Did feminism go to far?

[Drifterwood]

When feminism is simply negative about men, it is just sexism and boring.

Any 'ism needs to be positive solely about itself IMO. Then you sink or swim on your own individual ability.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

That is part of the problem of always telling a man he is doing everything wrong...

[...]

Half of what I object to in women's disparagement of men is that it actually results in weaker men.

We become what our mothers tell us we are.

Camille Paglia, the bisexual feminist and my favorite Salon writer, seems to have a different take on post-modern feminism. She wants men to quit being "wimps" and to take back their manhood. Meanwhile, she castigates classic feminists as being too victim-centered. Ted Turner, another one of my heroes, wants men to stop being "eunuchs", but he also says that the world would be better off if it was matriarchal.

I find it easy to use pornography as an allusion to postmodern feminism. Postmodern feminists seem to agree that a woman’s choice to commodify herself sexually may represent an act of empowerment and cannot be appraised in a definitively negative way. These feminists are often pro-pornography. Radical feminists seem more inclined to reject the commodification of women as inherently problematic -- being generally anti-pornography and especially opposed to pornography in which women are depicted as recipients of violent or abusive treatment. They regard most gender stereotypes as harmful to both women and men and seek to invalidate these stereotypes.

 

[B_lamdellboo]

[Just a quick response before I go to my Women's Studies class : ]

*Did feminism go too far?


Also, men need to be themselves, not men, not women.
Conversely, women need to be themselves, not women, not men.

And no, men have not lost too many rights. I don't think any at all, even. We've almost always been given far more than women.

Last but not least, yes, as a society we are better off. But there's still much more progress to be made.


Kthanksbye. :biggrin1:

 

[D_Keziah Binbanger]

It is pity I can't speak French on that one because it's so interesting and I don't think I'm good enough in english to say all the things I wanna say.

I don't think feminism has gone too far. It's just that, as in everything else, a minority is going way too far in their struggle.
A year ago, I had a skiing trip with my friends and we had latenight discussion about career, children, family, you know, the average latenight chat after a beer. There was 6 girls, all very feminist...or so they say they are. There's a thing that really bothered me about what they said. They always talk about career but never about family. They often say that they will have a career and then a family if they have enough time.

I know I want a family, probably three or four children and I don't want to be 40 to have them so my wife have a big career. I would bear them if I could but I think it's still a task women only can accomplish.

 

[Gillette]

What does a pill have to do with anything??? What the fuck makes you think women wanted to be practical SLAVES to their men before the pill. What the hell makes you think that just because women back then couldn't control child birth, they were anymore content to sit in a house, raise children, be a slave to a man, be ruled over, and in some cases abused and treated like cattle/livestock by men. Most times, most women who were in a position to tell their story, whether by film in the 1900's, or by literature in the pre-1900's, expressed a quiet and sad resignation to the roles forced on them by the dominant, barbaric male.

The pill has a great deal to do with it. The roles women were assigned or relegated to weren't forced on them by the "dominant, barbaric" male but by the fact of childbirth and child rearing.

The tradition was born out of practicality. Prior to the industrial age the large majority of work was physical labour, something men are better built for and something nigh impossible to do with a child at your teat. Even if men did choose to stay home while the woman worked, they still couldn't breast feed. Hence the woman stayed home. Without a method of birth control the cycle perpetuated itself.

Now that we have not only the ability to control our reproductive cycle but to feed our infants with bottles and formula roles now can change and are.

I haven't read PA's posts as being chauvanistic but as describing some basic truths about the way things have developed. Stark and harsh, yes, but honest.

There are, however, a couple points I'd quibble with.

Women were designed to carry and birth babies... sure it has its drawbacks... but I watched my ex-wife give birth to two sons and she never had so much as an aspirin... and was up and walking 10 minutes after the birth...

While this is true for some women there are others, even with today's medical advancements, who die during pregnancy and childbirth due to complications. It's still a big deal. No getting around that.

Because women, in aggregate, dictate how men should behave if they want to get laid.

Yes, we women determine, each on an individual level, who we will sleep with and what behaviours are attractive to us, but since there is no consensus among the women as to what that defined behaviour should be, there is no set behaviour for men to follow.

Just as there are bigoted misogynists out there getting laid as we speak there are gentle nurturing men out there with no sex on the visible horizon.

If we women have a master plan it hasn't worked yet.

 

[whatireallywant]

[Just a quick response before I go to my Women's Studies class : ]

*Did feminism go too far?


Also, men need to be themselves, not men, not women.
Conversely, women need to be themselves, not women, not men.

And no, men have not lost too many rights. I don't think any at all, even. We've almost always been given far more than women.

Last but not least, yes, as a society we are better off. But there's still much more progress to be made.


Kthanksbye. :biggrin1:

Thank you! I totally agree!

 

[whatireallywant]

Camille Paglia, the bisexual feminist and my favorite Salon writer, seems to have a different take on post-modern feminism. She wants men to quit being "wimps" and to take back their manhood. Meanwhile, she castigates classic feminists as being too victim-centered. Ted Turner, another one of my heroes, wants men to stop being "eunuchs", but he also says that the world would be better off if it was matriarchal.

I find it easy to use pornography as an allusion to postmodern feminism. Postmodern feminists seem to agree that a woman’s choice to commodify herself sexually may represent an act of empowerment and cannot be appraised in a definitively negative way. These feminists are often pro-pornography. Radical feminists seem more inclined to reject the commodification of women as inherently problematic -- being generally anti-pornography and especially opposed to pornography in which women are depicted as recipients of violent or abusive treatment. They regard most gender stereotypes as harmful to both women and men and seek to invalidate these stereotypes.

Hmmm... what if you're like me: pro-pornography but opposed to porn where women are depicted as recipients of violent/abusive treatment, and I do believe that gender stereotypes are harmful to both women and men and should be stopped.

 

[dong20]

i was going to say Ed Gein and Schopenhauer......:biggrin1:

Obey me, stay quietwhile I stereotype you...?

Actually, on many issues affecting contemporary US society, Schopenhauer was ahead of his time.

 

[xLx]

Obey me, stay quietwhile I stereotype you...?

Actually, on many issues affecting contemporary US society, Schopenhauer was ahead of his time.

well kinda.....i was thinking more 'Obey me, stay quiet while I skin you and turn your hide into a lampshade'




har. serial killer jokes are funny, to ME, at least...

apologies to schopenhauer, ive probably misrepresented him there. but he IS one of my go-to misogynists

 

[dong20]

well kinda.....i was thinking more 'Obey me, stay quiet while I skin you and turn your hide into a lampshade'

Yes, his folks would surely have been very proud had he followed so closely their footsteps. But not every child turns out exactly like his folks, is what I was suggesting.:biggrin1:

apologies to schopenhauer, ive probably misrepresented him there. but he IS one of my go-to misogynists

Not especially, he likened marriage to expecting to extracting (blindfold) the one eel from a sack of snakes or similar. He did admire at least one woman, though I can't recall her name, Madame something or other.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

While this is true for some women there are others, even with today's medical advancements, who die during pregnancy and childbirth due to complications. It's still a big deal. No getting around that.

No doubt about it... in fact, routine cesarean sections have removed a critical evolutionary selector.... many women who have difficulty giving birth , difficulties that used to kill them, can now give birth repeatedly and safely.... as a result women's hips are getting narrower, making natural childbirth more difficult for more women with each passing generation...

I see more and more women shaped like boys.

We could very easily get to a point where it becomes impossible for human to deliver babies without medical intervention.

Yes, we women determine, each on an individual level, who we will sleep with and what behaviours are attractive to us, but since there is no consensus among the women as to what that defined behaviour should be, there is no set behaviour for men to follow.

Just as there are bigoted misogynists out there getting laid as we speak there are gentle nurturing men out there with no sex on the visible horizon.

If we women have a master plan it hasn't worked yet.

THAT'S the very problem for us men... you HAVE the power of choice... but you can't tell us what you want...

It was WOMEN like phyllis schaflly that stopped the ERA.
Women who dress sexy to attact men's attention and women who condemn each other for dressing sexy to attract men's attention...

Women who told a whole generation that they wanted men to be sensitive and nurturing... that everything masculine was evil... and then hated the men who took them at their word for not being masculine enough.

My first wife was perfectly happy with me until the greater society of women convinced her that I was an oppressor who had evil motives behind every kind act... and that she was a lesser person for staying home to raise our sons... no wonder she drank herself stupid every night.

How many of you had the experience of thinking you had a great guy until your girlfriends cast doubt into your minds?

Women get so much conflicting feedback from each other as to what is acceptable or good... its amazing to me that your heads don't explode.




Face it girls, women, in general, get whatever they want... if they can just figure out what they want... and STAY happy with that choice...
The whole society would be happier


I am suggesting that we pay a little more attention to those aspects of desire and contentment that are wired into us genetically, so as not to fool ourselves into thinking we could be happy with something that merely sounds good, but doesn't feel good.

Women, intellectually, want men to be more sensitive... but physically, they are not excited by that kind of man.
You gotta come to some kind of resolution on that... and select men based upon both heart and head...

cause really... when what we men see is that only the assholes get laid, we start taking asshole lessons...


In EVERY sexual species... female choice DRIVES male behavoir.

So come up with that master plan, and start choosing wisely.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Camille Paglia, the bisexual feminist and my favorite Salon writer, seems to have a different take on post-modern feminism. She wants men to quit being "wimps" and to take back their manhood. Meanwhile, she castigates classic feminists as being too victim-centered. Ted Turner, another one of my heroes, wants men to stop being "eunuchs", but he also says that the world would be better off if it was matriarchal.

I find it easy to use pornography as an allusion to postmodern feminism. Postmodern feminists seem to agree that a woman’s choice to commodify herself sexually may represent an act of empowerment and cannot be appraised in a definitively negative way. These feminists are often pro-pornography. Radical feminists seem more inclined to reject the commodification of women as inherently problematic -- being generally anti-pornography and especially opposed to pornography in which women are depicted as recipients of violent or abusive treatment. They regard most gender stereotypes as harmful to both women and men and seek to invalidate these stereotypes.

Great Post.


One of my favorite post feminist quotes is from Camille Paglia.
"men will stop making sex objects of women the day women stop making success objects of men"

The two fatal flaws of radical feminism is the false assumption of male dominance, and the false assumption that changing our opinions can change our biological drives and responses.
That women's options have changed does not mean that men invented nor enforced those options.
That women suddenly think men should be more sensitive does not change 10,000 years of genetic evolution controlling attraction.

Women are the ones who determine what is or is not acceptable in society.
It was women who sent men to work to support their childrearing...


Post feminism asks that we stop condemning each other and start looking at things as simply what worked then, what works now, and what we want to work in the future.

Its all evolved... its how things transpired... no one is to blame.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

You sir are one of the chauvinist beasts I spoke of earlier.

You believe it makes me less of a man or a man afraid for me to say what I said about male patriarchy. I don't say it out of fear of being made "to suffer by women". I say it because I'm smart enough to know what happened historically, wise enough to know it was REALLY fucked up, and enlightened enough to know that the mistakes of the past don't need to continue today.

That is not at all what I said nor what I meant.

What I said was that your believing this makes you entirely a product of your times, fully accepting and swallowing whole the story you were told about the male patriarchy.

Not "less of a man" just a normal human being buying into the politicized zeitgeist of his era...

BTW... EVERY person, both male and female, who believes in the myth of male patriarchy is simply someone believing the agenda they were sold.

You need to get over the fact that it was a story, sold to facilitate an agenda... Like the way we demonized the germans and japanese during WWII...

That there are books saying this...women studies courses on it in college... that you get a "D' in history class if you don't parrot the story correctly...

...none of that makes the story true.
Just politically correct.


So, congratulations... you pass the test for political correctness.

Now... you may want to consider growing a lobe.

 

[SurferGirlCA]

BTW... EVERY person, both male and female, who believes in the myth of male patriarchy is simply someone believing the agenda they were sold.

You need to get over the fact that it was a story, sold to facilitate an agenda... Like the way we demonized the germans and japanese during WWII...

That there are books saying this...women studies courses on it in college... that you get a "D' in history class if you don't parrot the story correctly...

...none of that makes the story true.
Just politically correct.

So, congratulations... you pass the test for political correctness.

Now... you may want to consider growing a lobe.

Clearly, this topic struck a chord in you, Phil. I'm sorry you obviously went through a painful situation (I'm guessing with your first wife). Please don't take that experience and judge all (American) women based on that.

As others have stated, the feminist movement probably did go too far, but that's the nature of any movement for change. Human nature isn't filled with examples of groups of people who willingly ceded power or authority to groups historically kept apart. Yes, women wield their own power, and have throughout history (something Camille Paglia got right), but in terms of rights and liberties and legal status, we were not held equal in the eyes of the law until the 20th Century. Saying that women held the "real" power at home is not the same thing, and there's still work to do. Women are still oppressed in the majority of the world. Women still earn less than men, still have to fight to advance in the workplace, still get stalked and raped and beaten, still frequently have to deal with teenage pregnancies on their own, and are more likely to suffer poverty in old age. I'm not complaining, that's just the reality. Having said that, I don't blame all men for the state of things.; sweeping generalizations don't serve anyone well (ok, maybe talk-radio hosts :tongue.

I know some of the changes that came out of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, must have thrown some men for a loop - and a lot of women, too. I also know the freedom women started to enjoy and pursue as a result of the women's movement caused confusion for some men as they wondered where their new place was in all of it. Personally, I think men and women are fundamentally different, and women shouldn't feel the need to compete with men in every arena. That's just my perspective, though. I'm not going to tell another woman what is best for her. The point of equality is to allow everyone to determine what they want from life. No people, of any race or gender, like to feel they don't have control over their lot in life. It makes them unhappy, even angry, which means they might overreach in trying to respond. The goal is for all like-minded people to work together so that we can move things to a better place. It's a cliche, but it's true - the pendulum starts one way and then sometimes swings too far in the other direction. Hopefully, a calmer center will be found.

 

[B_lamdellboo]

Thank you! I totally agree!

:wink: