spacebrain wrote:
TM wrote:
It's an ill-defined, highly complex structure created to which everything can be attributed, yet can itself never be quantified or made concrete. The term "patriarchy" itself is poor, because it gives the immediate idea of an Illuminati-like group that sit around in dark halls, steepling their hands and planning on how to keep women suppressed, an idea that most of us find silly.
In embryo what feminists are seeking is not an alternation or a modification to our society, it is the complete deconstruction of our society, it's values and it's history in order to reconstruct it in their image. The trouble with this idea is obvious, namely that every attempt at this, from communist revolutions, to declarations of independence and beyond, end up being not only fueled but influenced by their prior incarnations.
Indeed, as society and its values is a construct of the values of those within it, it will always be a reflection of those values. Until we are all Vulcan and can make purely objective decisions, our values and goals will always be those that offer to us and those like us the most benefit.
Feminism, like all ideologies that tend to put emphasis on "should be" rather than "is" succumbs in part to the classic pitfalls, "the end justifies the means", "group-think", it's own "language", redefining words without making it clear (Ministry of truth anyone?). I suspect that this stems from the combination of feminist values with Marxist/socialist values.
The biggest problem though, for those of us outside of the ideology is that with 40 odd variations on the main ideology, a wide variety of stances on separate issues within the ideology and finally the creation of "femspeak" (the language of feminists) it becomes nearly impossible to debate with a feminist, because we do not speak the same language.
It becomes much like speaking to various religious sects, or small bands within the same ideology, where the lack of a joint belief in anything prevents one from challenging the opponent. Not due to facts or logic, but to language being perverted away from a tool of communication to a tool of propaganda.
While I doubt you'll find many feminist purporting twice two is five, I think the language is indeed redefined, but only unclear insofar as you allow. To assume the syntax is fallacious and thus the very foundation on which an ideology rests must crumble along with its philosophy altogether rejects the philosophy without giving it any real expostulation (
falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus). I completely agree that feminism is in line with socialist values. And they both share the characteristics of "group-think" (which applies to any construct in society) and the linguistic "consequences". It is only a consequence because the ideas are not discussed in full, so you may only infer what is meant from ignorance. It occurs to me, these ideas are not desirable (or maybe no longer relevant) so no one cares to try them while they're ripe. It's true that the execution of these ideas are are ill-repeated, but that in no way should disregard the alternative views they hold.
The language becomes convoluted and unclear when new words are introduced, that have not been officially defined in any regard and which are used with varied definitions by the group that utilizes them. I didn't deal with feminist philosophy much, but more with the topic of why many of us find discussing with a feminist to be an impossible task, namely due to a lack of definitions when it comes to central tenets of it's ideology (primarily patriarchy), secondly due to feminists having created their own form of language, which creates large barriers in a debate and thirdly due to the ideology being perfectly suiting for a "moving the goalpost" approach for the feminist.
Until the ideology can live without the use of it's own special language and can be criticized using a normal form of language, it's the same as Scientology or any other religion in requiring one to be an adherent in order to take part in the discussion.
spacebrain wrote:
The focus on feminism nowadays is on the dichotomous patriarchal vs. matriarchal. But in execution the matriarchal seeks a union, not in the sense of equality- which just fans the flames of dichotomy, but in the sense of balance. This balance seeks to reign in the effects the carefree, limitless patriarchal mindset. Without this balance we will continue to live in an unhealthy civilization.
Much like the UN this is a lofty ideal and it sounds quite wonderful, however until you can actually come up with something concrete to discuss, we are discussing something which is a pure theoretical construct and thus it cannot be adequately examined.
When it comes to your talk about balance, I'm reminded of a statement made on an online gaming forum for an MMORPG "Balanced means that your class is the only one that's overpowered."
29 Oct 2012, 10:15 pm
