The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Feminism demands and enables a personal response to modern challenges > Comments

Feminism demands and enables a personal response to modern challenges : Comments

By Tony Smith, published 28/6/2011

If there has been a social revolution over the last fifty years, feminism has provided perhaps the single most important impetus.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The trouble with feminism is that apart from a few radicals it hasn't gone nearly far enough, indeed it has degenerated into the same populist passivism as gay activism has.
Tony Smith incongruously suggests there's been a "social revolution" in the last fifty years, which he attributes largely to feminism, when the phrase properly indicates a much more radical overthrow of "property relations", rather than vexatious, spuriously-self-validating identity politics.
Despite all the promise offered by radical feminism, all it accomplished in the end was a new mode of politically correct conformity; reaffirmed co-option within an utterly bureaurocratised and monolithic lifeworld. Indeed even the politically-correct veneer identity politics managed to lay over generational bigotries is wearing thin. The same bigotries prevail but have taken the self-deprecating form of idle jest; we've all learned to laugh at ourselves in public, but I suspect few are laughing in private.
The one important thing feminism helped to accomplish, for mine, was the realisation that "all" gendered and sexual identities are the same interpellated puppets. But having achieved this momentous insight, and simultaneously the nature of the puppet-master, our "social-revolutionaries" settled for tawdry equalities "within" the system of indifferent patronage that now allows them to mix and match identities. The hallmark of freedom equals the freedom to represent yourself on a chaotically liberated stage, but the diegesis and the props remain rigidly the same.
The real feminists inevitably succumbed to the "one" real and pervasive stereotype, neither male nor female, but an androgeneous and transsexual puppet.

In a sense one envies the vast majority of these marionettes, who ridicule all such talk; I hear ignorance is bliss.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 10:16:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony wrote "about 1970, many women began to feel the need for a critique of their oppression"...not gone far, broad or deep enough...otherwise you will recognize the grave danger we are all in...when match history with what we see now on the streets...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Woman_Suffrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
these date back to 1600's...but origins date much earlier...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate...roman senate structure is the 'foremother' to our current 'democracy'...public elects weilding power of the population...women by their inhernet nature realized power they have access to...without being a military genius like julius ceaser to have power...

so 'inherent' nature(look around you...):
1.man is 'aware of situation' hes in and responds-women is 'aware of herself in the situation' and responds(yep...'master at image'...and even courts cant effectively deal with this yet...)
2.men intrinsically 'act with accountability'-women'act avoiding accountability'...eg caught stealing...yeah, lots of reasons but man accepts its 'stealing'...women argues its stealing instead its 'borrowing_permanently'...
3.men organize to take over land then all within-women organize to take over the person then take their property...yeah, male driven wars we've all seen, but not women driven wars and believe me we are in one now...despite the 'image' of civil democracy...preferred is organized women with puppet man as their face...now apply this to government and business departments...and heard coined phrase 'snakes and its dogs' being made...

every women you meet now is a 'feminist', whether she admits it or not...and statistically too large a population to have occured spontaneously, so been engineered...from history always been rich well to do women protected by their society agitating while poorer women struggled with their lives taking these as role models...and always an 'image' of 'suffering' but linked to real unbalanced increased 'power and possession'...

to what we have now in every street in every country...property within fence within which women is the queen...constant monitoring of all(isolated child and father) and created 'rules' that must be abided...I noticed most of this when working as a gp from the sheer number 'families' where the women the absolute energized power house and childandfather obedient empty shell...and from women themselves whom when need real help 'really' talk...

contd...sam
Posted by Sam said, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 12:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My mother 94 year old mother says that the thing with the greatest impact in her lifetime was electricity.
I would say the thing with greatest impact during my lifetime has been feminism and the right for a woman to be respected as a woman, not thought to be an inferior version of a man. It still has a long way to go as many men still have misogynist attitudes, although they may mask them better. Too often men still respect women only for how well they fulfill the roles of daughter, wife and mother.
Posted by Country girl, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 1:12:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where have you people been, behind the door? The world you believe in does not, & never has existed. Fighting a perceived inequality that never existed, at least in the modern western world, has cost women heaps.

During WW11 most of a service mans pay was allocated to his wife.

After WW11 I remember seeing most men in the community come home with unopened pay packets, which they handed to the lady of the house. She then handed back a small allowance of pocket money to the wage earner.

The woman ruled in most families, & spent most of the money, with the bloke complying for peace.

Even later, in my teens, I can remember, when men discussed their cars, hearing statements like, "I should have insisted on a Holden/Ford/Dodge, but she wanted this [insert European car make here], & I couldn't be bothered fighting. This damn thing has cost a fortune.

I think women's liberation has been a big step backwards for women. They got the men's backs up enough that they dug their toes in, & refused to be as hen picked as in the past. Women don't get their own way today, anywhere as much as 50 years ago.

Serves them right really
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 4:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen I wasn't around for the "bad old days" but much of what I've seen and read of our past backs up the view that mainstream feminists run with a very selective view of our history.

Quick to point out how women suffer (or suffered) but apparently oblivious to the privilege's that women have had. Quick to point to the privileges some men have had but oblivious to the hardships and sacrifices asked of men.

Feminists will point out how women have born the majority of early childhood care yet blame men for the shape of social attitudes. They will talk of women being agents of their own oppression but don't see the problem with then deciding who is oppressing who.

feminism has had a great role in challenging some gender assumptions and opening up opportunities for all but it's also shown massive double standards at time. Too many feminists are all to quick to embrace traditional gender stereotypes and roles when it comes to issues of child residency post separation.

Dropping terms such as oppression and the preference to deem cooperative and caring behaviours as feminine and aggressive domineering behaviours as masculine would help. Much of the language of feminism is divisive, the rhetoric is one sided and misses much that needs to be part of any further advance to practical equality of opportunity.

"Extra burdens should not be created for women by making them responsible for men's behaviour as well as their own." - as far as I can tell one of the principle obsessions of feminism is making men responsible for women's behaviour as well as their own.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 6:42:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taking up Squeers's point, it seems that the "liberation" of women only really took hold when capitalism reached a point of full throttle. His reference to androgynous participation rings true, as the main point seems to have been to get as many humans participating in the market as possible.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 8:43:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...contd...

so what do we learn from history...well, 'democracy' and 'feminocracy' are deeply intertwined, but from roman times expressed diferently...catholic church the first feminist creation, till things started going crazy and they started killing across europe just for crime of reading the bible...till french crushed the papal institution...and to current form when italy gave it status of a 'kingdom' by creating the sovereign vatican in early 1900's...and other different expressions of government to current...

so roman women accessed the power...showed italian women, whom exported it to 'the_white_women' as in europe, and 'democracies' appeared everywhere, canada/usa, europe/england, australia/nz, and of particular mention is english women whom got themselves treated better than princeses while first effectively linking democracy and military obedience...yep, colonial days...to now where democracy is the usual in most parts of the world and 'feminocracy' being exported to all corners...

so how does one rercognize a feminist governed country, as they all work on 'decent image' to hide behind...womens interests rule, from unbalanced health/education/work environments...criminal laws apply 'less', cities are protected policed clean enclaves, and on...and culture of the people, as that developing over thousands of years, dies and replaced by 'me and now'...like the add 'I'm worth it'...(watch one of the last bastions of preserved culture, the tamils of south india...now huge highways built into it, consumerism and money will flow in, and I expect women to jump for the apple first, men will step away from women, so children kept and broken to accept and obey feminocracy...)

where do I stand...well we all have live under some form of government...so each has its plus and minus...but the current one is making us 'consume' and 'unresponsive' to needed change...so while our planet is struggling more we are not acting effectively...and the clocks ticking...so seems like feminocracy is only good for the land of plenty...not for land of limiting resources...

sam
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 9:27:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

>> as the main point seems to have been to get as many humans participating in the market as possible. <<

Exactly. And the majority of these working stiffs, be we male or female are caught up in this cycle. Women have gained some entry into politics and the market, but with the same old rules that keeps the majority of men in place.

However, for some, women demanding equality of opportunity brings out people who would rather see women back in the kitchen. Ain't gonna happen. Women love being doctors, lawyers, architects, chefs, airline pilots or nurses or teachers or simply gardeners - just as much as men do. And neo-liberalism has been swift and tenacious in exploiting this simple human trait and it suits the status quo to have the workers arguing among themselves rather than demanding a fairer share of our labours.
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 11:32:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I very much doubt that a wonderful female-dominated world that was supposed to have existed in pre-feminist days (the world according to Hasbeen and RObert), would have encouraged all those suffragettes to get out there and demand a better life for women!

Let's look at life for women back in the mid 1800's :
Unable to vote,
unable to own property after marriage,
unable to have any custody of children after divorce,
unable to get justice for being bashed or raped by the husband ,
and unable to go on to higher education or university.
Any wages she earns belongs to him (if he lets her work at all.)
He is able to deprive her of her liberty, at will.
She is allowed into churches, and to practice religion, but only as a subordinate.

Oh yes please Scotty, do beam me back to those wonderful days where women 'had it all'!
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 1:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now Suzie tell us a bit about the wonderful life of the male companions of those same women. The ones who tossed their lives away in dangerous jobs trying to provide for their families, the ones who were conscripted to go off and die in war's ordained by their kings and queens. The ones who got the vote not many years before women.

The legal system was a crock, I accept that but the picture painted by many feminists presents a far more unbalanced picture than is likely to have been the realty for most people. The language implies some sort of systematic oppression of women by the men in their lives rather than transition from structures based on the practicalities of an earlier age.

It misses far to much and is devisive rather than constructive.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 5:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since feminism did, as I say, balk at fomenting genuine and desperately needed reforms, and feeling some male comradeship with RObert, it's worth quoting Camille Paglia, a feminist:

"Let us stop being small-minded and freely acknowledge what treasure their [men's] obsessiveness has poured into culture.
We could make an epic catalogue of men's achievements, from paved roads, indoor plumbing, and washing machines to eyeglasses, antibiotics, and disposable diapers. We enjoy fresh, safe milk and meat, and vegetables and tropical fruits heaped in snowbound cities. When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America's great bridges, I think: men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry. When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence, as one would for a church procession. What power of conception, what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts. A contemporary woman clapping on a hard hat merely enters a conceptual system invented by men. Capitalism is an art form, an Apollonian artform to rival nature [indeed conquer it]. It is hypocritical for feminists and intellectuals to enjoy the pleasure and conveniences of capitalism while sneering at it. Even Thoreau's "Walden" was just a two year experiment. Everyone born in capitalism has incurred a debt to it. Give Caesar his due.

Capitalism did indeed deliver us from the tyranny of our feudal masters. But despite Paglia's panegyrics, capitalism is the new tyrant and straddles the globe. Women remain in Man's shadow so long as they enjoy his megalomaniacal patronage. It's about time women brought some Dionysian influence to bear upon vaulting Apollo.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 6:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't recall talking about the mid 1800 Suze, it would appear you want to use a different time to my comparison, when none alive can tell how it was.

RObert my mother may have "born the majority of early childhood care", but isn't the dream of full time motherhood, one that many would aspire to today, if they could only afford it. She also bore the weight of choosing the washing lady, who came weekly, & the ironing/cleaning lady who also came weekly. She also had to put up with playing mid week tennis, & bowls. All this from the lofty height of the wife of the manager of a shoe shop.

How women were stupid to give up this privileged life for the right to equal work choices & pay I'll never know. Just stupid I guess, & led by the even more stupid women's libbers.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 6:33:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies, Poirot, for not acknowledging your important point above. Women have been conned into seeing liberation as merely an equal share of an existing pie--sublimating whatever genuine potential they possess, that is uniquely feminine, for a prominent place at their former masters' table.
Some of the men's misogynist grumbles are legitimate. Now that they have relative equality, when are women going to take responsibility and exert a more salubrious influence on the world?
I've asked such questions before; they go unanswered.
But then, as I say above, neither sex any longer has the capacity for self-determination or grand designs. Both are neutered, eunuchs of the system.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 8:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, I am glad your mother had such a good life, but I doubt that privileged life was very common.
Certainly it wasn't the case with my mother's life, or anyone else I knew back then.
I don't disagree that more women wouldn't want to stay home with their kids full time, but there aren't many families who are in a financial position to do that.
Even so, I am glad I am a mother these days, rather than in the 'good old days'.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 10:24:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squuers interesting observations. I've yet to see any real justification though for the view that women are less tied to the perks of capitalism than men. We're all in this together, sometimes with a different focus on specifics but much of the same effect.

Hasbeen, no maids in my home growing up. Instead two parents who worked in and out of the home as opportunity and need dictated. Both hands on as parents and from what I got to observe working fairly well as a partnership.

I've got really tired of the constant quoting of the "oppressions" women suffered, the constant bagging of men's bad points and how rare it is to hear from feminists about the lives most men lead in the same periods or about the good things men have done.

Feminism has provided a focus for some good changes (gender based laws are wrong and needed changing) but it's one sided advocacy and inability to recognise the contributions men make renders it incapable of much other worthwhile social good. It's simplistic focus on making men responsible for the choices women make exposes it's "critical analysis" as a poor joke.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 30 June 2011 6:26:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

What shape do you think a Dionysian influence would take that could tame Apollo? How could women exert a more salubrious influence on the world?....it's a genuine question, for it seems the human penchant for greed and excess seems to be overriding the complementary roles of the genders and the feminine virtues of receptivity and nurture.

Referring to my last post, I also note that our system which now demands that women are incorporated in the workplace as well as the market place, simultaneously seeks to institutionalise all those that aren't directly participating - such as infants, children and the elderly.

What a strange world the West has fashioned for itself. The story of its "triumph" is a material and psychological flight away from our immersion in chthonian nature. Paglia says that civilised life requires a state of illusion. Perhaps the illusion has overtaken the Western mind so completely that now we've reached the stage where we can only be defined as a grasping androgynous resource-guzzling entity. Surely human potential promises more than this?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 9:06:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

I'm with you on this topic. We all have ourselves to blame for this fine mess.

Feminism did achieve women's voices finally being heard, but many are still not listening.

Some women want to stay home with the kids (and be dependent on another's earnings), so do some men.

Some women want to run mega corporations (Gina Rinehart), so do some men (Rupert Murdoch).

Most of us simple want a fair pay for a fair day's work.
Most if us don't like to be labeled and placed in boxes.
Most of us abhor greed.
Most of us are reasonable people which makes us open to exploitation by those more ruthless.

I am grateful to be a woman in Australia in this century where we have the Pill and not 12 children, washing machines and not boilers, electricity and not open fire places in an Australian summer, vaccines and not watching our children die, computers so we can blog each other and write nasty generalisations about each other AND have the time to do so.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 30 June 2011 9:23:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

Yes, everything you listed is an aid to comfort...but don't you think somewhere along our magnificent ascent we forgot the meaning of moderation?

Where have our organic communities gone? Why do we now expect an institution (any institution) to provide those things which sprung naturally from community cooperation and endeavour?

People have always communicated - usually with other people with whom they have some sort of broader relationship. We blog because we can, although it's probably more to do with the fractured nature of modern life and the "lack" of time and opportunity for real relationships - we now indulge in anonymous interaction and most relationships conducted in this way are warped to a certain extent.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 9:47:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert:
<Squuers interesting observations. I've yet to see any real justification though for the view that women are less tied to the perks of capitalism than men. We're all in this together, sometimes with a different focus on specifics but much of the same effect>.

Too true. Indeed that's where Paglia gets it wrong; men didn't build the pyramids on their own, women had to keep the home fires burning. As Poirot says, the sexes complement each other--or at least they used to, despite its being an unequal relationship--nature has a lot to learn about PC.
Poirot:
<What shape do you think a Dionysian influence would take that could tame Apollo>
I think the answer is that women, as a class, should accept the responsibilities of equality as well as the privileges. They have to stop complementing men and start contradicting their creation. Men tamed nature and now women should be disabusing them of their "obsessiveness"--obsessive artifice! Democracy is patriarchy's Achilles' heal and women have the power to change the world. But they're at least as seduced by artifice as men are obsessed with it.

I think we should stop the blame game. I don't think we should go back to the stone age--though a little moderation would be nice. I don't see why we can't maintain lifestyles not much below the current level. We just can't maintain the current numbers. For me the problem is that our economy manages us (very badly), rather than us balancing a budget. We're dedicated to the economy, rather than the economy being dedicated to us--isn't this blindingly obvious? We have to develop a realistic mode of production, based on need and realistic expectations--pegged to the sustainable exploitation of support systems of the planet, rather than the madness of endless expansion in a closed system.
If democracy (both sexes) can't do this, then it's a failure.
Democracy is based on the flawed premise that individuals will vote in the best interests of the common good.
In a capitalist system, individualised self-interest rules.
The first thing both sexes need to do is wake up
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 30 June 2011 6:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

Yes, it is blindingly obvious....everything you said.
I thought I was missing something, but it seems that collective humanity at this stage of development is only interested in a one way journey singing praises to the glories of consumerism.

The system is stacked against any diversion from the current trajectory. A monumental shift in psychological perspective would be necessary for Western women to even glimpse an alternative, let alone its value.

Children are programmed from infancy these days to fall into line with the orchestrated, standardised and competitive consumer paradigm. Mothers actually feel guilty if they fail to institutionalise their offspring at the earliest juncture in case they are seen as tardy for failing to "socialise" them into the system. All the little girls grow into the culture in the same way that their brothers do.

I'm wondering, under the circumstances, how we get from the one mindset to the other. It seems more likely that the necessary shift of consciousness would emanate from educated women in the third world than from our own go-getters who are too immersed in consumer culture to even sense the need for an alternative.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 9:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy