Which gender are you?

[slomo]

^^^^ Good luck with that.

[slomo]

It strikes me that there are (at least) two ways of moving through this world. One is to take a reflexively militant and combative view, seeking to smash the patriarchy and destroy capitalism. Another is to lovingly acquire enough local power to do some actual good in the world.

I hate to tell you this, but the world will always be unjust. If, by some miracle, you succeed in "destroying capitalism" or "smashing the patriarchy", another unjust system will quickly arise out of its ashes. If you're counting on the fall of Western civilization due to environmental collapse or global warming, get ready for marauding hordes of muderers and rapists (hint: if you're concerned about Patriarchy now, you're in for a very rough ride when the gangs sweep through your utopian eco-village).

A more constructive approach is to realize that this world, this Saṃsāra in which we are forced to incarnate, is fallen by its very nature, and to do what you can to make life better for those in your immediate vicinity. That means, help the younger people you encounter to be better prepared to exist in the present economic system in which we find ourselves, regardless of how unjust that system might seem. That means, be sweeter and kinder to your family members, especially your significant other, while at the same time protecting those under your care (e.g. your children) from being led astray. It means making small but meaningful changes locally, not persisting under the narcissistic illusion that you are going to somehow change the world. The world is what it is, you can only change yourself and maybe influence a few other people.

[Luther Blissett]

We take the same approach and general overview in your last paragraph but with one crucial difference - I believe humans are inherently good. The people with whom I work on smashing the patriarchy or capitalism all do so by starting with local organizing - community gardens, cooperatives, free libraries, sharing, volunteering, cooking, etc.

How do you know the world will always be unjust? Do advanced alien civilizations absolutely have to be unjust?

[slomo]

We take the same approach and general overview in your last paragraph but with one crucial difference - I believe humans are inherently good. The people with whom I work on smashing the patriarchy or capitalism all do so by starting with local organizing - community gardens, cooperatives, free libraries, sharing, volunteering, cooking, etc.

I applaud this. This is all good stuff, and I support this kind of activity 100% (and do some of it myself).

How do you know the world will always be unjust? Do advanced alien civilizations absolutely have to be unjust?

It's built into the structure of this universe: duality, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, this or that. You have to eat. Even if you can get all humans working together (I'm pessimistic about that, but I'm open to be proven wrong), the animals we eat will still be the victims of an unjust system. Less theoretically: there will always be power-hungry ("evil") people. Even if you could biologically engineer the current crop out of existence (itself a pretty morally sketchy proposition), mutations will eventually produce new ones. Some of the cells in your body are trying to become cancer at this very moment, as we are having this discussion.

[guruilla]

Guruilla, you've only dated women who did not believe in the equality of the sexes? They all wanted to be subservient to men? Woah that's crazy.

That has to be the most obnoxious and willfully distorting comment I've received in quite a while. It's offensive on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

It being a response to this:

most of the women I have known, all of them strong, independent, creative-spirited women, have either been quite anti-feminist in their ways, or at best, sort of tired of/pissed off with/indifferent to feminism.

This is not the same as saying they were cut off from their own femaleness or under the thumb of the patriarchy, my impression was rather the reverse, that they found feminism to be an overly ideological imposition of set and rigid values and modes of behavior that did not allow for a deeper experience and expression of themselves as women. Simply put, I have always had the impression, through knowing these women, that feminism was more about a masculine expression than a true feminine one.

You oughta be ashamed, Luther. Why is it those who most fiercely preach human rights are so often the ones who behave most contemptuously towards human beings? Serious, non-rhetorical question.

I believe humans are inherently good.

While being direly in need for your ideological correction, natch.

How do you know the world will always be unjust? Do advanced alien civilizations absolutely have to be unjust?

Considering that from a human (ideological) point of view, Nature itself is unjust, and yet Nature is by far the best we can hope for and only seems to get further out of our reach, then yes, the way of the world, culture, is to be always unjust: a distortion of and an oppression against our own natures, human and divine. Culture is like a virus that eventually either destroys its host or itself. Ideology is how it spreads. This thread & its subject matter is a pretty good demonstration of that, IMHO.

[Luther Blissett]

No, if you're saying that the women you've dated have all been non-feminists or anti-feminists, they would believe something on a spectrum between a) thinking that women should not / can not / will not have equal rights as men, and b) thinking that women should be / prefer to be subservient to men. Either revise your statement or not. You're offensive.

Feminism is believing that women should have equal social and political rights as men.

For a women to be an anti-feminist, at least historically, implies that they prefer an older or more conservative social model, one that often played out as subservience. And that's fine, plenty of my religious aunts feel that way and they are people that I love.

[tapitsbo]

That's definitely an outdated "definition" of feminism. In fact it sounds like something American Dream might call "reactionary liberalism" or blah blah blah blah

There are countless instances where contemporary feminism has campaigned against equal rights, for starters.

Most North American women don't identify as feminists, yet I doubt they'd believe in "subservience" to men. I'm sure you'd be offensive to them.

You can talk about the impact of historical feminism all you want, there has clearly been a change in the meaning of these terms.

Whatever the issues with what guruilla is saying, he's at least bringing up interesting points, instead of discussion I just see people trying to shut it down. Makes me wonder why?

[brainpanhandler]

That's definitely an outdated "definition" of feminism. In fact it sounds like something American Dream might call "reactionary liberalism" or blah blah blah blah

There are countless instances where contemporary feminism has campaigned against equal rights, for starters.

Most North American women don't identify as feminists, yet I doubt they'd believe in "subservience" to men. I'm sure you'd be offensive to them.

You can talk about the impact of historical feminism all you want, there has clearly been a change in the meaning of these terms.

If they don't believe in subservience to men then surely they must want equal social and political rights? That's just the plain meaning of the words.

[tapitsbo]

In practice it isn't - which is a discussion that's been had exhaustively elsewhere.

Saying that contemporary feminism believes in "equal" anything is deeply disingenuous. (See: the vicious attacks on young people who ask for egalitarian approaches, misguided or not.)

Unless we're basing all of our discussions on looking up words in dictionaries or something similarly disconnected from reality.

[slomo]

There are countless instances where contemporary feminism has campaigned against equal rights, for starters.

For example:

Female conscription is not a feminist issue
...
NKF considers female conscription as a misunderstanding of the concept of gender equality and the intentions of the Law on Equality. Gender equality implies first and foremost that women and men should have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms. Women should be valued and allocated power and resources on equal terms with men. But women and men do not have to be alike or do the same things to be equal.

To ensure gender equality it is important in many cases that women and men are treated equally. But they should not necessarily be treated equally in all situations. In some cases, the underprivileged gender must be favoured to be able obtain similar results. Actual differences between the lives of women and men must be taken into account. Women make an important contribution to society by becoming pregnant, giving birth and breast-feeding. Despite many years of active equality policy in Norway, women still bear the heaviest burden for children, sick and old people. Their efforts in this area are extensive and socially beneficial. But although women often are double working, they still earn less than men, own much less than men, have lower pension and are underrepresented in positions of power and influence. To impose a new burden such as conscription on women in this situation is not only unreasonable. It can increase the economic and social gender gaps in society. Instead of equality the result will be greater inequality.
...

Oops. So much for equality. If we're going to start taking biological differences into account (e.g. women can get pregnant while men cannot), I suppose that other biological differences, like musculoskeletal strength, should also be considered?

[Luther Blissett]

That's not an outdated definition, that is the objective definition. Almost all branches of contemporary feminism absolutely do work for the equality of the sexes, not disingenuous at all.

[tapitsbo]

I'll leave you and slomo to get into an argument about this, then.

I'd rather watch paint dry (I do believe that you are objectively wrong, albeit sincere - I'll take your word for it as far as being sincere goes.)

My perception is that you two are treating feminism as an idea independent of context.

Even Project Willow was (more in conformity with my observations) treating it as a particular, historically specific movement. Which is a more useful way to view it, unless we are trying to suck people into a debate totally divorced from measurable realities...

[brainpanhandler]

It strikes me that there are (at least) two ways of moving through this world. One is to take a reflexively militant and combative view, seeking to smash the patriarchy and destroy capitalism. Another is to lovingly acquire enough local power to do some actual good in the world.

Now that's some rhetoric.

I hate to tell you this, but the world will always be unjust.

The only thing unjust about the world is what humans choose. It is not the world that is unjust. It is humans that are unjust.

If, by some miracle, you succeed in "destroying capitalism" or "smashing the patriarchy", another unjust system will quickly arise out of its ashes.

I hate to tell you this, but you sound like my father, a reactionary FOX zombie. Invariably our arguments always revolved around the same basic question about human nature. Are we naturally greedy, acquisitive and sociopathic or are those learned traits? He believes the former. I believe the latter. The example I would use was 100 people stranded on an island. If everything is shared equitably then there are enough resources to sustain everyone. A couple of people decide that they want more than their allotment. The other 98 people band together and banish them from the island. His contention is that this process would continue until there are 2 people left and one wants more than half.

If you're counting on the fall of Western civilization due to environmental collapse or global warming, get ready for marauding hordes of muderers and rapists (hint: if you're concerned about Patriarchy now, you're in for a very rough ride when the gangs sweep through your utopian eco-village).

Actually, I will be counting on the patriarchy to man up and defend against the hordes of murderers and rapists. My father, for all his numerous flaws, would not stand by while the weaker among us is raped and murdered. At least not if there was something he could do about it.

A more constructive approach is to realize that this world, this Saṃsāra in which we are forced to incarnate, is fallen by its very nature, and to do what you can to make life better for those in your immediate vicinity. That means, help the younger people you encounter to be better prepared to exist in the present economic system in which we find ourselves, regardless of how unjust that system might seem. That means, be sweeter and kinder to your family members, especially your significant other, while at the same time protecting those under your care (e.g. your children) from being led astray. It means making small but meaningful changes locally, not persisting under the narcissistic illusion that you are going to somehow change the world. The world is what it is, you can only change yourself and maybe influence a few other people.

Fair enough. But what if you were saying that to a ten year old MLK?

[tapitsbo]

So the patriarchy must on the one hand man up and on the other be dismantled. Let me guess, is this supposed to happen in such slo-mo that there's time to re-educate all those nasty, barbaric foreigners who buy into patriarchy sans bashfulness?

It is humans that (to some extent) decide what "just" means.

[Luther Blissett]

I'm not a woman but it's my understanding that underneath antiwar sentiments, my friends feel like if military frontline battle has to be part of it, they'll take it. But then again they will ask why men are always trying to talk about getting them to die - since historically all of our Pentagon generals and chiefs of staff have been women sending men to die, as we all know. How about conscription for none?