Feminism: The Core Tenet of Progressive Liberalism - 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 ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14896759
It makes more sense then your ideas, Albert. It's based on judging people by their expressed beliefs, rather than their genitals. It seems you have suffered due to a woman's genitals, and are now determined to take revenge on anyone possessing them. Whether that woman is you, or another person, still isn't clear, since you haven't answered if you're a man or woman yet.
#14896768
Rich wrote:That's an interesting idea an interesting experiment. But I've got another one, what about removing the right to vote from all men, who support removing women's right to vote. Its like I also support removing the right to vote from Libertarians, who want to remove the right to vote from those without property.


Lets get rid of all voting period. Boom.
#14896804
Pandora’s Box and the Volunteer Police Force
The history of women’s rights and feminism is often told as though it were a person who should already have gotten to the last milestone or has failed to make enough progress toward it. Around the millennium lots of people seemed to be saying that feminism had failed or was over. On the other hand, there was a wonderful feminist exhibition in the 1970s entitled “Your 5,000 Years Are Up.” It was a parody of all those radical cries to dictators and abusive regimes that your [fill in the blank] years are up. It was also making an important point.

Feminism is an endeavor to change something very old, widespread, and deeply rooted in many, perhaps most, cultures around the world, innumerable institutions, and most households on Earth — and in our minds, where it all begins and ends. That so much change has been made in four or five decades is amazing; that everything is not permanently, definitively, irrevocably changed is not a sign of failure. A woman goes walking down a thousand-mile road. Twenty minutes after she steps forth, they proclaim that she still has 999 miles to go and will never get anywhere.

It takes time. There are milestones, but so many people are traveling along that road at their own pace, and some come along later, and others are trying to stop everyone who’s moving forward, and a few are marching backward or are confused about what direction they should go in. Even in our own lives we regress, fail, continue, try again, get lost, and sometimes make a great leap, find what we didn’t know we were looking for, and yet continue to contain contradictions for generations.

The road is a neat image, easy to picture, but it misleads when it tells us that the history of change and transformation is a linear path, as though you could describe South Africa and Sweden and Pakistan and Brazil all marching along together in unison. There is another metaphor I like that expresses not progress but irrevocable change: it’s Pandora’s box, or, if you like, the genies (or djinnis) in bottles in the Arabian Nights. In the myth of Pandora, the usual emphasis is on the dangerous curiosity of the woman who opened the jar — it was really a jar, not a box the gods gave her — and thereby let all the ills out into the world.

Sometimes the emphasis is on what stayed in the jar: hope. But what’s interesting to me right now is that, like the genies, or powerful spirits, in the Arabian stories, the forces Pandora lets out don’t go back into the bottle. Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge and they are never ignorant again. (Some ancient cultures thanked Eve for making us fully human and conscious.) There’s no going back. You can abolish the reproductive rights women gained in 1973, with Roe v. Wade, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion — or rather ruled that women had a right to privacy over their own bodies that precluded the banning of abortion. But you can’t so easily abolish the idea that women have certain inalienable rights.

Interestingly, to justify that right, the judges cited the Fourteenth Amendment, the constitutional amendment adopted in 1868, as part of the post-Civil War establishment of rights and freedoms for the formerly enslaved. So you can look at the antislavery movement — with powerful female participation and feminist repercussions — that eventually led to that Fourteenth Amendment, and see, more than a century later, how that amendment comes to serve women specifically. “The chickens come home to roost” is supposed to be a curse you bring on yourself, but sometimes the birds that return are gifts.

Thinking Out of the Box

What doesn’t go back in the jar or the box are ideas. And revolutions are, most of all, made up of ideas. You can whittle away at reproductive rights, as conservatives have in most states of the union, but you can’t convince the majority of women that they should have no right to control their own bodies. Practical changes follow upon changes of the heart and mind. Sometimes legal, political, economic, environmental changes follow upon those changes, though not always, for where power rests matters. Thus, for example, most Americans polled would like to see economic arrangements very different from those we have, and most are more willing to see radical change to address climate change than the corporations that control those decisions and the people who make them.

But in social realms, imagination wields great power. The most dramatic arena in which this has taken place is rights for gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Less than half a century ago, to be anything but rigorously heterosexual was to be treated as either criminal or mentally ill or both, and punished severely. Not only were there no protections against such treatment, there were laws mandating persecution and exclusion.

These remarkable transformations are often told as stories of legislative policy and specific campaigns to change laws. But behind those lies the transformation of imagination that led to a decline in the ignorance, fear, and hatred called homophobia. American homophobia seems to be in just such a steady decline, more a characteristic of the old than the young. That decline was catalyzed by culture and promulgated by countless queer people who came out of the box called the closet to be themselves in public. As I write this, a young lesbian couple has just been elected as joint homecoming queens at a high school in Southern California and two gay boys were voted cutest couple in their New York high school. This may be trivial high school popularity stuff, but it would have been stunningly impossible not long ago.

It’s important to note that the very idea that marriage could extend to two people of the same gender may only be possible because feminists broke out marriage from the hierarchical system it had been in and reinvented it as a relationship between equals. Those who are threatened by marriage equality are, many things suggest, as threatened by the idea of equality between heterosexual couples as same-sex couples. Liberation is a contagious project, speaking of birds coming home to roost.

Homophobia, like misogyny, is still terrible, just not as terrible as it was in, say, 1970. Finding ways to appreciate advances without embracing complacency is a delicate task. It involves being hopeful and motivated and keeping eyes on the prize ahead. Saying that everything is fine or that it will never get any better are ways of going nowhere or of making it impossible to go anywhere. Either approach implies that there is no road out or that, if there is, you don’t need to or can’t go down it. You can. We have.

We have so much further to go, but looking back at how far we’ve come can be encouraging. Domestic violence was mostly invisible and unpunished until a heroic effort by feminists to out it and crack down on it a few decades ago. Though it now generates a significant percentage of the calls to police, enforcement has been crummy in most places — but the ideas that a husband has the right to beat his wife and that it’s a private matter are not returning anytime soon. The genies are not going back into their bottles. And this is, really, how revolution works. Revolutions are first of all of ideas.

A Full-Fledged War Over Gender Roles

The great anarchist thinker David Graeber recently wrote,

“What is a revolution? We used to think we knew. Revolutions were seizures of power by popular forces aiming to transform the very nature of the political, social, and economic system in the country in which the revolution took place, usually according to some visionary dream of a just society. Nowadays, we live in an age when, if rebel armies do come sweeping into a city, or mass uprisings overthrow a dictator, it’s unlikely to have any such implications; when profound social transformation does occur — as with, say, the rise of feminism — it’s likely to take an entirely different form. It’s not that revolutionary dreams aren’t out there. But contemporary revolutionaries rarely think they can bring them into being by some modern-day equivalent of storming the Bastille. At moments like this, it generally pays to go back to the history one already knows and ask: Were revolutions ever really what we thought them to be?”

Graeber argues that they were not — that they were not primarily seizures of power in a single regime, but ruptures in which new ideas and institutions were born, and the impact spread. As he puts it, “The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a world revolution ultimately responsible for the New Deal and European welfare states as much as for Soviet communism.” Which means that the usual assumption that the Russian revolution only led to disaster can be upended. He continues, “The last in the series was the world revolution of 1968 — which, much like 1848, broke out almost everywhere, from China to Mexico, seized power nowhere, but nonetheless changed everything. This was a revolution against state bureaucracies, and for the inseparability of personal and political liberation, whose most lasting legacy will likely be the birth of modern feminism.”

So the cat is out of the bag, the genies are out of their bottles, Pandora’s box is open. There’s no going back. Still, there are so many forces trying to push us back or at least stop us. At my glummest, I sometimes think women get to choose — between being punished for being unsubjugated and the continual punishment of subjugation. If ideas don’t go back in the box, there’s still been a huge effort to put women back in their place. Or the place misogynists think we belong in, a place of silence and powerlessness.

More than 20 years ago, Susan Faludi published a milestone of a book called Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. It described the double bind of women in that moment: they were getting congratulations for being fully liberated and empowered while being punished by a host of articles, reports, and books telling them that, in becoming liberated, they had become miserable; they were incomplete, missing out, losing, lonely, desperate. “This bulletin of despair is posted everywhere — at the newsstand, on the TV set, at the movies, in advertisements and doctors’ offices and academic journals,” wrote Faludi. “How can American women be in so much trouble at the same time that they are supposed to be so blessed?”

Faludi’s answer was, in part, that, though American women had not succeeded nearly as well as so many imagined in gaining equality, they weren’t suffering nearly as much as was being reported either. The articles were backlash, an attempt to push back those who were still moving forward.

Such instructions on how women are miserable and doomed haven’t faded away. Here’s the magazine n+1 in late 2012 editorializing on a recent spate of backlash articles about women in the Atlantic:

“Listen up ladies, these articles say. We’re here to talk to you in a way that’s limited and denigrating. Each female author reports on a particular dilemma faced by the ‘modern woman,’ and offers her own life as a case study… The problems these women describe are different, but their outlook is the same: traditional gender relations are by and large bound to endure, and genuinely progressive social change is a lost cause. Gently, like a good friend, the Atlantic tells women they can stop pretending to be feminists now.”

A volunteer police force tries to keep women in their place or put them back in it. The online world is full of mostly anonymous rape and death threats for women who stick out — who, for instance, participate in online gaming or speak up on controversial issues, or even for the woman who recently campaigned to put women’s images on British banknotes (an unusual case, in that some of those who threatened her were actually tracked down and brought to justice). As the writer Caitlin Moran tweeted: “For those who say, ‘why complain — just block?’ — on a big troll day, it can be 50 violent/rape messages an hour.”

Maybe there is a full-fledged war now, not of the sexes — the division is not that simple, with conservative women and progressive men on different sides — but of gender roles. It’s evidence that feminism and women continue achieving advances that threaten and infuriate some people. Those rape and death threats are the blunt response; the decorous version is all those articles Faludi and n+1 cite telling women who we are and what we may aspire to — and what we may not.

And the casual sexism is always there to rein us in, too: a Wall Street Journal editorial blaming fatherless children on mothers throws out the term “female careerism.” Salon writer Amanda Marcotte notes, “Incidentally, if you Google ‘female careerism,’ you get a bunch of links, but if you Google ‘male careerism,’ Google asks if you really meant ‘male careers’ or even ‘mahle careers.’ ‘Careerism’ — the pathological need to have paid employment — is an affliction that only affects women, apparently.”

Then there are all the tabloids patrolling the bodies and private lives of celebrity women and finding constant fault with them for being too fat, too thin, too sexy, not sexy enough, too single, not yet breeding, missing the chance to breed, having bred but failing to nurture adequately — and always assuming that each one’s ambition is not to be a great actress or singer or voice for liberty or adventurer but a wife and mother. Get back in the box, famous ladies. (The fashion and women’s magazines devote a lot of their space to telling you how to pursue those goals yourself, or how to appreciate your shortcomings in relation to them.)

In her great 1991 book, Faludi concludes, “And yet, for all the forces the blacklash mustered… women never really surrendered.” Conservatives are now largely fighting rearguard actions. They are trying to reassemble a world that never really existed quite as they imagine it (and to the extent that it did, it existed at the expense of all the people — the vast majority of us — forced to disappear, into the closet, the kitchen, segregated space, invisibility, and silence).

Thanks to demographics, that conservative push is not going to work, because genies don’t go back into bottles and queer people are not going back into the closet and women aren’t going to surrender. It’s a war, but I don’t believe we’re losing it, even if we won’t win it anytime soon either; rather, some battles are won, some are engaged, and some women are doing really well while others suffer. And things continue to change in interesting and sometimes even auspicious ways.

What Do Men Want?

Women are an eternal subject, which is a lot like being subjected, or subjugated, or a subject nation, even. There are comparatively few articles about whether men are happy or why their marriages also fail or how nice or not their bodies are, even the movie-star bodies. They are the gender that commits the great majority of crimes, particularly violent crimes, and they are the majority of suicides as well. American men are falling behind women in attending college, and have fallen farther in the current economic depression than women, which you’d think would make them interesting subjects of inquiry.

I think the future of something we may no longer call feminism must include a deeper inquiry into men. Feminism sought and seeks to change the whole human world; many men are on board with the project, but how it benefits men, and in what ways the status quo damages men as well, could bear far more thought. As could an inquiry into the men perpetrating most of the violence, the threats, the hatred — the riot squad of the volunteer police force — and the culture that encourages them. Or perhaps this inquiry has begun.

At the end of 2012, two rapes got enormous attention around the world: the gang-rape murder of Jhoti Singh in New Delhi and the Steubenville rape case, involving teenage assailants and victim. It was the first time I remember seeing everyday assaults on women treated more or less as lynchings and gay-bashings and other hate crimes had been: as examples of a widespread phenomenon that was intolerable and must be addressed by society, not just by individual prosecution. Rapes had always been portrayed as isolated incidents due to anomalous perpetrators (or natural uncontrollable urges or the victim’s behavior), rather than a pattern whose causes are cultural.

The conversation changed. The term “rape culture” started to circulate widely. It insists that a wider culture generates individual crimes and that both must be addressed — and can be. The phrase had first been used by feminists in the 1970s, but what put it into general circulation, evidence suggests, were the Slutwalks that began in 2011 as a protest against victim-blaming.

A Toronto policeman giving a safety talk at a university told female students not to dress like sluts. Soon after, Slutwalks became an international phenomenon, of mostly young, often sexily dressed women taking back public space (rather like the Take Back the Night walks of the 1980s, but with more lipstick and less clothing). Young feminists are a thrilling phenomenon: smart, bold, funny defenders of rights and claimers of space — and changers of the conversation.

That policeman’s “slut” comment was part of the emphasis colleges have put on telling female students how to box themselves in safely — don’t go here, don’t do that — rather than telling male students not to rape: this is part of rape culture. But a nationwide movement organized by mostly female college students, many of them survivors of campus sexual assault, has sprung up to force change in the way universities deal with such assaults. As has a movement to address the epidemic of sexual assault in the military that has also succeeded in forcing real policy changes and prosecutions.

The new feminism is making the problems visible in new ways, perhaps in ways that are only possible now that so much has changed. A study of rape in Asia drew alarming conclusions about its widespread nature but also introduced the term “sexual entitlement” to explain why so much of it takes place. The report’s author, Dr. Emma Fulu, said of rapists, “They believed they had the right to have sex with the woman regardless of consent.” In other words, she had no rights. Where’d they learn that?

Feminism, as writer Marie Sheer remarked in 1986, “is the radical notion that women are people,” a notion not universally accepted but spreading nonetheless. The changing conversation is encouraging, as is the growing engagement of men in feminism. There were always male supporters. When the first women’s rights convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848, 32 of the 100 signers to its Declaration of Independence-echoing manifesto were men. Still, it was seen as a women’s problem. Like racism, misogyny can never be adequately addressed by its victims alone. The men who get it also understand that feminism is not a scheme to deprive men but a campaign to liberate us all.

There’s more that we need to be liberated from: maybe a system that prizes competition and ruthlessness and short-term thinking and rugged individualism, a system that serves environmental destruction and limitless consumption so well — that arrangement you can call capitalism. It embodies the worst of machismo while it destroys what’s best on Earth. More men fit into it better, but it doesn’t really serve any of us. You can look to movements, such as the Zapatista revolution, which has a broad ideology that includes feminist as well as environmental, economic, indigenous, and other perspectives. This may be the future of feminism that is not feminism alone. Or the present of feminism: the Zapatistas rose up in 1994 and are still going, as are myriad other projects to reimagine who we are, what we want, and how we might live.

When I attended a 2007 Zapatista encuentro in the Lacandon forest, focusing on women’s voices and rights, at the end of 2007, women testified movingly about how their lives had changed when they had gained rights in the home and the community as part of their revolution. “We had no rights,” one of them said of the era before the rebellion. Another testified, “The saddest part is that we couldn’t understand our own difficulties, why we were being abused. No one had told us about our rights.”

Here is that road, maybe a thousand miles long, and the woman walking down it isn’t at mile one. I don’t know how far she has to go, but I know she’s not going backward, despite it all — and she’s not walking alone. Maybe it’s countless men and women and people with more interesting genders.

Here’s the box Pandora held and the bottles the genies were released from; they look like prisons and coffins now. People die in this war, but the ideas cannot be erased.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/pando ... ice-force/






Victoribus Spolia wrote:Indeed. The true motto of real men.


:D
#14896878
@skinster
So the cat is out of the bag, the genies are out of their bottles, Pandora’s box is open. There’s no going back. Still, there are so many forces trying to push us back or at least stop us. At my glummest, I sometimes think women get to choose — between being punished for being unsubjugated and the continual punishment of subjugation. If ideas don’t go back in the box, there’s still been a huge effort to put women back in their place. Or the place misogynists think we belong in, a place of silence and powerlessness.
After Pandora opened the forbidden gift she unwittingly released all the misery, death, and evil into the world. The myth of Pandora's Box ended with hope, that which remained and was released last.
#14896884
Godstud, unfortunately you are going to have to really read yourself this time around.

Read the legend, sometimes the devil is in details. It is unfortunate they then corrupt our girls, you think these women do not know what they are doing.
#14896886
People like you are the problem, not women. Misogyny is the problem, not women.

You are a sad and pathetic young man(if that's what you are), and you will forever have problem with women if this is how you view them.
#14896889
:O

More so I should say, they corrupt our men, who then corrupt women, and then women corrupt men. Hence the cycle continues and the concept of original sin. Perhaps that is true, I do not know yet, but it is something I'm arriving to.

But this discussion is more akin for spiritual forum not philosophy, but then again, that is where it all leads to eventually.
#14896896
Original sin- Fuck off with that religious mumbo-jumbo. That's complete twaddle.

Albert wrote:But this discussion is more akin for spiritual forum not philosophy, but then again, that is where it all leads to eventually.
It's not spiritual the way you describe it. It's just sad and pathetic. You're a SJW and don't even know it.
#14898160
Albert wrote:
Spoiler: show
@Wellsy
It is not recreating the past or pining for something idyllic, that would be making the same mistake as the progressive liberals do in their pursuit if their idealistic new society.

The idea is to restore proper order and balance of power, in current moment. One does not have to look at the past to learn that in modernity the balance is ruined in gender relations. History is only a teacher to realize this today.

Also, in the past women were not subjugated nor had there been hostility warded on them in order to keep them control. This is the feminist narrative creative of the past in order to justify their goals today. This narrative is not only false but does not do justice to history nor humanity. It is unfortunate that feminist were allowed to change our perception of the past in such a manner. (I guess they borrowed a lesson from Orwell, whom controls the past controls the future.)

As to economic argument, reducing women's participation in the work force can happen gradually an economy can adjust to the changes like it did when women were allowed to enter it. Again there is not going to be a black and white approach, women will still be allowed to work but not in same way as today.

There is no capitalism, this is a communist misconception of social structure and their historical "analysis". Therefore I'm not too worried about capitalism stopping something. At best they are half right in what they preach.

Most certainly, if you look at liberalism in its fundamental form it aims to bring equality for all. In that regard past patriarchal society was illiberal. But what feminist have done is replace that with illiberalism as well. Today in law and in social norms women posses significant privilege over men, there is fundamentally no equality again between men and women. I'm actually all for equality under law to be established, as this will reveal the myth of feminism that it actually is. As it will stop being artificially prompted by state apparatus.

I don't see how one can do otherwise, even with rational reasoning. One draws inspiration from the past in order to create an ideal sense of the future which one presumably intends to objectify and make the present.
Your view of gender relations is unpolished so far in this thread in that it seems to be the surface level assertions yet to make more explicit the foundational beliefs that lead to the conclusions you've asserted.
So I've speculated thus far that you see something problematic with the present based on changes in the past to which there was a point which was better than when the change occurred that lead to feminism and vaguely other identity politics.
Look at this quote from your OP for example
As this necessary for the heart, as once proper relation between men and women are restored.

Restoring of some proper relations, this isn't a call for something entirely new (although I think you might agree one can't recreate the past as it always comes in new modern forms eg Greek play recreated as opera), but it does seem to be inspired by some standard in the past. Even if in a different form, it somehow actualizes your sense of a perfect gender order, which seems to invite conflict than diffuse it with assertions like disliking women's suffrage. It's hard to see much more with out you making a nuanced and explicit view that your view is but an underdeveloped call to subjugation of women in some degree. There are more nuanced points that at least make explicit and correct criticisms of problems in the modern circumstance, although they often call for reactionary ends.
And I claim your idyllic in that from this, it seems you complicate the existence of feminist politics and as an organize movement in denying the basis of the conflicts that women rallied around as if they were mere narrative independent from reality.
Also, in the past women were not subjugated nor had there been hostility warded on them in order to keep them control. This is the feminist narrative creative of the past in order to justify their goals today. This narrative is not only false but does not do justice to history nor humanity. It is unfortunate that feminist were allowed to change our perception of the past in such a manner. (I guess they borrowed a lesson from Orwell, whom controls the past controls the future.)

And from this point is difficult to discern any authenticity and interest in arguing for your point and this thread is more out of boredom to stimulate people's at least liberal defense of women's rights.

But you are yet to unpack your vision or view and we're left with it implied
The idea is to restore proper order and balance of power, in current moment. One does not have to look at the past to learn that in modernity the balance is ruined in gender relations. History is only a teacher to realize this today.

Which is just lazy as it already presumes we share some sort of understanding and perspective as you, leaving us to even speculate agreement.

As to economic argument, reducing women's participation in the work force can happen gradually an economy can adjust to the changes like it did when women were allowed to enter it. Again there is not going to be a black and white approach, women will still be allowed to work but not in same way as today.

There is no capitalism, this is a communist misconception of social structure and their historical "analysis". Therefore I'm not too worried about capitalism stopping something. At best they are half right in what they preach.

It's not clear here in what way you disregard the existence of capitalism, in what degree. Because I can speculate that it at best might be some sort of nominalism that denies abstract universals and only asserts the existence of empirical particulars in which case it is certainly true that the capitalist economy across nations isn't identical. And from this different end result about the existence of capitalism (because if you get interested, you might check out Ilyenov in regards to how the abstract can be objective and not dismiss in postmodernist fashion as just narrative and properly consider the epistemology of subject-object relation).
But with your sense of what capitalism is or modern economies I guess, it is naturally a point of divergence that think I disagree that one could significantly bar women from paid work where it has already occurred without retarding productive ability and infrastructure.
To which one would still have to contend with what economic and political power have or can acquire in organizing should one pose such a struggle which makes them a lot harder in some ways perhaps than in the past where such power was initially emerging.

I disagree, liberalism in it's most fundamental form was and is about the free flow of capital and was radical in its assertion of an abstract equality in law, but the emotional fervor could not suddenly make liberalism one for human emancipation.
The French Revolution itself epitomized the primacy of capital and the capitalist class over that of workers or even that which we consider as fulfilling liberal rights (Universal suffrage, legal abstract equality).
People, even the capitalist class are subjugated to the dominance of exchange value which is of particular historical significance for capitalism in that it precdes such relations but it emerges as dominant in capitalist economy/society.
A good summary of this point express by by Karl Polyani where society becomes dominated by markets where as previously markets were but a part of society.

And I think others are right to ask you for concrete examples of how in what way women dominate men. And to be rather particular about sense of equality, as I see some want to apply equality in a way that is unequal eg men use liberal rhetoric of women's choice to have an abortion to try and opt out parental responsibility where the legality of abortion isn't equal to the attribution of parental responsibility on the basis of biology once a child is born, something attributed to both parents.
And I'm thinking that you're just talking shit as you now contradict your self between
I'm actually all for equality under law to be established
...
I do not think women should be allowed to vote, for example.

Can anyone else express how serious one should on average take Albert, don't have the impression that this thread was done in any sincere belief and voicing such opinions is just a hot button to press. Regardless, instead of pressing the button, might reflect on the subject and pursue things out of curiosity, more fulfilling.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]