Why Feminism Isn't Taking Off In Non-Western Countries - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
To some degree it is creeping into eastern countries. The whole MeToo movement has affect China. Chinese women are certainly calling out men.

That said, I kind of believe it's just the communist party in the background using the MeToo movement to get rid of opponents. I've noticed some of the men getting into trouble, weren't friends of the communist party anyway. For example, that Tibetan monk that just got in trouble for sexual harassment. This is similar to the so called "anti-corruption" sweeps the party implements every so often. :lol:
Godstud, everything you said was a lie.

1. No that was the post WW2 Population boost known as the Baby Boomer period. More babies = More Jobs = Better Economy. Plus Technology, which is going to be mentioned many times below.
2. Nope. In fact it's made it all worse
3. Not really
4. 3/4 of all Suicides are men. So no it's not improved things for single men.
5. Nope, people work more than ever now. So they have less free time than ever before.
6. ??!!!? Nope, men have zero impact on this decision. Stupid thing to say.
7. What? Ok I'll give you this one. Weird it wasn't thought of as rape before.
8. No, Men work more than ever in today's society and take less time off.
9. No, that's modern technological progress. Evidence can be recorded on smartphones now.
10. So you are happy with women getting killed in war? Ok whatever floats your boat.
11. Civil rights has always been relevant. There's always political issues and civilian rights issues that are in vogue in history.
12. Nope, that's modern Technology.
13. Oh yeah? Divorce has gone up and the family Court has screwed over men in custody for generations. This is a flat out disgraceful lie.
14. ? Orwell would have liked this!
15. That was more gay issues awareness, not feminism. Oh and medical technological development.
16. ? This is a POV thing I guess. But even so, this is also due to technology.
17. Once again this was technological progress, not feminism.
18. No that was the scrutiny of Television and media and technological progress. Can see the low blows caught on TV camera. Technological progress.
19. Suicide rate is still 3 men to 1 woman.
20. ... For the worse.
21. Actually Men have been nurses for a long time already. Ok they were called Orderlies beforehand but it's essentially the same job. And men have been teachers since ancient times... Jesus was a Teacher(Rabbi!)!
22.... For the worse.
23. Everyone called for this, not just feminists.
If feminism is historically understood as political enfranchisement, open access to a industrial or post-industrial job-market, and equal protection and rights under the law, then I would say anywhere representative government or statism in general exists, feminism of this general sort likewise either exists in full-bloom or is growing. Countries that have been under such a poltical rubric for any length of time are seeing multi-generational waves of feminism that become increasingly radical overtime. Thus, I would say that women in China and Japan are still "feminists" in this more general sense even if they would be disgusted by the more radical forms of such in places like the United States, but this has more to do with such eastern feminisms being repulsed by the vulgarity of their western counterparts which support the like of slut-walks, opposition to mansplaining & manspreading, paranoia regarding rape culture, rabidly supporting their own culturally decline, supporting all aspects of the LBGTQI movement, and even supporting Islamic immigration; all of which would be abhorred by the average female japanese businesswoman or office-worker who is nonetheless a feminist in a broad sense even if she would eschew the term.

So when we say that non-western women are not supportive of feminism, that depends of what you mean.

I would say that anywhere there is statism, at least a statism that is not patriarchal or fascist, you will see some variety of politically or socially (or both) enfranchised women. The form of government creates conditions that necessitate the expansion of human capital and representable demographics and for this reason women will necessarily become enfranchised and the society become increasingly egalitarian.

I think you will find that the less expansive, micromanaging, and ubiquitous the state, and the more religious the populace, the less egalitarian in tends to be.

Most states in Africa are an obvious example, but also rural areas in South America, large swaths of the middle-east, and southeast asia (with certain exceptions of course), here you will find a more robust traditionalism, especially regarding gender.

This has to do with a religious ethos (social norms), and the lack of the state's direct control of socio-economic conditions that would directly relate to familial relations.

The older the state, in the sense of it being large and representative etc, the more likely that egalitarianism has filtered down to the general populace in a more thorough and psychological sense.

China is an interesting case because it was a very backward, religious, and patriarchal people not that long ago which were foisted with a bureaucratic, ubiquitous, atheist, egalitarian, and micromanaging communist state. For this reason you will have a stubborn cultural traditionalism that has a bit of religiosity to it and tends to be patriarchal in China but also with a rabidly expanding sense of egalitarianism.

This is the opposite of Europe and the U.S. which has become more thoroughly egalitarian because its been "slow-cooked" in statism for a longer period of time, thus the egalitarian and irreligious attitudes of the west are more fully entrenched. The west has been marinated in trends towards liberalism and egalitarianism for a lot longer than China, but China has been hit hard and fast by such ideas in a much more intensive sense over the last century.

Its the same with a burger, low heat over a long time will create a thoroughly cooked paddy, but if you throw it on high heat for a short period time, it will be burnt on the outside and undercooked on the inside. This is the difference between western and eastern feminisms, eastern feminism represent the latter end of the analogy.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Its the same with a burger, low heat over a long time will create a thoroughly cooked paddy, but if you throw it on high heat for a short period time, it will be burnt on the outside and undercooked on the inside. This is the difference between western and eastern feminisms, eastern feminism represent the latter end of the analogy.

We should make it our life mission to analogize everything to cooking meat. :)
Rancid wrote:We should make it our life mission to analogize everything to cooking meat.

The welfare state is like fried chicken, it looks delicious, but eating too much of it will make you fat and worthless.....plus black people seem to love it.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:If feminism is historically understood as political enfranchisement, open access to a industrial or post-industrial job-market, and equal protection and rights under the law

It's good to see that some on the right at least understand what they're criticizing.
Good job feminists don't spend time boring themselves to death with mens' shit opinions of their movement. What a surprise men who can't get laid hate feminists, blaming the ideology that demands equality for their shit personalities. :D

Hong Wu and Albert should go to India and tell these women feminism isn't taking off in their country.
More information on feminism in SE Asia can be attained here for people who aren't little boys, misogynists, Incels or MGTOWs.

https://www.fes-asia.org/news/political ... -thailand/

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ ... /13363.pdf

Hong Wu wrote:Thanks for your post but you're literally citing things as old as 1967 (the most recent one appears to be 1999) to make an argument about modern feminism in 2018. I think you're also hedging towards conflating modern western feminism with things like women trying to get the vote, I believe no one is truly convinced by that kind of conflation today.

Because I see an internal link between differnet movements who are by no means united in their ideal but emerge in an effort to objectify their own ideas against the woman question. My emphasis on i industrialization being the necessary precondition to gove women economic power and thus political power is to emphadize that different countries are expected to go through similiar move. Feminism can’t be imported except intellectually, but it only gains ground in certain conditions of possibility. The basis of feminism in any country only develops into a movement upon industrialization and never before.

But it seems you see no internal relation between the succession of movements in addressing the woman question. And remain vague in use of the umbrella term feminism if you wish to speak of a rather more specific grouping. Of which its not even apparent to me there exists a feminist movement in the west in terms of a self conscious collective subject.

Regardless my general point is that what ever answers to the woman question is in nonwestern countries are historically contingent on their own societal development. They face problems that have already developed into new forms in the west. Which is a point that feminism not having a basis in such countries because of a lack of appeal of feminists in the west in that this is isn’t the essential element to its development else where, but emphasis that feminists will find their own struggle in the problems of their own society which may have likeness to what faced women in the west historically and still in a modern form.
You're just picking the definition that you think fits your narrative (it doesn't, your narrative is wrong).

I'm going to do an impression of how dumb the OP is.

Why aren't labor laws taking off in Non-Western Countries?

Have you noticed how instead of organizing in unions and fighting for living wages the desperately poor people of Southeast Asia are doubling down and working EVEN more hours? They don't even want an 8 hour work day, instead these work-lovers want the 10, 12, and even 14 hour work days of our idyllic past. See libtards? Your labor laws are meaningless to the folksy traditional people of the global south.


The only problem with my impression is its too succinct and cogent.
Hong Wu wrote:The countries where feminism is failing to gain traction are many and diverse. As such, the answer to this question is probably not specific to a given country (as liberals who analyze this issue tend to suggest) but rather it must be something shared by all of these countries, and/or something to do with feminism itself.

A common argument against feminism is that women are typically happier not being a feminist; being able to live out traditional gender roles seems to be the most consistent route to happiness.

The explanation for the international failure of feminism that I will suggest here is, in order for a woman to not appreciate the happiness that a traditional gender role can bring, in lieu of having a job, a woman must necessarily not understand what the downsides of this "job" thing are.

The reason I say this is because unlike in the west recently, in many non-western countries the women have long been and continue to be forced to do petty manual labor of many types. So they understand that being a housewife is better than that. In contrast, the west outsourced most petty manual labor to minorities instead of having the women do it. A generation after this happened, many women developed completely rose-tinted perceptions of what having a job and a boss is like and only then was modern feminism born in the west.

Going up to a woman in India or China who has been lugging packages around all day, or farming, or working on a factory assembly line, etc. and telling her she should empower herself by seeking a job instead of being a housewife gets a blank look and rightfully so. It's impossible to convince people like this that being a housewife is worse than what their actual lives are like.

It probably also bears mentioning that since the conditions which allow these narcissistic delusions to arise ultimately requires the labor of minorities, both locally and abroad, it is fundamentally impossible at this point in time for the feminist delusion to spread to other countries because those are the places where women are doing these forms of petty manual labor jobs. In other words, without the conditions that undermine feminism in some places, it cannot exist in the upper-class west.

In many countries Feminism is seeing in different lens than USA or Europe even in the West because the first female feminist figures were more like Greek Mythology and closer to classic feminism. In Argentina, they had Eva Peron who was chosen as President while being first lady, the woman had the entire army and Union at her feet. In Brazil was Anitta Garibaldi who was a troop commander, a general. Won several battles against foreign enemies and went to lead troops in Italy to help them out too. Fujimore who likely will be elected in Peru next term is also no joke, girl is right wing let's-get-nukes-I-want-a-Kalish-for-Xmas type of girl. Michele Bachelet is no Mama Merkel, she said Chile had too many immigrants...Chile has 2% of immigrants.... Isabel, the Princess regent of Brazil in the 18th century wanted to give all women suffrage and she thought about blowing up English ships in the Caribbean, she also send money to help Argentina's independence. Those are the feminist figures women in South America have, that's why they are crazy and I feel absolutely secure we never gonna get boats of immigrants, they will blow up the boats themselves and you wont see any sign welcoming them

There's a lot of right wing feminism in South America and women here took the economy for themselves, most traders are women, economic journalists, and also in business they open more of their own than men. That's why they don't put white women on TV in South America to speak about things, because they will say they want a bazooka like Americans have so they can shoot a criminal when asked what they want to be done about security, so MSN puts the minority ones, specially black to talk about racism and quotas.
To emphasize that whilst the movements of feminism are of different ideals, views, values, I think there is an essence to feminism which underpins the overall status of women in general (even whilst women as individuals vary in status).
The essence is that of women's labour acquiring equal value which has been based in the shift of women's labour from outside the market and into it as commodified and indirectly social.

Putting it slightly differently, women transformed their labour from labour which took place outside of the exchange of commodities into labour which, like that of other workers — had value. It is no wonder then that this movement soon gave rise to the demand for Equal Pay and more fundamentally given the gender segmentation of the labour process, for “Equal Pay for work of Equal Value” and the struggle to prove in practice that women's work had value equal to men's work.

This struggle over the value of women's work, over the value of women — their lives, their words, their bodies, their values and their thoughts — demanded a fundamental critique of the philosophical foundations of knowledge in a patriarchal society, and I put it that the essence of the Women's Liberation movement (its Essence, not the most, or only, “important thing” — the Essence) is the valorisation of women's labour.

And I believe this exemplifies the way in which any demographic acquires a status and recognition as equals, at least in the abstract equality of liberal laws.
This emphasizes as point that trying to return those parts of life that have since been commodified into their previous existence outside the market would only be to the detriment of women's (on average) status.
The goal is not to return women to labouring outside of the work force as much as the issue is that we need to get beyond value.
The post-war period and the upsurge of the national liberation movement and the socialisation of women's labour particularly in the industrialised countries has had the result of extending the value relationship, the commodity relation, into every pore of human life and into every corner of the globe, the destruction of all forms of public enterprise, the elaboration of the division of labour to its highest level alongside the reduction of labour to its most abstract form, the drawing into the world economy of every last refuge of feudal or tribal society, the penetration of trade into the family by the actual destruction of the family and of all relations of kinship, the substitution of recourse to litigation for all forms of moral obligation or state and judicial regulation, the provision via the market of sex, love, friendship, pleasure, comfort, revenge, parenthood and child-care, education and religion.

How do we react to these phenomena of the final stage of development of capitalism marking its complete maturity while threatening to plunge humanity into unspeakable global poverty? One can hardly resist the argument that we must defend the public sector (education, health, transport, etc.), family life and ordinary human relationships, the environment, the right of nations to manage their own affairs - all in the process of being eradicated by capitalism — in other words to defend those enclaves from which the value relation was formerly excluded. [c.f. Communist Manifesto]

However, would it not be more rational to aim to go “beyond value”? To supercede the exchange of labour altogether in favour of world-wide cooperative labour?

Which speaks to a point that liberalism once it has done away with the formal discriminations against women in law after the struggle of women to have their labour valued, it can not go any further for the limits of capital.

To which the idea of women identifying as feminists, it should be noted that most women historically never identified with the movement even as they were able to access things based on it's success. And the partial objectification of feminist ideals in society based on a struggle for women to enter the workforce has also become normative to the extent that people who wish to oppose as much can no longer rely on the naturalization of the status quo and may even inadvertently replicate feminist values due to their inoculation of modern societal values reflected in the current relations of labor.
But while that was the case, even when the movement was most visibly active, women were taking on the gains. For example in Australia one of our early gains was to have a state pension for single mothers. Almost instantly statistics revealed that what was happening was that women were quick to accept the gain. More women were keeping children born outside of relationships rather than giving them up for adoption, and large numbers of women took their children and left unsatisfactory relationships because there was at least minimal financial support available.

On another level women were gaining access to areas that were previously unknown and many of those women were oppositional to the aims and objectives of feminism, yet that didn’t stop them utilizing the gains. Two well-known examples of this were Maggie Thatcher, the British Prime Minister and Ita Buttrose, a magazine editor in Australia. Interestingly, while the very existence of the first woman Prime Minister of the UK was clearly a feminist gain, it’s occupant was antagonistic to the feminist movement, but most of her opponents, including active feminists, not only denied her status as a role model for the movement, but many denied her womanhood – ‘oh but Thatcher’s not really a woman’. Buttrose is now celebrated as a feminist icon, but at the time was seen as a woman who had become prominent as a defender of the status quo. Nevertheless she herself set precedents for women in the Australian newspaper industry, had a strong sense of herself as a career woman and a sense that women wanted more than housekeeping, child rearing, cooking and beauty tips.

From my standpoint there are at least as many, and possibly more young women who identify as feminists than there ever were and this has been consistent through the decades of the eighties, nineties and naughties. What is also true is that there are many more young men who identify as feminist and support the movement. For some reason we expect that because nearly all young women in the developed capitalist world have benefitted from the gains of feminism, they should identify with the movement. Yet there never seems to have been a parallel between numbers of women who utilize gains with those who identify. Although I would argue that the proportion of women who identify has been growing consistently.
The ideology of the women’s movement has conquered the dominant ideology so now it is generally accepted that women have the potential to develop capabilities with men in almost all areas of life. Those who still say that women are lesser beings than men or are unable to take on equal responsibilities, or aren’t entitled to equal shares of the wealth now speak outside of the dominant ideology. The impact of this ideological change lies underneath the massive changes to social organization that have been taking place ever since. In every workplace, in every home in the advanced capitalist world attitudes to women and their capabilities have changed. These changes in attitude have not been limited to the ideas of women, but to men as well, who have been dragged, often kicking and spluttering, along behind the women. The changes have not been confined to the developed capitalist world but have clearly impacted everywhere. It is also evident that those who want to maintain the old values of men’s superiority have to assert their ideas with ever increasing force and violence.

Which continues my point of industrialization being the precipitating force of feminism as a political project across the decades, where women's struggle against discrimination becomes possible based on the value of their labour taking on the indirectly social form of commodities.

So the existence of many women who don't identify with feminism or even disavow it isn't so much of an issue when struggles for certain rights are achieved and it shows itself appealing to women in general.
And so it should be that women regardless of their participation in feminist struggles, shouldn't scoff at opportunities that become available to women due to the success of those struggles.
Feminism IS taking off in non-Western countries, though. It's silly to think that it isn't.

Exploring the leaps and bounds of Japanese feminism
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/20 ... 6RHLWgzaUk

Women of Japan unite: Examining the contemporary state of feminism
Agreed, Godstud. Women in Saudi Arabia are driving now.

In contrast, Dr Christine Blasey Ford isn't being given the same rights as Anita Hill in 1991. And if Kavanaugh is appointed, everyone's right are going to tank.

"Now, in a striking intervention, more than 1[…]

Lawlessness in San Fransisco

I found another video on the Bystander Effect from[…]


@wat0n The application of laws are up to people,[…]

There is no evidence. So what we can say us that[…]