marxist :apondering: ...theoretically speaking.
So I'm intrigued to know exactly where you're coming from here? if you don't mind expanding on that? (not trying to grill you, nor debate the point; just intrigued, like i said)
-
"From our earliest preserved records in the Old Kingdom on, the formal legal status of Egyptian women - whether unmarried, married, divorced or widowed - was nearly identical with that of Egyptian men," observes professor of Egyptology Janet Johnson, whose special interests include ancient Egyptian women.
Under the protective gaze of the goddess Isis, who signified the throne of Egypt, women were entitled to work, own property, go to court, bear witness, serve on a jury and much more.
In their private lives, they had the right to choose their partner freely, to marry out of love, to spell out detailed prenuptial agreements to protect them and their children, and to divorce for any reason they wished.
(https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/egyptian-roots-feminism-170128132954736.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/egyptian-roots-feminism-170128132954736.html))
And if you don't like the source, Al, there are plenty of others that will tell you the same
-
"From our earliest preserved records in the Old Kingdom on, the formal legal status of Egyptian women - whether unmarried, married, divorced or widowed - was nearly identical with that of Egyptian men," observes professor of Egyptology Janet Johnson, whose special interests include ancient Egyptian women.
Under the protective gaze of the goddess Isis, who signified the throne of Egypt, women were entitled to work, own property, go to court, bear witness, serve on a jury and much more.
In their private lives, they had the right to choose their partner freely, to marry out of love, to spell out detailed prenuptial agreements to protect them and their children, and to divorce for any reason they wished.
(https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/egyptian-roots-feminism-170128132954736.html (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/egyptian-roots-feminism-170128132954736.html))
And if you don't like the source, Al, there are plenty of others that will tell you the same
By all means and to prove that Al is just being silly with his description and as a way to completely disprove me, you will no doubt point out every fucking third world country in which men and women are trapped in traditional roles and show me how much the great "cause of equality" (Feminism) has fared in changing their society (without resorting to how upper middle class women there may fare with it) over the last 50 years. Right? Oh...no?
No I get it, this was just a "gotcha" and ridiculous one. Wasn't it Walkie?
I mean I know personally Egypt is number one on my list when it comes to equality of the sexes. Yours too? Oh it is not the bastion of equality now but it was then? Oh Okay. How long did this last? Not sure? Okay? I spelled out why society was trapped in gender roles in every other society and you in return say what about Ancient Egypt. You do not want to examine the things that I listed were holding society back and see when they were addressed and coincide these reforms, inventions and developments and what effect they would have had being introduce into a society that they never pre-existed in before? No? You do not want to go to the labour of connecting the dots and seeing if anything I said does not stand up to scrutiny? You prefer to imagine that men and women lived in a slave/master relationship throughout history until Feminism and them abracadabra equality? Your proof is Ancient Egypt?
Just be very clear because on the face of it it looks lie a very fucking silly premise. Want to try again, Walkie or perhaps just tease out what you think you have because it sure as fuck does not counter what I have said in any meaningful way.
-
Thanks Walkie. Good use of a historical example to show that gender inequality was a legal and societal construct for most of history, rather than some kind of necessity that was superseded by modernity with no help from feminism.
-
Thanks Walkie. Good use of a historical example to show that gender inequality was a legal and societal construct for most of history, rather than some kind of necessity that was superseded by modernity with no help from feminism.
Except that only an idiot thinks that an exception is a rule. You think that though don't you MOSW.
So what do you know about this exception? What were the difference that existed in Ancient Egypt that were different to any other society. Why were their societies seemingly a lot less restrictive? Any idea? None at all? Your go to is "that gender inequality was a legal and societal construct for most of history, rather than some kind of necessity that was superseded by modernity with no help from feminism."?
That is some pretty stupid insight. I would like to think it is an act.
-
It still is in a lot of crap countries.
-
That example (from Ancient Egypt) could support any number of alternative narratives, Al. The point that particular writer was trying to make, is that Feminism is not a foreign (western) import into his country, but rather represents an older, Egyptian tradition which has, conversely, exerted a positive influence over the profoundly patriarchal West (via the relatively modern British obsession with Egyptology)
I do find his point of view intersting and refreshingly different ( and recommend reading the full article) but, no thank you, I don’t want to join a bunch of dots, jump to conclusions, impose my own narrative on History, then play ideological wargames over it. I just wanted to throw something in that doesn’t sit easily with your simplistic narrative, then see what you do with it.
As for those loaded questions you’re firing at me: well, you can trust me to just carry on absorbing different perspectives and expanding my model of the Universe accordingly. I like doing that, can formulate relevant questions all by myself (believe it or not) and don‘t need prompting from you in that respect.
-
That example (from Ancient Egypt) could support any number of alternative narratives, Al. The point that particular writer was trying to make, is that Feminism is not a foreign (western) import into his country, but rather represents an older, Egyptian tradition which has, conversely, exerted a positive influence over the profoundly patriarchal West (via the relatively modern British obsession with Egyptology)
I do find his point of view intersting and refreshingly different ( and recommend reading the full article) but, no thank you, I don’t want to join a bunch of dots, jump to conclusions, impose my own narrative on History, then play ideological wargames over it. I just wanted to throw something in that doesn’t sit easily with your simplistic narrative, then see what you do with it.
As for those loaded questions you’re firing at me: well, you can trust me to just carry on absorbing different perspectives and expanding my model of the Universe accordingly. I like doing that, can formulate relevant questions all by myself (believe it or not) and don‘t need prompting from you in that respect.
I should be doing something with it? How is this ancient Egypt, Feminist? What you described is not Feminist.
The first thing i note is that the Egyptian experiment of unrestricting an ancient culture has not carried on to its modern counter part. Why not?
When did these rights change and for how long and what was the effect on society?
Was there any counter forces to counter the dilemmas of disease, lack of social security for older people and such? What was it?
Was the interpretations correct in the first instance?
If you answer these questions then i actually have something to do something with. Otherwise at best you are giving me a failed experiment and touting it an alternative model and at worst a lie, all whilst calling my reasoning around why in every other culture the way to raise a society to equality is to remove the impediments that shackle it, through modernity, simplistic.
The answer to this is not to show me an obscure society but rather show me what i said was wrong or why this traditional roles has been the one adopted throughout history and throughout the world with communities with no relationship with each other? Not a giant male oppressive conspiracy but rather the most effective way to survive.
-
I've met several who *claimed to be* Marxists. Every single one was actually a Communist. There is a difference.
I know there's a difference; or rather several alternative differences depending on which definitions you buy. And, ofc, it's entirely possible to be both Communist and Marxist :apondering: ...theoretically speaking.
So I'm intrigued to know exactly where you're coming from here? if you don't mind expanding on that? (not trying to grill you, nor debate the point; just intrigued, like i said)
These people would either follow the Soviet version of Communism, Stalin and post-Stalin, or the Mao version for that matter, all while thinking that was Marxism, really. Most were members of what used to be the Swedish Communist Party or a small local Communist party frequented by the local cultural elite, sometimes with an unhealthy dose of Syndicalism thrown in. They were quite common in local art circles around here in the 70s and 80s, and some are still around even though now that the Swedish Communist Party changed to a more PC name and did away with mentioning the revolution in their charter.
Of course, none of these things are compatible with Marxism, and certainly not Marx's philosophy beyond his contributions to the Communist Manifesto.
-
Oh, and just to clarify, Communism in its various incarnations was fairly big around Gothenburg a few decades ago, with a very clear focus on the Soviet Union version. They were regarded by the authorities as borderline revolutionary and were probably all spied on.
We also used to have Sweden's largest collective of Syndicalists. I had a friend who attended many of their demos back in the day.
-
Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you you go into a bit more detail please?
-
Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you you go into a bit more detail please?
It would not help you.
-
Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you you go into a bit more detail please?
:lol1:
-
Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you you go into a bit more detail please?
seeing as this is a spazz board after all, i feel obliged to point out that if Al didn't get the irony, it's because he's autistic, and not because he's an idiot.
Some of need this---> [irony] inserted at the end of the comment to prevent us from taking it literally. Gotta confess, even i still need that sometimes (and as a kid, i needed it all the time, not that anyone supplied it)
That said, it was fricking funny :lol1:
-
It's entirely possible to be both a spazz and an idiot.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
This is interesting in terms of debating techniques on display in this thread.
Repeating a series of loaded questions over and over is a mixture of JAQing off and argumentum ad nauseam.
If the implication is that the March towards gender equality is a function of modernity rather than the outcome of the struggle of feminism, then historically one would expect that all societies and cultures would be subject to the same pressures. And yet, historically, we see a small number of societies where actual gender equality was the norm. One conclusion that could be drawn from this is that a woman's rights relative to a man are a function of society and culture.
If improved equality for women is largely a result of feminism, then in modern cultures you would see more equality where feminism has been able to work for that equality. Places like a the UK, Europe, the US, Australia, NZ. And less equality in places where feminism hasn't really caught on, like Saudi Arabia. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I have a feeling that the response to this will be long, angry, and will make not a lot of sense.
-
I should be doing something with it? How is this ancient Egypt, Feminist? What you described is not Feminist.
The first thing i note is that the Egyptian experiment of unrestricting an ancient culture has not carried on to its modern counter part. Why not?
When did these rights change and for how long and what was the effect on society?
Was there any counter forces to counter the dilemmas of disease, lack of social security for older people and such? What was it?
Was the interpretations correct in the first instance?
If you answer these questions then i actually have something to do something with. Otherwise at best you are giving me a failed experiment and touting it an alternative model and at worst a lie, all whilst calling my reasoning around why in every other culture the way to raise a society to equality is to remove the impediments that shackle it, through modernity, simplistic.
The answer to this is not to show me an obscure society but rather show me what i said was wrong or why this traditional roles has been the one adopted throughout history and throughout the world with communities with no relationship with each other? Not a giant male oppressive conspiracy but rather the most effective way to survive.
Ah, I thought you were questions were largely rhetorical; and i''m still not convinced that they were not intended rhetorically, because, if you had any interst in the actual answers, then you would have surely read the whole of that rather short article which I'd quoted, for a start. And then you would have known better than to apply the term "failed experiment" to a society that was stable for milennia. Amongst other things. And then you might have hit Google for most of the rest. Why not? Because you've already made up your mind how things work, and you're not open to reconsidering your social theories, just in playing ideological wargames with them. Or so it very much seems to me. And like i already said, I'd rather not. I'd rather use my time more constructively.
Your posts on this subject (including your questions and not to mentiion other subjects) are riddled with false assumptions. I don't have time to correct all those false assumptions, trawling the internet for supporting evidence from authorities that you're -hopefully- likely to both understand and respect, only to be knocked back by some other notion of yours that took you all of two seconds to formulate(even in the highly unlikely event that I suceed in the former) . Nobody has that much time and patience, Al.
Like the rest of us, you obviously make ongoing efforts to educate yourself, but it very much looks to me as if your efforts are nigh-on exclusively focussed on shoring up your preconceptions, not in expanding or questioning the same. and so your POV on any damned thing is enormously resistant to change.
My Dad was just like that, TBH. He was fun to argue with... up to a point. But then. thinking back, I was the only person who ever found it fun to argue with him. Everybody else would run for cover on account of his short fuse. (he could bark better than a Rottweiller, though i never, ever knew him to bite)
But, anyway *sigh* you r description of the abject conditions of the working class is a prime example . You consider that represents traditional labour division ? No, those conditions as described by yourself came about because of the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism; and before that, we (in the West , and some other plasces such as Japan) had Feudalism ,(which also had a negative impact on the lower classes' lives, and served to reinforce gender sterotypes, in a similar but, in many ways, different fashion. ) And you're forgetting (if you ever learned it) that prior to modern legislation , there was nothing to prevent women from also working long hours in the factories, along with their children . Yes, they might well have ben worn out from producing those children, but that ddn't prevent them being exploited as cheap labour along with the children . That was great for the Economy, because it not only drove down wages, it made a lot of the men redundant, and liberated them for use as cannon fodder.
So you see , your picture of the 'traditional family' survuiving the best way they can was actually idealised? it was worse than that. though i'll certainly agree that the model where the man goes to work and the woman stays at home represents an improvement over what came before m a relatively good adaptabion to prevailing conditions . But it isn't traditional. Prior to mechanisation, the separation of family life and worklife was unusual , not the norm. A weaver, for example, would have his/ her her handloom loom at home in the loft. And whole families would pitch in with farm labouring at harvest time....but I'm speaking of Britain. The rest of the World had a whole variety of social traditions, some of which put most or even all the work (such as huntiing, gathering and farming) onto the women
How did women cope with bearing children and doing so much work? well ypu forget that traditional societies, all over the world, were generally based around extended families. and that tge women within those families were free to divide work between them as they fit, according to the needs of the moment, not according to some contract of employment. I'm not saying those cultures weren't sexist , of course, just that they worked rather better than the modern idea of the nuclear family does.
Of course, all the other traditional cultures in the world have been thoroughly screwed over, one way or another, by europeans and Modern western culture, to the point that most of the people are disp[placed and we only see a shadow of what they used to be; and we're apt to look at all that through a lens of modern Western assumptions and blame all failings on their "undeveloped" state; but enough survived into modern times to easily give the lie to many of your assumptions re. tradition Al.
If you want to know more about Ancient Egypt you can look it up FFS. We're not talking about an "obscure society" but something that fascinates much of the world, and is the subject of much ongoing research. We;re always tuning up new surprises there, eg, it turns out that the first labour strike in known history was by Egyptian tomb builders in 1159 BCE (https://www.ancient.eu/article/1089/the-first-labor-strike-in-history/ (https://www.ancient.eu/article/1089/the-first-labor-strike-in-history/)). as is common knowledge by now, for anyone who takes a bit of interest. They were remarkably similar to us.
Well, well, that's a lot more explanation that i intended to indulge in. Must try harder to curb this penchant for futilty of mine. I'm a slow writer (unlike yourself) and could have read half a good book, or watched 2-3 interesting documentaries in the tiime it took me write this. What a waste eh?
-
Not at all wasted from my perspective Walkie. Bloody excellent actually. I'm not actually expecting Al to burn his bra and take up feminism, but you gave it a bloody good crack.
-
It's entirely possible to be both a spazz and an idiot.
As proven by Al.
-
In addition to all this, pay gap. The average that men and women earn in fulltime wages is different. Is this because of A) women and men in general choice to make different work and lifestyle choices or B) Patriarchy. Also is equality of opportunity the same as equality of outcome?
Option A could be a decent argument if all the studies in pay gaps were huge generalizations about the lifetime incomes of all women vs all men. However there have been studies of first year graduate starting incomes which focus on specific fields of work, specific degrees, specific prestige levels of schools, and still show notable income gaps for women and non-whites.
-
In addition to all this, pay gap. The average that men and women earn in fulltime wages is different. Is this because of A) women and men in general choice to make different work and lifestyle choices or B) Patriarchy. Also is equality of opportunity the same as equality of outcome?
Option A could be a decent argument if all the studies in pay gaps were huge generalizations about the lifetime incomes of all women vs all men. However there have been studies of first year graduate starting incomes which focus on specific fields of work, specific degrees, specific prestige levels of schools, and still show notable income gaps for women and non-whites.
I could almost plus you.
:)
-
Al, You seem to think (correct me if i am wrong) that feminism functions as one political party or cult with set of narrow descriptions, memberships, and goals....or some such thing. Its more than that. Its incredibly broad, and can look very different depending on who you talk to.
From what I was taught, and indeed believe, feminism is made up of those who are for the liberation of female bodies and identities from a lower or unequal position (in the family, in schools, in politics, at work, etc), to the dignified status of a full human being. It is *also* about men and ensuring their freedom and right to cross society's gender barriers as well. Feminism is about human dignity. Given this loose definition there is a lot of variation in the ways that feminism manifests in different cultures, in different time periods, and in different people- some of whom may argue with one another.
Anytime you are standing up for, or applauding the rights of women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds- you are actually a feminist. Do you fit this description? I would imagine that you value these things.
This is how I was taught at University to think about feminism. I remember my English teacher going on this rant about feminism and how when she was young, every woman would raise their hand about being a feminist, but that it had changed over the decades and now ne'er more than a few hands go up (when asked who is a feminist). I know my grandmas on both sides were very proud of the right to vote and they took it effing seriously. They both were of the "use it or lose it" philosophy. And both grandmas valued their ability to be independent where they needed to as well. Both became matriarchs of the family. One became a teacher- and on the side did tons of volunteering; the other worked for a wealthy family, and on the side was a community organiser. Both took care of their communities and families, and were very serious about maintaining the rights and dignity that they knew their mothers did not have until later.
So you see, when you posture yourself as against this kind of feminism, it blows my mind.
-
Al, You seem to think (correct me if i am wrong) that feminism functions as one political party or cult with set of narrow descriptions, memberships, and goals....or some such thing. Its more than that. Its incredibly broad, and can look very different depending on who you talk to.
From what I was taught, and indeed believe, feminism is made up of those who are for the liberation of female bodies and identities from a lower or unequal position (in the family, in schools, in politics, at work, etc), to the dignified status of a full human being. It is *also* about men and ensuring their freedom and right to cross society's gender barriers as well. Feminism is about human dignity. Given this loose definition there is a lot of variation in the ways that feminism manifests in different cultures, in different time periods, and in different people- some of whom may argue with one another.
Anytime you are standing up for, or applauding the rights of women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds- you are actually a feminist. Do you fit this description? I would imagine that you value these things.
This is how I was taught at University to think about feminism. I remember my English teacher going on this rant about feminism and how when she was young, every woman would raise their hand about being a feminist, but that it had changed over the decades and now ne'er more than a few hands go up (when asked who is a feminist). I know my grandmas on both sides were very proud of the right to vote and they took it effing seriously. They both were of the "use it or lose it" philosophy. And both grandmas valued their ability to be independent where they needed to as well. Both became matriarchs of the family. One became a teacher- and on the side did tons of volunteering; the other worked for a wealthy family, and on the side was a community organiser. Both took care of their communities and families, and were very serious about maintaining the rights and dignity that they knew their mothers did not have until later.
So you see, when you posture yourself as against this kind of feminism, it blows my mind.
It is convention that Feminism of old was both necessary and necessarily good. Rarely is it questioned and whenever it is, it is consider a an affront. You are perceived as ignorant at best (and in need of re-education) or bigoted at worst.
It was not the case, at least in absolutes. Did Feminism have its place in history in the march towards equity and freedom in society, yes but the were ONLY one factor of many. Was Feminism of old a thing of wonder and wholesomeness and splendor? No, there were and are some good aspect but many bad.
When I look at it in its totality. I think it is far worse than good and its later versions as it tries to feed itself has become a trainwreck and shadow of its former self. It has encourages it worst aspects as society relatively quickly (in a couple of generations) adopted equality across the board (it was already moving in that direction and was now primed for those changes because of factors NOT called Feminism) and the movement was unable to say, "Okay we have equality" (Hint: They never will)
Feminism from the start played into an anti-male narrative. There was no that by positioning men as the oppressors and as part of a conspiracy globally called Patriarchy, that they could be a stronger activist force than if they simply say
"Hey everyone, listen up, can you hear me up the back? Good. We now have come to a glorious place in society where women do not fear their children are going to die of smallpox, typhus, yellow fever, cholera and various ills. Women do not have to wonder if they will make it out of the birthing suite alive. We can now control how many children we have and plan for a family. There is pension for our men and superannuation too. Our men no longer have to rely on charity and family to look after them in old age and likewise we do not need to have enough children to allow we will be looked after. Men have had the burden of responsibility for making sure the family is provided for and have had all the rights that go with that. It is time to share that load. Society is ready for it. Equal work, equal pay and equal rights. THIS is what we need in society. Let's get that and have freedom for everyone"
Might have been nice.
But it is not quite as sexy as saying "men are oppressors of women. The men in your life are conspiring to keep you down. You are the property of your husband. You are his slave. They are hording rights. Blah, blah. blah, blah, blah. blah."
See from its very outset it was not all good.
Once the rights became equal what did Feminism do? It "humbly" accepted all responsibility for the change, wanted to rewrite the narrative of history whereby your male ancestors were all arseholes that kept women as metaphorical hostages and masters of these women slaves by virtue of a societal contract. Piece of shit move but that is Feminism. The later incantations just got worse.
So no. Feminism that people hark to even as a "It was good initially but then..." never existed either. Saying at least the Feminism back then was not ALL bad is much fairer.
Now there are plenty of people who say "But I am a Feminist and I don't believe x, y or z". Fine. No point was made. If you consider yourself a Feminist and you believe solely in the precept that you think men and Women should have equality of rights and equality of choice" then that sounds wonderful but what makes you different in belief from an egalitarian or a humanist? I am thinking nothing at all. Chances are you are not a Feminist but like to adopt that descriptor or you believe a lot more than that but you are just being concise.
So I will give you broad as you like. If you support Feminism and what is done in the name of Feminism and the claims it makes and the direction it takes as a result of its most influential members and talking heads then I am directly in against you. You can have whatever watered down ideological expression or version of that and I am likewise going to be against that but not as fiercely.
"Anytime you are standing up for, or applauding the rights of women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds- you are actually a feminist."
Bullshit! for all I stated above. I do not support a narrative based around lies and misrepresentations. I am certainly supportive of humans having having equality and freedoms. But let's test this statement that you knew was a lie before you said it.
If you and I believe that "standing up for, or applauding the rights of all people to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds" makes me and you a Feminist, (hope you do not mind me changing "women" to "all people" because I know Feminists like us *LOL* don't want to be seen as unequal in how the genders are treated) and so we can disregard the tenets around Patriarchy...no, no...be fair you said "standing up for and applauding rights was enough, right.....and we can disregard an equality of outcome if there is equality of choice........come on now you said only standing up and applauding was enough..........we can reject the idea that throughout the ages men were effectively slaves of women as Feminism pushes............."standing up and applauding is enough, you said......in fact we can strip away ALL Feminist theory..........SG You specifically said we could be Feminists simply by "standing up for, or applauding the rights of all women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds", don't backtrack on me now.
See how disingenuous that exercise was in trying to pretend that when I quite clearly object to Feminism I am deluding myself in being a Feminist. How dishonest were you trying to be when you did that SG?
When you posture yourself as a Feminist it does not blow my mind. It is taught heavily in Universities. You have been indoctrinated.