Is feminism inherently negative?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


This is so assinine, aneeshm, that I honestly don't know where to begin.

So now working = male (because your culture says so) and thus anyone working is therefore male, or mannish. So a woman who works is, accordingly, "trying to be a man" or somesuch crap. But yeah, it's the feminists who degrade people and make them feel like they have to act a certain way. Aneeshm would never do such a thing! It's the eevil feminazis who make women feel bad.

-Arrian

You neither addressed the point I made WRT another approach to the problem, neither did you respond to the comments about the problem of strength.

[Arrian]

Your premise struck me as so idiotic I never really got past that.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Skimming your explanation of the traditional approach... um, women would still be entirely dependent on their husbands until they amassed enough money to be financially independant. Before then, they are at the mercy of the man. Good plan

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
Skimming your explanation of the traditional approach... um, women would still be entirely dependent on their husbands until they amassed enough money to be financially independant. Before then, they are at the mercy of the man. Good plan

-Arrian

No. Within roughly three generations, the inherited mass of wealth would be enough to allow the woman to be financially independent at the time of marriage itself, considering that a certain percentage of the wwealth would be given by mother to daughter at the time she gets married.

[Arrian]

The breadth and depth of your generosity leaves me speechless.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
The breadth and depth of your generosity leaves me speechless.

-Arrian

The problem with such an approach is that it requires continuity. For the system to work, it has to already exist. Otherwise, you have to build it up in parallel with whatever other system exists.

[Nubclear]

Congratulations Aneeshm You are an abomination.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by aneeshm


No. Within roughly three generations, the inherited mass of wealth would be enough to allow the woman to be financially independent at the time of marriage itself, considering that a certain percentage of the wwealth would be given by mother to daughter at the time she gets married.

Why be able to be financially independent at the time of your marriage when your grand daughter might be independent at the times of her's? Especially when it relies on the full proof arrangement of the man being so generous as to give his wife a bit of money each month. Good old Patriarchy. Why should a woman go out and earn her own money when she can wait to be given some that in 60 year's time might benefit someone else?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Starchild


Why be able to be financially independent at the time of your marriage when your grand daughter might be independent at the times of her's? Especially when it relies on the full proof arrangement of the man being so generous as to give his wife a bit of money each month. Good old Patriarchy. Why should a woman go out and earn her own money when she can wait to be given some that in 60 year's time might benefit someone else?

It appears you misunderstood. The man giving bit was supposed to act as seed capital, as the kernel. Once the system is fully in place, no further input is really necessary. It's an alternate financial structure, a fallback for the woman in case of need.

[CrONoS]

Aneeshm has some really good points;

But in my point of view:

1: There is an hypocrisy about the women career way of life; I heard many women who are complaining that they are not able to have a family life; who would like to take 2-3 complete years to stay at home to raise their children, but they are not able, because they don't have enough money or if they're going to quit their job, they would never be able to compete against men when they will want to return to a job.

2: At the same time, legally(superficially) women have more right than before. But do they are respected as women? is their femininity respected and valued?

3: Finally, is the sexual "liberation" wasn't a liberation of male sexuality? Now we can **** any girl, we have many tools to be sure that in would not end in reproduction. We don't have any responsibility, we do not face any reaction to our action(if we forget to take the condom, the girl have now the right to abort... We can also use persuasion to be sure that she will abort. I don't know ANY girl who were happy to abort, and many of them would have like to keep the baby; but their boyfriends, family, friends were not helping them)

Sexuality as a whole is now denied, and only sensual gratification is now accepted and cherished.

In my point of view, the liberation of women is a myth, legally it worked, but more profoundly it partially perverted men and women; and the family. Which is the roots of society...

[CrONoS]

So "Is feminism inherently negative?"

No, but I think they have missed many of their goals.

[Arrian]

Well, that's certainly a PoV I've encountered before. I don't share it myself.

That's not to say I think everything is perfect and there are no flaws in the way things have developed. But I think there is an unfortunate longing for something in the past that never really existed - something held up as superior to the muddled reality of the present day situation. Of course, present-day reality has trouble competing with mythical (or quasi-mythical) past golden ages... something I've mentioned to aneeshm before when discussing other matters.

2: At the same time, legally(superficially) women have more right than before. But do they are respected as women? is their femininity respected and valued?

I must confess that I don't even really understand what this means.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, that's certainly a PoV I've encountered before. I don't share it myself.

That's not to say I think everything is perfect and there are no flaws in the way things have developed. But I think there is an unfortunate longing for something in the past that never really existed - something held up as superior to the muddled reality of the present day situation. Of course, present-day reality has trouble competing with mythical (or quasi-mythical) past golden ages... something I've mentioned to aneeshm before when discussing other matters.

-Arrian

Fine. Assume that the past is gone. Finished. Assume that the past was always worse than the present.

Does that not mean that we should strive all the harder to create a golden age which people in the future can look back on with pride? Doesn't it put even more of a responsibility on us, rather than less?

And you still haven't addressed my point about the self-supporting alternate financial structure for women, have you?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian

I must confess that I don't even really understand what this means.

-Arrian

I think he's trying to say that the admiration a woman receives is proportional to how close she comes to realising the masculine ideals, instead of the feminine ones.

That is, are women respected as women, or are they respected as you would respect a man, for the same reasons?

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Arrian

I must confess that I don't even really understand what this means.

-Arrian

We gave more legal right to women, but at the same time, I think men have lost any idea of what is a women. And how it should be "respected" (and "feared").

It's the very concept of sexuality that have been lost. The concept that women and men are two different things, that they are not sharing the same identity, the same goal, the same thought pattern, the same point of view.

If it comes a day when we will look at a women and actually see a women... and stop thinking that women are like men. This day we will began to respect women.

Edit:
I don't believe in definitive gender role. Which is idiotic, since all men are also having a female side and female are having a male side. But I think they exist female and male pattern of behavior.