Conquer Club

at what point did feminism stop being about equality and start being about superiority?

was it ever thus?

i punctuated that title terribly. oh well...

I don't know at what point, but I have seen it happen. I believe the same about all affirmative action laws and movements. Of course they were AND are necessary, but all seem to, at some point, have fallen totally off the rails and went gung ho to the other side...

There's more than one definition and approach of feminism--as exemplified by feminists themselves. Mets' simple picture fails to capture that, which is why I don't identify as 'feminist'. The message in that pic is almost meaningless--especially the "equal opportunities" part. When you are dating, ensure that you give everyone an equal opportunity to date you (lol, good luck). When you are finding a job, ensure that you give every employer an equal opportunity to hire you. "Equal opportunity" is a silly phrase which has captured the hearts of millions whose minds have yet to follow.

If we dropped "equal opportunities" (whatever that may mean), then you pretty much get classical liberalism which insisted on political equality. Many philosophers of old meant 'political equality' when they said 'equality'. Over the past several decades, 'equality' has turned into "economic equality" which has proven to be a disastrously stupid goal that many have yet to realize.


So, with 'feminism' a bit more clarified, "at what point did feminism stop being about equality and start being about superiority?"

That's a fun question. Feminism is categorized in waves, which aren't clear but are good enough.
http://www.pacificu.edu/magazine_archiv ... minism.cfm

The first is mainly about equal political rights during 19th to early 20th century. The second was from roughly 1950s - 1990s. That's where you start getting the more vocal and radical left intermingling, which in my opinion didn't help; they're still around giving decent feminists a bad name. You might say that some feminists during the 2nd wave switched to the superiority style--if they didn't explicitly say it, some of them acted like it. You'll still bump into that style on the internet every now and then.

The third is hard to say because the history is too recent. The author of that link talks about how some of them 'reverted' toward an acceptance of the heteronormative (e.g. it's okay to wear lipstick, expose cleavage, and so on). It seems like it got less radical.

Just like Mets, I am a feminist. In the words of the great American feminist thinker Peggy Kornegger:

If we want to "bring down the patriarchy", we need to talk about anarchism, to know exactly what it means, and to use that framework to transform ourselves and the structure of our daily lives. Feminism doesn't mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not transform society; it only gives women the "right" to plug into a hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy–economic, political, and personal. And that means revolution.

Mets and I support the complete overthrow of the state and its replacement with a radical, horizontally organized, non-patriarchal society with no government. Feminism isn't about giving women equal status in a male-created society. It means the complete disintegration of civilization and its rebuilding as a positive utopia based on feminine values; feminine values preclude coercion and highlight cooperation over command. Government is, therefore, incompatible with a sex-positive feminist utopia and must be destroyed to complete the downfall of chauvinism.

khazalid wrote:at what point did feminism stop being about equality
and start being about superiority?

Simple answer, I don't believe it has.

Dear God. Imagine incorporating 'feminine values' into world leadership. The mind boggles.

Anyway, what's all this should? Women should be equal to men. You can certainly say you'd like women and men to reach total homogeneity (whatever that would achieve) but I don't see where you find the authority to declare 'should'.

mrswdk wrote:Dear God. Imagine incorporating 'feminine values' into world leadership. The mind boggles.

That's a half-step; it shouldn't be about incorporating feminine values into world leadership, but rather totally replacing all competing values with feminine values.

The third novel in Frank Herbert's Dune series, for instance, God-Emperor of Dune, imagines how much better the world is if all levers of violence have been deposited with women. Police and military forces are composed exclusively of women, who lack the innate biological male drive to rape. IIRC even Betty Friedan, who is a pretty blahhhh mainstream pseudo-feminist, endorsed the Dune series as a feminist testament.

mrswdk wrote:Dear God. Imagine incorporating 'feminine values' into world leadership. The mind boggles.

Anyway, what's all this should? Women should be equal to men. You can certainly say you'd like women and men to reach total homogeneity (whatever that would achieve) but I don't see where you find the authority to declare 'should'.

When did anybody say should to offend you so much???

Just for clarification, I don't necessarily actually endorse the message in that picture I posted; I've just seen it posted around the web and thought it was appropriate for the thread.

Metsfanmax wrote:Just for clarification, I don't necessarily actually endorse the message in that picture I posted; I've just seen it posted around the web and thought it was appropriate for the thread.

And that is also the only place where the word should is found...

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Dear God. Imagine incorporating 'feminine values' into world leadership. The mind boggles.

That's a half-step; it shouldn't be about incorporating feminine values into world leadership, but rather totally replacing all competing values with feminine values.

The third novel in Frank Herbert's Dune series, for instance, God-Emperor of Dune, imagines how much better the world is if all levers of violence have been deposited with women. Police and military forces are composed exclusively of women, who lack the innate biological male drive to rape. IIRC even Betty Friedan, who is a pretty blahhhh mainstream pseudo-feminist, endorsed the Dune series as a feminist testament.

I see your God-Emperor of Dune and raise you Sexmission, a classic Polish sci-fi where the women dominated men--regardless of an innately biological male drive to rape (which is debatable). Let's gather some more fictional evidence and have at it!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's gather some more fictional evidence and have at it!

New Quote.... Brilliant

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Dear God. Imagine incorporating 'feminine values' into world leadership. The mind boggles.

That's a half-step; it shouldn't be about incorporating feminine values into world leadership, but rather totally replacing all competing values with feminine values.

The third novel in Frank Herbert's Dune series, for instance, God-Emperor of Dune, imagines how much better the world is if all levers of violence have been deposited with women. Police and military forces are composed exclusively of women, who lack the innate biological male drive to rape. IIRC even Betty Friedan, who is a pretty blahhhh mainstream pseudo-feminist, endorsed the Dune series as a feminist testament.

I see your God-Emperor of Dune and raise you Sexmission, a classic Polish sci-fi where the women dominated men--regardless of an innately biological male drive to rape (which is debatable). Let's gather some more fictional evidence and have at it!

I see your Polish film Sexmission and raise you the Polish-language translation of the American film Demolition Man. In the future, sex occurs via metal helmets.



I don't know for a fact they're speaking Polish, but it's one of those eastern European peasant languages. Maybe Ukrainian, or Russian, or Bulgarian - they all sound the same.[/quote]

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Dear God. Imagine incorporating 'feminine values' into world leadership. The mind boggles.

That's a half-step; it shouldn't be about incorporating feminine values into world leadership, but rather totally replacing all competing values with feminine values.

The third novel in Frank Herbert's Dune series, for instance, God-Emperor of Dune, imagines how much better the world is if all levers of violence have been deposited with women. Police and military forces are composed exclusively of women, who lack the innate biological male drive to rape. IIRC even Betty Friedan, who is a pretty blahhhh mainstream pseudo-feminist, endorsed the Dune series as a feminist testament.

I see your God-Emperor of Dune and raise you Sexmission, a classic Polish sci-fi where the women dominated men--regardless of an innately biological male drive to rape (which is debatable). Let's gather some more fictional evidence and have at it!

I see your Polish film Sexmission and raise you the Polish-language translation of the American film Demolition Man. In the future, sex occurs via metal helmets.



I don't know for a fact they're speaking Polish, but it's one of those eastern European peasant languages. Maybe Ukrainian, or Russian, or Bulgarian - they all sound the same.

I fail to see how this Polish ante is at all relevant to the future of feminism. Nay! It is only a Pollywood future of heteronormativity! Your fiction evidence has been dismissed with extreme prejudice!

Alas, I am defeated in this thread.

BBS raped me like the retard I am.

The Orgasmatron is the future of sex.

oVo, the considered brevity of your statement has a lot to recommend it. the first one, that is.

to summarise saxi: feminism = anarchism? who'd be a linguist?

feminism is no longer about equality. for one reason or another, it is a badge which has been tainted in the social conscience - and let's be clear on this - academic refutations to the contrary are about as useful as screaming from the faculty window that red is actually orange. i would suggest that the large volume of women who refuse to identify as such qualify the changing nature of the word/concept/ideology (delete to your preference), and not, as some commentators would have it, the idea that 'new wave' feminism has tainted the original ideals of the movement.

a further question: in an age where political correctness dominates public discourse, how long will it be before we will all simply say 'equality'? would this help us to clarify the concept? after all, if it's equality we're after, we have a perfectly good word for it.

as one further addendum to the debate, i'd like to add the following:

young men are killing themselves in increasing numbers all the time, all over the developed world. the academic system is one which has been shown to favour women, both in terms of learning style (a complete lack of vocational subjects) and outcome (hard grades). men are being denied equality in many areas of life (most notably pertaining to children) via institutional bias which has as its basis the idea of inherent gender difference. i would not dispute this, i just think that it is important to flag up that this is not a one-way system, and that there are areas of public and private life when in actuality, 'equality' is neither desirable nor achievable.

Conclusion:

Feminism ___ Equality ____ Chauvinism

-deleted-

hahaha3hahaha wrote:When?... When feminism decided to scrap every gender role except for the ones that favour women.
Just kidding.
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with feminism where it's necessary, but when you hear stories of women being whipped and beaten for voting or driving in some countries, and then you hear feminists complaining about their circumstances in 1st world countries, it does make you cringe a little.

You could cringe at anything anyone complains about in the 1st world countries if you compare it to some of the worst stuff that happens in the 3rd world countries. Of course just because the 1st world country is better does not mean it's not ideal and that does not mean that we shouldn't work to make it better.

saxitoxin wrote:Just like Mets, I am a feminist.

i don't think you're quite like mets ITT. he just posts stupid images that make baseless claims.

khazalid wrote:at what point did feminism stop being about equality and start being about superiority?

was it ever thus?

This is the natural cycle of Progressive politics, because they all (groups) have something in common. They use equality as a talking point, but they don't really believe in it. They (rightly so) stand up for their rights, and when they are recognized, they say 'What else can we use this issue to get????" Think: If you oppose Obamacare, it's because you are racist, or if you vote Republican, you wage a war on women. This crap passes as totally normal today

Sandra Fluke is a perfect example

that's a terribly crude image/comparison that rather cheapens the issue. imo

khazalid wrote:that's a terribly crude image/comparison that rather cheapens the issue. imo

I think this one makes the same point.

But if you could fill me in about why it cheapens the issue, or is a bad example of feminism gone too far, maybe I would learn something.