The end-of-feminism thread - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Pants-of-dog
#13649460
Suska wrote:Christian has always been a meaningless term except as it's used to indicate a follower of Christ, which most people - even Christians - are not. It's why we talk instead of Catholics and Protestants and Baptists etc. What's your point?


Protestants are not a cohesive social group, and some Protestant tenets will contradict other Protestant tenets. Therefore Protestantism is a meaningless term.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13649480
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Protestants are not a cohesive social group, and some Protestant tenets will contradict other Protestant tenets. Therefore Protestantism is a meaningless term.


No True Scotsmen are not a cohesive social group and some No True Scotsmen will contradict other No True Scotsman tenants. Therefore No True Scotsman is a meaningless term.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13649516
Rei wrote:But that system was itself a system of unnecessarily hyper-privatised family that displaced and held back the possibility of community-reared-children (it takes a neighbourhood and a State) and integrated economy (women would not have to choose between home-or-work at this point, we could do both).

Oh, I agree that the nuclear family in the suburbs sucked.

But throwing bored and unhappy suburban women into Toyota Corollas to take them to cubicles everyday was just as horrible a "solution" as suburbia was, or as the nuclear family was.

As I stated many pages ago, men originally stayed at home as well. It took wars, evictions, civil strife and genocide to get men to leave their lives at home on the farm to go to work in factories and coal mines.

To enact Stage 2 of the destruction of the home economy, all the business community had to do was broadcast "work makes you free" on mass media, and women were lining up for "freedom."

Are children next? Do they deserve to be "freed" from the drudgery of childhood and school as well?
User avatar
By Suska
#13649537
Hey Rei, that was cool and interesting what you said, although you're completely wrong and hey, why don't you watch this tv show? It will educate you about how things really are, and then you won't have to worry your pretty little head any longer!

I've never talked down to Rei, you're just insulting me now - as if I'm the one being childish.

Protestants are not a cohesive social group, and some Protestant tenets will contradict other Protestant tenets. Therefore Protestantism is a meaningless term.

Protestantism was from the outset an unruly (because unruled) group, but they have always been straightforward enough to name their sects. Anyways for a while Protestantism was easy enough to define as Christian but not Catholic. You're really stretching trying to prove I'm wrong about the lack of cohesion in feminism by pointing out other groups that need not be cohesive - or have anything to do with what I said.

Did you see the last episode? Remember the conversation Peggy has with Joan?

I'm not caught up.

No True Scotsmen are not a cohesive social group and some No True Scotsmen will contradict other No True Scotsman tenants. Therefore No True Scotsman is a meaningless term.

That doesn't even apply to anything going on here.
By Thompson_NCL
#13652079
Oh, I agree that the nuclear family in the suburbs sucked.

But throwing bored and unhappy suburban women into Toyota Corollas to take them to cubicles everyday was just as horrible a "solution" as suburbia was, or as the nuclear family was.

As I stated many pages ago, men originally stayed at home as well. It took wars, evictions, civil strife and genocide to get men to leave their lives at home on the farm to go to work in factories and coal mines.

To enact Stage 2 of the destruction of the home economy, all the business community had to do was broadcast "work makes you free" on mass media, and women were lining up for "freedom."

Are children next? Do they deserve to be "freed" from the drudgery of childhood and school as well?


One of the few times I am totally behind Qatz. Although, I should point out my zipper is remaining in place!
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13652159
Thompson_NCL wrote:One of the few times I am totally behind Qatz. Although, I should point out my zipper is remaining in place!


Oh I agree with all the scathing analyses of suburban life and culture. What I don't accept is the way Qatz manages to blame this on feminism, and basically chastises women to sit down, shut up and wait for men to 'fix things'.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13653364
Oh I agree with all the scathing analyses of suburban life and culture. What I don't accept is the way Qatz manages to blame this on feminism,

I don't blame crappy suburban life on feminism.

I blame feminism (partially) on crappy suburban life. It's boring and anti-social in the burbs, and it's expensive to keep so many cars running.

But to say "feminism" was a solution to suburbia, is like saying "belt loosening" is a solution to morbid obesity.

The problem remains, and perhaps gets worse because of the "solution."
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13653604
Who says feminism is a solution to surburbia?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13653898
Nobody said those exact words because - with rapidly changing technology - we have no time to formulate our distress.

We just keep on moving because... something always seems to be wrong.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13654330
QatzelOk wrote:Nobody said those exact words because - with rapidly changing technology - we have no time to formulate our distress.

We just keep on moving because... something always seems to be wrong.


I don't know many active feminists living in the suburbs. Suburbia is sort of the antithesis to action though, isn't it? Physical and psychological alienation.

The active feminists I know aren't working corporate jobs on Bay Street either. They are generally parents who are working part time or on contract basis, living in neighbourhoods that don't require you to drive to access essential services. Some of them reek of patchouli, and some don't. Some are Christians, and others are not. They come from a variety of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. These feminists don't make a lot of money and don't live high on the hog, but then again their priorities are quite different than the picture you're painting.

I think it's up to everyone, regardless of their feminism, or other 'isms' to reformulate a more sustainable way of living. I don't think you can dream up a 'new life' when you're in ticky tacky houses with perfect green lawns and commuting each morning to your corporate existence.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13655047
yiwa wrote:The active feminists I know aren't working corporate jobs on Bay Street either. They are generally parents who are working part time or on contract basis, living in neighbourhoods that don't require you to drive to access essential services. Some of them reek of patchouli, and some don't. Some are Christians, and others are not. They come from a variety of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. These feminists don't make a lot of money and don't live high on the hog, but then again their priorities are quite different than the picture you're painting.


To call your own girl-clique "feminists" misses the point of social evolution entirely.

Likewise, I haven't "painted a picture" of feminism, so much as described my own observations of what the word has been used to justify.

Your picture, on the other hand, is full of thick acrylic smears. Your Norman Rockwell feminists are granola eating cyclists who listen to Tracy Chapman. It's a nice picture, but it has very little to do with the general social changes that were introduced under the "feminism" banner.

There are also working-class, child-raising, patchouli-wearing misogynists who don't commute. Aren't they nice?

Oh wait... let's examine the side effects of misogyny (or of feminism) before commenting on how much patchouli oil they wear.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13655254
QatzelOk wrote:
To call your own girl-clique "feminists" misses the point of social evolution entirely.


Nope.

These women and men (still falling into the trap of thinking feminists are only women, hey?) are absolutely feminists, and the ones I have the most personal interaction with. That was a deliberate choice, btw...I specifically moved into this neighbourhood, in this city, in this province to be around people who have similar priorities.

That does not make them the only feminists.

Feminists are not all they are. They have other ideological and practical priorities which mesh with their feminism.

QatzelOk wrote:
Likewise, I haven't "painted a picture" of feminism, so much as described my own observations of what the word has been used to justify.


By whom?

I am pointing out that there are feminists who don't buy into 'feminism as female-CEOs'.


QatzelOk wrote:Your picture, on the other hand, is full of thick acrylic smears. Your Norman Rockwell feminists are granola eating cyclists who listen to Tracy Chapman. It's a nice picture, but it has very little to do with the general social changes that were introduced under the "feminism" banner.


Sorry, you're mixing your artistic metaphors. Norman Rockwell feminists would be the ones happily choosing to stay at home while their husband is off working. That's a valid choice as well...but hardly what I've described.

QatzelOk wrote:There are also working-class, child-raising, patchouli-wearing misogynists who don't commute. Aren't they nice?


Not nice feminists, no, but at least they aren't buying into the suburban dream.

Unless they are, and that's the ultimate goal. Which I've certainly seen.

QatzelOk wrote:Oh wait... let's examine the side effects of misogyny (or of feminism) before commenting on how much patchouli oil they wear.


I'd love to hear you flesh this out with more than trite little slogans.
User avatar
By El Gilroy
#13655278
My position is that women ought to liberate themselves from all preconceived notions of what a woman should be like.

Men ought to do the same.

Neither will happen.
By Pants-of-dog
#13655284
El Gilroy wrote:My position is that women ought to liberate themselves from all preconceived notions of what a woman should be like.

Men ought to do the same.

Neither will happen.


We will never completely do it, but we can liberate ourselves from many (perhaps most) preconceived notions of what men and women should be like.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13655299
In particular, the most harmful expectations.

Do men really want to live up to an ideal that has them working like dogs until retirement when rest is finally earned?

How many men literally drop dead of a heart attack mere days after retirement? Among men of that age that I knew, I can easily count 7 who never made it to a full year past retirement. That's no life to aspire to.

Do men really want to be emotionally distant and only tangentially involved with their children? Western culture is littered with narratives of men desperately trying to relate to their children too late...warnings that are poignant because they continue to be ignored.

There are many, many harmful gender roles men and women are thrust into that we should be working together to overturn.
User avatar
By MB.
#13655589
The problem, as this thread continues to demonstrate, is that people generally don't understand feminism or societal power structures and generally don't care one way or the other. So long as they can drive their BMW and go shopping on the weekend they are 'happy' or at least, are willing to tolerate the absurd social order.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13661201
yiwahikanak wrote:Do men really want to live up to an ideal that has them working like dogs until retirement when rest is finally earned?

Do men really want to be emotionally distant and only tangentially involved with their children? Western culture is littered with narratives of men desperately trying to relate to their children too late...warnings that are poignant because they continue to be ignored.


Of course not, but one of the side effects of putting women into the workplace is to increase the supply of labor, lowering wages and therefore requiring two-income households. I'm one of the few vocal anti-feminists still commenting on the board, and you just hit the nail on the head- the materialist dogma of liberal-capitalist feminism creates a scenerio in which women are subjegated by work-culture, and men are further entrenched in it. A single-parent economy, with a focus on automation and increased productivity, would not only allow for one full time parent, but create a focus where the working parent can also spend more time with their family.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13661957
Figlio di Moros wrote:
Of course not, but one of the side effects of putting women into the workplace is to increase the supply of labor, lowering wages and therefore requiring two-income households.


Which would explain things, if men weren't dropping dead from working too hard even before women joined the workforce. But they were. Just like the emotional distance from their children did not suddenly occur once women started working outside the home.

Figlio di Moros wrote: I'm one of the few vocal anti-feminists still commenting on the board, and you just hit the nail on the head- the materialist dogma of liberal-capitalist feminism creates a scenerio in which women are subjegated by work-culture, and men are further entrenched in it. A single-parent economy, with a focus on automation and increased productivity, would not only allow for one full time parent, but create a focus where the working parent can also spend more time with their family.


Which is what plenty of non-liberal-capitalist-feminists actually do advocate for creating space for (one parent working outside the home). As long as it's not by default the man. Creating space for the 'working parent' to spend more time with the family however often requires flexible schedules, longer vacations, more sick days and what have you....all of which are seen as detrimental to career advancement and economic growth. Then you pit childless workers up against workers with children. The entire economic system needs to be changed to accommodate a more humane lifestyle for everyone, regardless of their gender or status as parents.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

One song for Ukraine: ... serb , you are wrong[…]