Is feminism inherently negative?

[DaShi]

On the plight of many women in India:

http://www.thp.org/reports/indiawom.htm

[Odin]

Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by aneeshm
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.

This movement may, once upon a time, have been a force for the good, when women were fighting for equality, but now they have degenerated into some sort of rabidly anti-men, anti-society, anti-establishmentarian farce.

When I see the syllabus for "Women's Studies", I see most of it is plain rubbish masquerading as scholarship.

Another part, which I covered in an earlier thread, is that women in the movement are denied any traditional role models. All women who were well-integrated into their society, or served as a model for later women (such as Sita, Kunti, Draupadi, et al) are called "slaves". All women who follow normal gender roles are called "slaves". Hell, all women who have a normal and happy married life are also called "slaves"! Slaves of what, precisely? The Patriarchal society, or course!



One thing which I realised is that trying to form an ideological movement around a simple struggle for equality is dangerous and ultimately self-defeating. This is because movements and ideologies have a life of their own, once initiated.

When the feminist movement started, it aimed at gender equality, or equality of opportunity. Today, in Europe and America, this equality is a reality.

But any movement, once started, acquires a life of its own. If feminism had been simply a struggle for equal rights, it would have ended when these rights were granted. The mistake that occurred was that it became an ideology, a movement.

Any movement seeks to justify its existence. The only way feminism could seek to justify its existence after they achieved their ends (of gender equality through legislation) was to expand their scope, or to somehow try to establish that their objective was not yet achieved. They chose to follow both these methods.

In the first place, feminists have expanded into what is called "Women's Studies", supposedly a study of women. I've always wondered what that really meant, because women cannot be studied as one would study a biological specimen, devoid of all context. This ensures that the "movement" remains alive.

The second method is of somehow saying that in spite of the achievement of all their stated goals, the goals haven't really been achieved, and by making more and more demands. The demands, of necessity, grow more and more absurd as time goes on, because all the reasonable ones have already been granted. Demands and cries of "Help! Help! I, the poor helpless woman, am being oppressed!" always help in rallying people around the cause.

One interesting side-effect is that this locks feminists into a sense of perpetual victimhood. What they don't understand is that this reinforces the image of women as helpless or weak far better than any amount of male domination ever could.





The moral of the story: don't turn struggles into movements. It degenerates into farce. And don't pay attention to idiots - these "studiers" of "women" will die out if not given any more attention of paid any heed.


And just to piss off feminists, from now on, I'm going to start calling myself a "Patriarchian".

You are confusing Feminists with Feminazis.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
Inherently? I don't think so. Feminism today takes ltos of ugly faces though, but in general and the very idea of it, there's nothing wrong in it. Race, gender etc should play no part in the treatment of people and the opportunities they get.

Indeed. Any movement will have its extremists. To tar the entire feminist movement with the brush of the extremists is ridiculous. And I'm not sure that the goal of equality HAS been fully realized. It is close, but there are still plenty of people who have sexist beliefs (ie, the role of women in society) and as that continues, there still should exist feminist organizations to fight against those beliefs.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is close, but there are still plenty of people who have sexist beliefs (ie, the role of women in society) and as that continues, there still should exist feminist organizations to fight against those beliefs.

So feminism is all about fighting against what other people believe?

I wonder how they will know they have acheived their goals? When everyone no longer tells a joke or says anything that is deemed to be sexist?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm
That difference is because of the primarily rural nature of Indian society, which excabarates last-mile problems.

Lots of other similar countries have managed to get better literacy rates. Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Sri Lanka are just some examples.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Sandman


Lots of other similar countries have managed to get better literacy rates. Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Sri Lanka are just some examples.

It's difficult to imagine just how vast and dense India is. But the situation is improving.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It is close, but there are still plenty of people who have sexist beliefs (ie, the role of women in society) and as that continues, there still should exist feminist organizations to fight against those beliefs.

So feminism is supposed to act as the new thought-police?

If I'm a person who believes that women should be treated equally, and given equal opportunities, but that the best society is one having a traditional nuclear (or joint) family unit consisting of the man as the breadwinner, the woman as the housewife, with grandparents living in the same house, I'm now suddenly the ideological enemy of the feminists? I'm the one they're fighting against? Even though I believe in the equality of men and women?

If so, something is seriously wrong here.

[Kuciwalker]

Er, yes, you are an ideological opponent of any feminist if you think that.

[aneeshm]

When you start attacking people who believe in equality, but have a vision of society they want to achieve using non-coercive means, you are in the wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Aneesh, you quite literally believe that women belong in the kitchen.

[Pekka]

RIght, it's not equal opportunity if women are supposed to be the ones staying home and not have a career.

Where's the equal opportunity in that?

I think what most reasonable feminism has a problem with is exactly this. That is, gender roles based upon these assumptions. Ok, why does someone being a man or a woman make them take some role? And it is this very atmosphere that favours men. Because, if we assume women are equal and should be treated as such, but then think they also should stay home more than not, at least when compared to the man, well... that's creating the atmosphere where it's not equal opportunity anymore.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Aneesh, you quite literally believe that women belong in the kitchen.

No, I don't. I believe that they belong wherever they want to be, and can cope. Nice strawman, though.

My point is that it is best for society if a certain critical mass, a critical percentage, of women and men retain their traditional roles.

Individual cases are individual cases, and in my interactions with women, I treat them as such - as a person. I don't judge them based on what path they choose. We each have to find our own way.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Pekka

RIght, it's not equal opportunity if women are supposed to be the ones staying home and not have a career.

So staying at home is now intrinsically inferior to having a career?

Why the prejudice, Pekka?

Originally posted by Pekka

Where's the equal opportunity in that?

As I said, give women a choice - you can choose either the home or the career. Let them make that choice independently, without people like you imposing their pro-career prejudices on them.

Originally posted by Pekka

I think what most reasonable feminism has a problem with is exactly this. That is, gender roles based upon these assumptions.

I assume nothing, nor do I prescribe roles based on gender. But I do want to have a society where the traditional gender role is open to anyone, man or woman, who wants to choose it, without prejudice, which freedom the feminists seem to want to deny.

Originally posted by Pekka

Ok, why does someone being a man or a woman make them take some role?

It doesn't.

Originally posted by Pekka

And it is this very atmosphere that favours men. Because, if we assume women are equal and should be treated as such, but then think they also should stay home more than not, at least when compared to the man, well... that's creating the atmosphere where it's not equal opportunity anymore.

I fail to see your logic here.

[Starchild]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by aneeshm
My point is that it is best for society if a certain critical mass, a critical percentage, of women and men retain their traditional roles.
/QUOTE]

Why?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Starchild

Originally posted by aneeshm
My point is that it is best for society if a certain critical mass, a critical percentage, of women and men retain their traditional roles.

Why?

Such a society is more stable, more resilient, can withstand internal AND external threats better than others, and can take change at its own pace. In the long run, the stability provided by the family structure is more than worth the cost.