I always find people who claim to be part of a group advocating equality are typically nothing more tham supremecists themselves. They dont want equality, they want to oppress other groups for the benefit of their group.
I saw an article in an NYC paper with a ex-i-banker feminist who said that if Hillary doesn't get elected then they would need to have another feminist revolution.
So if Obama loses the blacks need to riot, or have another civil rights movement?
If McCain loses then the old white people need to have an AARP movement?
Vote your issues, not your demographic.
So if Obama loses the blacks need to riot, or have another civil rights movement?
If McCain loses then the old white people need to have an AARP movement?
Vote your issues, not your demographic.
As a disclaimer, i'm for Obama.
That said, I also have no problem with women wanting to see our first female president as long as they don't put a clearly inferior candidate into office. I don't believe that she is a bad candidate, so I don't really have a problem with her. I just happen to believe that Obama's basement is Hillary's ceiling. If Obama disappoints me, he'll be a business as usual partisan president who happens to be on the liberal side. I don't see Hillary as being anything but that, period.
That's true, but in my view, it's mostly because of numbers. Women can get away with saying that because they are half of the population, and probably more than that of the voting population. It's okay if they piss off men by making her the "woman" candidate, because they simply have to energize women in greater numbers than they alienate men.
Always, really? Were women campaigning for the right to vote supremacists? Or blacks campaigning for the end to Jim Crow laws? I use those examples because inequality was so obvious then because it was written into law. Once the laws get overturned it's not as easy to prove, but it also doesn't suddenly disappear. The same mindset that created those laws is just as prevalent the day after they're overturned as the day before. My point is that inequality has and does exist. Not everyone who complains is a victim, but it's just as ridiculous to dismiss every claim out of hand.
LtPage1
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2004
- 6,311
- 2
- 0
If acknowledging that inequality exists, and working to help fix it is sexist, then the Civil Rights movement was racist. Ignoring a problem because you're afraid that being called "sexist," or "racist," is no reason to not deal with it.
I agree with the rest of your statement. But don't you think it's understandable for Hillary supporters to believe that her experience growing up as a woman in a (still mostly) male-dominated society gives her a perspective that Obama might lack? It would be crazy to vote for her based just on that, but that doesn't mean it's an illegitimate reason.
Is that really a surprise though? I don't like the idea of electing Hillary JUST because she's a woman...but holy Christ is there something wrong with some of the people posting in this thread. There is a difference between finding radical feminism silly and thinking all women belong in the kitchen, and many of the people posting here seem MUCH closer to the latter. Not that it's really unusual, for all the talk of equality, you wouldn't know that feminism is unnecessary given the way far too many men in this country talk about the women in this country.
Besides, I think the number of people voting FOR Hillary just because she's a woman is dramatically exceeded by the number of people voting AGAINST Hillary just because she's a woman. I'm no fan of Hillary, if she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll consider voting for someone else...but I don't hate her because she's a woman in a position of power, and I get the feeling a fair number of her detractors do.
You're not a feminist, quite the opposite in fact. You're using the oldest trick in the book; declare that the movement has won, despite a huge amount of evidence to the contrary, then blast everyone who's still fighting as a radical or frustrated. Throw in a little claptrap about men being "victims of their own gender upbringing" and you're free to ignore the remaining problems between men and women in this country while still claiming to support equality for women. It's a good tactic, if not especially inventive.
Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe you really are in favor of equal treatment of women in society...but you sure wouldn't know it reading your first post in this thread. I have a hard time reconciling your statement that you're quite the feminist with your assertion that feminism is irrelevant. Which is it? Or is it that only your kind of feminism is acceptable, that feminism isn't so much something women can do as something that they have to get their man to do for them?
Mmm....Ok on the first point, depending on what specific action is proposed. On the second point I disagree that "experience" is the only way to "know" something. Perspectives can be learned, and others' experiences can be incorporated into one's self.
Take the example of Margaret Thatcher as the Prime Minister of England in the 1980s. Is she a feminist hero? Did her experience as a woman lead her to push for reforms that feminists applauded? Or, to use absurdity, would Ann Coulter be great for the feminist movement if she were President? A woman, despite her experience as a "woman" does not translate that experience into policies that differ that much from men in the same positions. Is Nanci Pelosi that different from other Speakers of the House of past years?
When I took a Women's Issues class in college, the professor (a very radical, but fair feminist woman) spoke quite bluntly about the issue: A woman as President will in reality be quite the let-down after the initial euphoria. She would not be all that different from all the men before her. Why? Because societal change is incremental, and where it is not, it becomes violent -- and what President would champion civil disorder?
You might disagree with her, but I have a hunch she may be correct. Her focus was not to put women up on pedestals, but to educate all to be aware of gender expectations in society at large and teach people how to minimize the influence of such expectations in their daily lives.
I am in fact very much in favor of equal treatment for women, and yes, the inequality (like racism) still persists. I only have to hang out with some of my cousin's distasteful friends to appreciate that fact -- they are just intolerable. Is feminism irrelevant? No, but what kind of feminism is important. My impertinate first post was intended to irreverantly show the absurdity of method some of the older feminists use -- and subsequently lose their audience and moral voice, which is sad because their grievances are legit.
I believe in a pragmatic feminism -- the one that most younger feminists embrace which emphasizes gender over "male" or "female". Gender has nothing to do with being physically male or female but everything to do with culture and societal expectations. Such a feminism seeks change that affects the underlying foundations of society. Who are we and why do we do what we do? Much of my feminism is grounded the structuration theory of sociology and heavily influenced by Anthony Giddens.
Anyway, hope that gives you some insight -- so it is not that "my kind of feminism" is the only acceptable kind, but that it may be the only truly effective kind in the long run. And no, it is not something women have to get their man to do for them; but something that all individuals may do together to permanently change society as a whole.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
From all the anti-feminist sentiment displayed on this forum you'd think everyone either listened to conservative radio every morning, or attended an agent-of-intolerance fundamentalist church every sunday.
Today's "feminists" are just out-of-touch with real women. It's no wonder they're frustrated. And for them to offer Hillary as their poster-child is hilarious. We would never have heard of her if not for her husband.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Or it could just be that many of us recognize that modern day feminism is completely out of touch with the noble, justified and necessary goals initially pursued by the woman's suffrage movement in America.
SSSnail
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 17,458
- 83
- 86
Not really, the split was before everybody jumped on the bandwagon, and not much about Obama was spread around. In come Oprah, and the heated coverage of the race, and everybody that didn't care before realized "hey, there's a black man running for prezident", and then you have it.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Interesting point.
The world has seen a pretty fair number of women leaders (UK, Pakistan, Israel, South America) including Pelosi and a number of state governors here, I'd like to see a study on how this unique "women's perspective" manifest itself and what it achieved.
If true, by now we should have seen some concrete examples of it.
Fern
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter