Feminism vs. Equality

Post Reply New Topic

Are you serious? A couple homocidal abortion opponents are irrelevant to pro-life philosophy. A couple bombers of animal testing facilities are irrelevant to ethical veganism.

Decide whether you'd like to discuss philosophies, or the less-than-desirable views of a few cherry-picked individuals who adhere to them.

Last edited by Bethie on 26 Mar 2011, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lesbian separatism?

I, personally, get the feeling that wanting to create a manless subculture, even to the point of deciding your sexual orientation based on it, indicates a fear of men. I know lesbian separatism is about trying to create an alternative to patriarchy, but the fact that they don't want men involved at all in this alternative, suggests that they fundamentally don't trust them not to screw it up or assume dominant positions all over again.

Oh, all right, so not a philosophy that's inherent to radical feminism at all,
but is, in fact, a more narrow ideology within it.

The way I see it everyone should make equal rights and that's it. Institutional equality cannot guarantee social equality and equality itself takes generation after generation to catch on.

You asked what part of radical feminism...but no, it's not inherent to the whole ideology. Just the idea that society needs to radically change in order to change gender relations, that's really plain radical feminism with no toppings. It usually comes with toppings, though, prefixes like anarcha and green and lesbian.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 26 Mar 2011, 2:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It seems to be at least somewhat aided by deliberate efforts to promote it through various aspects of society.

Right. I realize my phrasing wasn't very specific.

Mainstream feminism is not largely concerned with controlling a radical offshoot of the same ideology. I do think it would have more effect if feminists supported greater legal rights for fathers rather than tried to 'stop' radical feminists.

And what are you referring to? Awareness raising? Affirmative action?

Feminism is politically a cohesive group, to claim otherwise is blatantly false, how many radical feminist organizations are there, how many moderate feminist groups are there? How many conflicting feminist groups are there in say, America.



All branches of feminist philosophy act as one combined political entity.



A branch of feminism would not affect sentiment towards all feminist groups if they where explicitly separate, they are not however as feminism is politically one entity.



Rape is not inherently anti-woman because women are not the only ones who can be raped, neither is sexually slavery because women are not the only ones who can be subdued sexually or sold into slavery.

Also what are you referring to when you say sexual slavery, I do not remember such things from when I read the bible, but that could just be a fuzzy memory.

Adding my responses to the following post in as well



Ugg, are you saying that me defining radical feminism by the views of those prominent feminists called radical is unreasonable? Because that's just asinine. It's not like I am saying a woman from some village with a phobia of men defines radical feminism, I included the limiter of prominence, which is enough.



But if you adhere to that you can define any radical feminism as a separate entity to feminism even if said radical feminists are politically within the same group. How is that reasonable? This thread isn't a discussion of the philosophical distinctions of feminists it is about the political distinctions, you cannot claim that radical feminism is separate from mainstream feminism politically unless you can show efforts by one group to invalidate the other.



They may not be concerned but they are politically speaking responsible for any damage their radicals bring about if they show no efforts to control them, After all their is no political distinction between a radical feminist and a mainstream feminist, at least in mainstream media. If mainstream does not at least show an effort to define themselves as separate(Through the invalidation of radicals, and the criticizing of laws which harm men at the benefit of women.) how can they limit political blow back?

They're most certainly relevant when that religion worships as divine the entity that supposedly inspired them.[/quote]


Please. Please. Please. Tell me you're joking.

In order to competently make assertions about societal themes and institutions,
I would think someone had to have devoted time to actual comprehensive STUDY of societal themes and institutions.

Which claims would you like sources for? That the Bible is indeed full of divinely-ordered atrocities? That feminism is not a singular hierarchal entity?

Not when the religion itself has been shown to either twist or ignore the meanings of words to justify a view.



It seems to me you are assuming that rape, genocide, and sexual slavery can only effect(aka happen to) women, this is false.




I am not disagreeing with biblical atrocities nor am I disagreeing that the bible is anti-woman or anti-feminist, I am however disagreeing that a religion with the bible as its holy text is inherently anti-woman. I am also disagreeing with your presentations of gender neutral atrocities as example of anti-woman actions, when really they are atrocities that could happen to either gender.

I have not claimed that feminism is hierarchal, I have claimed that it is one political entity however.(See my other post) I have also asked for evidence that might contradict this claim, but you are essentially missing the point of my questions.

I am saying that if you are assuming that this information is necessary to understand or have a valid opinion about these matters why have you not included them of your own will?

I'm beginning to realize that attempting a discussion with someone who pulls the intellectual equivalent of "My opinion, if ya don't like it, you're dumb" might be an exercise in futility on my part.


This does not even remotely address the question:
How might some feminist groups and individuals assert "control" over other feminist groups and individuals?

Of course it would, if the former branch was used to popular affect by political opponents of the group to strawman that group as a whole. Surely you're not asserting that smear campaigns and misinformation are not at least present, if not common.

This is, of course, aside from the fact that feminism is concerned with many more issues than are currently considered political.

When both wrongs are committed GROSSLY disproportionately against women, who would NOT have been victims of such had they been men, it is, indeed, a gender issue.

You must have never read it.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)



If you intend to discuss philosophies themselves, yes, it most certainly is.
If you'd like to discuss atheism, I'd become confused if you criticized Richard Dawkins,
religion, Jerry Falwell,
science, Stephen Hawking.
In that same vein, when discussing the philosophy of radical feminism itself, I have no idea how this or that individual is relevant EXCEPT as an individual.



No...it would properly be understood in a taxonomical-type fashion: feminism being one philosophy, radical feminism being a more narrow philosophy within it, and lesbian separatism being more narrow, still. Therefore, obviously, one who is a feminist is not necessarily a radical feminist, nor is one who is a radical feminist necessarily a lesbian separatist.


Ah, I see then. I didn't notice such a restriction, but if that's the case, I'll withdraw after this.




Hogwash. Are those who vote Republican capable of exerting control over anyone else who votes Republican? A similar voting/political demographic does NOT constitute a singular cohesive, organized group.

Last edited by Bethie on 26 Mar 2011, 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When that religion worships a deity that they believe inspired such a text,
I have no idea how you might claim otherwise.


Murder is the intentional killing of ANY human being of another with malice aforethought.

That doesn't mean that it's not every day employed as an act of religious, economic, and cultural WARFARE by members of one group against members of another.



I don't really contradict the claim-
only it's relevance to your assertion that one "camp" of feminism can "control" another.



I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm sorry.

I did not say they assert control, I said they influence policies, by virtue of the group having to accommodate their views.



No but smear campaigns wouldn't work so well on feminists if they(mainstream feminists) where separate from their radicals, politically.



This does not excuse treating rape a gender neutral term as if it applies solely to women.



I did but I was young at the time and treated it as a story book so it's understandable that my memory on certain traits are fuzzy. You have no reason to assert I have not read it.


This discussion was never about the philosophical implications or distinctions of radical feminism. You simply assumed it was.



When discussing fringe philosophies you must define the content of the philosophy, how would you see this done if not by those society calls radicals.



Why would you confuse a discussion about the practical effects of feminism as an argument about philosophy over politics?



See the tea-party for an example of two separate political entities which vote for similar representatives and exert limited control over each other(Because republicans as a group have no decried the tea partier they have embraced them for political power in a similar manner to what we are discussing), can you point out similar distinctions in feminist groups, if not your point is irrelevant. If the distinctions do not exist explicitly their is no reason to think they do not exist within a larger political group, the conflict just hasn't come to a point where the radical feminists feel they have to leave.



The bible no longer dictates the beliefs of Christians they simply interpret the bible in a way which affirms the beliefs they obtain or are instilled with. Is that clear enough for you?



Yes it is, and so is rape, and genocide, and slavery of all forms.



And it's use in such activities do not justify using it as a racial or gender exclusive term.




If they are one political entity they must be compromising within to form a collected front, otherwise what would the radicals be doing in the mainstream group, they wouldn't be able to influence policy in any manner and would need their own political entity.



I have stated this clearly enough, oh well.

How??? Why would a liberal feminist, for instance, have to "accommodate" the views of a radical feminist?



That's like saying smear campaigns against Republicans wouldn't work so well if terrorist "pro-lifers" were not in their numbers-
it's technically true, yet doesn't address the idiocy of someone who would consider one to be somehow related to the other.



Issues affecting one group almost entirely exclusively ARE a gender issue. I don't know how you could dance around that.


I'm sorry- what a horrible thing for a child to be allowed to read, though I am glad you recognized it as fantastical.





...by discussing the CONTENT of the philosophy, divorced from the statements of this or that or those individuals,
the philosophy which is INHERENT to the label.





In order to understand the philosophies themselves, as opposed to chanting "Feminists are cohesive politically, feminists are cohesive politically" ad nauseum.




Because I didn't see the OP restricting it to one versus the other,
and because I don't see how one can discuss politics divorced from the underlying philosophies informing them.



Well, tea partiers speak to a growing radical conservatism that is feeling disenfranchised at the moment.
Radical feminists, in contrast, stand as a more radical sect of an ideology that is ITSELF unpopular in the mainstream.

Even if feminism as a whole WAS silently riding on the coattails of radical feminism (chuckle) your assertion was that feminism as a whole could CONTROL sects within it. I've begged you several times for your reasoning, and haven't yet heard any.


No, it isn't.
How might you "interpret" god's command for a woman to be married to her rapist, or be stoned to death because a man raped her?


No one used it as a gender-exclusive term. I merely pointed out that where such "activities" are recorded (in the Bible) as being only perpetrated by members of one group against another group BECAUSE they were members of that group, it is entirely-accurate to call that deliberate systematic oppression.



Uh...no. The individuals and organizations of feminism supporting the same candidates and policies does NOT mean they must "compromise" as individual philosophies. Please, please, please explain to me why my political persuasions must be "compromised" with anyone else's when I vote or fund a candidate, or why the same would be true for a group I belong to.


If your intent was discourse, evidently not, as it's a bit difficult to have when your questions or assertions are not understood.