Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Both still reproduce in great numbers .

Are you dense or just stating random pointless facts?

Benefits of fully replenishing the stocks of people which already exist is another argument (greatly complicated by welfare programs).

It's pretty obvious that a population implosion is a bad thing.

[MJW]

Feminisim is inherently negative because it says that socity and the people of it are wrong. Something can be right and neagtive in that way. This thread is just one big 'no true scotsman fallacys' thrown way after another. Yawn.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

It's pretty obvious that a population implosion is a bad thing.

Very, very bad. Just how bad Europe will realise too late.

[MJW]

If a 'debate' goes on long enough one side will somehow end up stuck passively defending a point. If that point is unclear like in the 'youth house' thread than it can go on forever. If it is clear like in this thread (the point will lifely be if there is ANY advantange in women being 'less' important than men) than the defending side will slowly go away because they cannot win. No one likes fighting for a draw. They also cannot change the topic. Thus, the best idea for winning debates is to make the other side stuck defending. The smaller side (the right wing here) almost always ends up defending the point. This is because the majotry ends up lauching most of the attacks because they have more posters. So the debate is more liklely to end up stuck on a point their attacking.

[Cyclotron]

Ye gods, Imran is practically the only intelligent voice in this train wreck of a thread.

I'd just like to point out how hollow the accusation of "negativity" is on a very basic level. Every theory and ideology that is normative - that is, posits that there ought to be change, or that things ought to be done differently - in some way challenges the existing order. You can't maintain that something needs to be changed without admitting that something is wrong in the first place; there are negative aspects to society that can be improved or replaced. Denigrating a theory by calling it "negative" is the biggest load I have ever heard. Any theory that was not "negative" in some way would be utterly inert and incapable of efficacy. Change for the better in society is a good thing, and that change can't be accomplished without criticizing aspects of society and bringing people's attention to the problems inherent in our modern culture - which, despite wishful claims to the contrary, still retains a great deal of patriarchal influence and dogma.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Ye gods, Imran is practically the only intelligent voice in this train wreck of a thread.

I'd just like to point out how hollow the accusation of "negativity" is on a very basic level. Every theory and ideology that is normative - that is, posits that there ought to be change, or that things ought to be done differently - in some way challenges the existing order. You can't maintain that something needs to be changed without admitting that something is wrong in the first place; there are negative aspects to society that can be improved or replaced. Denigrating a theory by calling it "negative" is the biggest load I have ever heard. Any theory that was not "negative" in some way would be utterly inert and incapable of efficacy. Change for the better in society is a good thing, and that change can't be accomplished without criticizing aspects of society and bringing people's attention to the problems inherent in our modern culture - which, despite wishful claims to the contrary, still retains a great deal of patriarchal influence and dogma.

I want to know did you just blow off my first post in this thread? It is negtive in the first poster's correct (but uncommonly used) defineing way. Then everyone zoomed in on his word negtive and posted a bunch that did not really meet his main arguemeant.

My answer is simple. Feminism is negtive in asshem's semse of the word AND its mostly a good thing (at least like a place like Inda).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by MJW
I want to know did you just blow off my first post in this thread?

Of course I did. You didn't expect me to read this whole thread carefully, did you? I'll keep my sanity, thanks.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Of course I did. You didn't expect me to read this whole thread carefully, did you? I'll keep my sanity, thanks.

Okay, your way of expaning it was better anyway. aneeshm, I think the fundemental problem with feminism today is that everyone is politcal. So all they can really do to make India pro-women (as the define it) that does not have a drop in the bucket affect is to make people vote for more pro-women leaders. For some reason they are failing there. So all they can really do it moan helplessy about the particarchy.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by MJW


I want to know did you just blow off my first post in this thread? It is negtive in the first poster's correct (but uncommonly used) defineing way. Then everyone zoomed in on his word negtive and posted a bunch that did not really meet his main arguemeant.

My answer is simple. Feminism is negtive in asshem's semse of the word AND its mostly a good thing (at least like a place like Inda).

Oh, you DanSed me, you little DanS.

Fine, let's give you and him a looksee.

The more I read about this ideology, the more I come to the conclusion that feminism is, at least today, inherently negativist, based on negation and not affirmation, and in general anti-life. A devout feminist is incapable of a normal relationship with a man, or with her society, and is incompatible with the family unit.

Ugh. "Negation and not affirmation?" So affirming women's status as fully privileged human beings apparently isn't enough for aneeshm. Affirming a culture of equality of opportunity in society doesn't count either, it seems. And as for anti-life... what in the world? It seems readily apparent that what aneeshm means is negation of patriarchy, and anti-male dominated life. "Negative" here is aneeshm secret code for "disturbingly anti-patriarchal."

Feminisim is inherently negative because it says that socity and the people of it are wrong. Something can be right and neagtive in that way. This thread is just one big 'no true scotsman fallacys' thrown way after another. Yawn.

Sure, but all normative ideologies are inherently negative, insofar as they criticize society and individuals within it and propose a better method of organization or conceptualization. As I said before, you can't have normative ideology without negativity. Something needs to be the target of change in order for there to be change.

[MJW]

The feminists are so weak in India that the only thing that they really do that is noticeable to anyone in India is rant against the 'male-dominate' life system. The news media does not cover anything else. All weak movements are covered as mostly negtive by the news media everywhere these days to drive up ad $$$. The movements don't have the strength to change that (left or right). Your the only real poster to address asshem to directly address his real agruement. Every else is just ranting about women's rights.

[MJW]

So in conclusion feminisim is postive in theory but appears negtive (as in bad) in pratice in India. It's not really their fault. All movements way from the current center say the status quo is wrong so there negitve (by saying that the people are wrong) in that way. They have to a realistic postive image of the future and share there vision to help this problem. The feminists in Idia cannot do this because there weak.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by MJW
The feminists are so weak in India that the only thing that they really do that is noticeable to anyone in India is rant against the 'male-dominate' life system. The news media does not cover anything else. All weak movements are covered as mostly negtive by the news media everywhere these days to drive up ad $$$. The movements don't have the strength to change that (left or right). Your the only real poster to address asshem to directly address his real agruement. Every else is just ranting about women's rights.

Yeah, thus my "train wreck" analysis. I'm not really sure how everyone else got into an argument on "biological impulses," and I don't really want to find out, but aneeshm's original claim is clearly invalid on account of its meaninglessness.

One frequently finds that movements advocating the rights of underpriveleged groups, whether class, race, or gender based, are denigrated as "negative" precisely because conservative, reactionary forces within that society see the status quo as generally acceptable and appreciate the stability of a society in which they are on the top. The ones who hold the superior position will always wonder why those pesky protestors are trying to rock a perfectly good boat, without any attempt to understand that the social status quo - conceptualized as "positive," "normal," and "right" by its adherents - seems very different to those people locked out of the rights of the privileged group.

What it really boils down to is 1) an irrational fear of change, and 2) a complete failure to empathize with subordinated members of society. Aneeshm's response is typical dominant-position, conservative, status quo-obsessed clueless bunk.

As for the role of the mass media in all that, I'm not equipped to comment on that issue as it pertains to India. I would suspect it has less to do with perceived monetary benefits than the fact that the owners, reporters, and executives themselves tend to originate with these same privileged classes to whom the plight of such groups is a befuddling, irritating mystery.

[MJW]

Hmmm.... I think his real real point is that the feminists are not helping their cause. There helping India move away from them. I say that this is not their fault-- its the medias and a few extreme wackos. We really don't know yet because he has not reaponsed to a real agruemeant. We will find out sortly.

Happy flaming!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by MJW
So in conclusion feminisim is postive in theory but appears negtive (as in bad) in pratice in India. It's not really their fault. All movements way from the current center say the status quo is wrong so there negitve (by saying that the people are wrong) in that way. They have to a realistic postive image of the future and share there vision to help this problem. The feminists in Idia cannot do this because there weak.

I would prefer that we all abandon "negative" and "positive" as descriptors of ideologies, because they aren't meaningful. Aneeshm clearly uses "negative" to mean "something I don't like." The same goes for "life-affirming" or "positive," which appears to mean "something I agree with." The only thing I think that could correctly be described as objectively "negative" is nihilism.

Unless, of course, aneeshm just hasn't explained himself properly, in which case I await his more meaningful definition of negative and positive.

The theory of feminism is not positive or negative but normative. I have tried to express previously that any normative theory will, by its nature, criticize certain things and promote other things. It isn't negative or positive. It is simply an expression that something is wrong and it should be changed to something that is better.

Feminism doesn't state that "the people" are wrong. "The people" can't be wrong, because they're not a unified whole that thinks together. Feminism posits that there are problems with societal norms, gender preconceptions, and so on that should be challenged and reformed. Turning this into a matter of "the people vs. feminism" further normalizes patriarchy as the natural state of "the people," while conceptually placing feminists outside the community and denouncing their ideas as antisocial.

I don't think weakness has anything to do with having a positive vision of the future. On the contrary, I think it's more likely that many feminists around the world, including Indian feminists, could articulate to you what their vision of the world is despite the weakness of their movement. The fact that such groups lack the means to effectively promulgate that vision does not mean that the ideology itself is any different.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by MJW
Hmmm.... I think his real real point is that the feminists are not helping their cause.

Or rather, that to aneeshm, "helping their cause" means "helping their cause go away" or "helping their cause be co-opted such that it no longer threatens the status quo." People who talk about a movement "not helping its cause" are often people who don't give a damn about that cause, and would rather the movement just reign itself in and not be so darn annoying.

Happy flaming!