Love, Misogyny, Imdividualism and Competition

Post Reply New Topic

It's obvious you don't get what I am saying. I will try to explain this to you. I'm talking about the American culture as a whole and certain beliefs that American Feminism draws their beliefs and that is independence especially in this "doggy eats doggy" type world. What I am saying is I disagree with a certain aspect of feminism because of where it draws it's logic from and that is the cultural value of independence and Emerson's Self-Reliance. What I am saying is independence and self-reliance has become almost like a religion that one is socially not allowed to question.

There is no red pill here. In fact, I don't know why we're even talking about The Matrix. What is Red Pill outside of the Matrix. There is no attempt to keep women down or anyone down.

People say, we don't need others. I disagree, we all need each other. What I envision is not people competing against each other but people helping each other out and desiring to help each other out. Women helping men. Men helping Women. Blacks helping whites. Whites helping blacks. Imagine there was no homeless because no one allowed anyone to be homeless. Imagine that we can all build houses, grow food together, sweep our streets together and uplift each other in a spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood.

Instead, this is what we have today. We have competition in which we're all pitted against each other through our various groups in which others are encouraged to do what it takes to get to the top, but I ask at what cost? What is the price we all must pay for the American values we have today? What if the independence and self religion that people believe in today like a religion is not the solution but is the disease?

I interpreted the post as supporting feminism, and only dissing feminists for accepting some 'patriarchal' ideas. But it was pretty hard to follow.

I don't see how being American matters here. Europe is pretty similar, while I think non-Western societies are typically characterized by more unequal relationships, not more solidarity.

Why am I not allowed to use a subset to get to the greater superset?



No, I actually do not. If you look through my whole blog, I criticize certain aspects of American beliefs. You talk about succeed professionally. First, I know that Gone With the Wind is fiction. Second, Ms. Shepley wrote her own version to the ending of it. What I did was criticized the professional environment in which one has to scheme, use, and become this top dog that eats other dogs. Did you not read what Ms. Shepley said in her alternative story? What she wants in this context is to be equal in a professional environment in which the environment is covered in s**t. She wants to be equally covered in s**t with her male counterparts. Her fictional version Scarlett would scheme, use and destroy people to get what she wants, but at what cost? What does this say about Ms. Shepley the author? What does it say about her character and who she is as a person? I'm not criticizing feminism or against equality for women. I'm criticizing the actual environment and the beliefs that lead to this hustling based environment. What she wants it to be a hustler just like her men counter-parts and wants to cover herself up with s**t just like her men counterparts.

https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/

Certain aspects of American Feminism draws some of its beliefs from American beliefs and ideology.



True. People in America today seems to have this "nihilistic" attitude towards this.



No s**t Sherlock. That I definitely agree.



Never said nor implied they're mutually exclusive. What I was saying is that independence and Emerson's Self-Reliance is focused extensively more than on love/togetherness. My father told me about the place he grew which was Co-ob City in the Bronx. Everyone knew everyone and if a child got into trouble the whole community knew it and your parents knew it before the child got home. In fact, at different times children would stay with different people and learn different aspects. The communication style of this community was faster than the internet. Everyone helped each other and helped raised each other's kids. Sometimes dinners took place at different houses. Today, families hardly see each. Taxes and Welfare may be great and necessary but is insufficient.



You completely misunderstood what I said and intended.

How do you know? Have you lived or experienced Europe? Maybe it is but I'm basing my assumptions on America because I've never really lived or experience much outside of America.

Another thing I've noticed. People around me seems to assume that people's beliefs here apply everywhere without checking it out. How do people here know what life is truthfully like in other nations and what the cultures and various sub-cultures are like?

Sorry for calling you a dick, but going on the attack with belittling sarcasm when you don't even understand the argument is a dick move. I don't see anyone here arguing that female independence is the root cause of society's ills.

Thread has gone to s**t; people can't or won't tell the difference between independence and individualism.

Maybe we should keep patriarchy and individualism separate. I think what cubedemon is arguing is that a lot of feminists tacitly sign on to the rugged individualist mindset where it's all about getting to the top. Whether someone is male or female, being "successful" in the career sense is seen as more desirable than being "successful" as a supportive and nurturing member of your family and/or close community. Just take what I said at face value. Don't try to read some reactionary "get back in the kitchen" message that isn't there.

Also, just because we have more equality than we did in the past doesn't mean the way we live today is ideal. This isn't the same as saying the past is better, just that things could be even better. What I see is the people who seem to do alright in today's world don't notice the dark underbelly. They haven't been in homeless shelters or psych wards. They haven't seen people who come from completely f****d up settings. They don't notice the neglected and abused. They don't see the places where our society is broken.

The true reactionaries are the ones who want to tell us things will never be better. That what we have now is the best it will ever be and anyone who challenges anything is a reactionary. Can you imagine if people had that attitude 150 years ago? Where would we be?

This is actually a pretty big ideological divide between different camps of feminism. What cubedemon is arguing against is the sub-type called Liberal Feminism, which looks to integrate women into the existing framework....and he's against the existing framework so it's a natural argument.

http://www.uah.edu/woolf/feminism_kinds.htm
(from types of feminism website)


I tend more towards Individualist Feminism- something cubedemon may find even more horrifying.





I am pretty individualist, although I stop short of libertarianism. I lived in a co-op for 2 years and it was not a good fit for me since I am not communitarian enough. Trying to force communitarian people into a individualist way of life is painful, as cubedemon knows. And he might be happier and more succesful in a commune or co-op (cubedemon- you might! It is a microcosm of what you describe as the way society should be). But individualist people do equally poorly in communitarian settings. I think the ideal is to have both and let people sort themselves out. So I support the existence of coops and communes because that is best fit for many people, but for many others it isn't.

How does this tie in with love and dating? Seems more of a PPR topic.

I would contribute, but I'm not entirely sure what we're talking about. I'm all for peace and love, but I do not have a soul.

Yes, I'm Hungarian.



Now we are digressing off topic, but anyway. Nobody claims that things can't be better. But I do claim that things can get better through gradual, largely spontaneous economic and societal development, and not through major, deliberate changes in society's framework. I also claim that humans will probably never be honestly solidary and cooperative except with a small group (family, friends etc.).

Ah, I see.




I don't really like to say never.

I didn't know this. That is very interesting. You're right I am against the existing framework as I see it as inherently flawed and inhuman. I believe so does Marshall.



You're probably right. Can you tell me more about a co-op? Janissy, I am with you there. I do not believe overthrowing nor reforming of the system in place would work.

Honestly, there are to many revolutionaries and reformers and not enough builders.

If you live in or near a city, there is probably a food co-op there. Hopefully your area has one and you are already a member or shop there. If not, check out your nearest one. It is what you describe as the ideal; people working together in as non-hierarchical a way as possible and doing joint decision making. It is the opposite of dog-eat-dog.

The same principle works for homes and I lived in one. Not to give away my location, so here is a relevent website:

http://www.ic.org/

It is a site of Intentional Communities, where people live together with a shared vision of community. The one I lived in was a single very large home with many unrelated people in it. Lots of young people live that way informally but this was organized formally so it had the structure that multiple roomate living situations lack. We shared decisions and work on budgeting and housework within a communitarian framework. We took turns with everything and made sure everything was as fair as possible. For a communitarian person, it was heavenly. But I discovered the hard way that I am an individialist not a communitarian and in time the community decision making got on my nerves and I just wanted to do things my own way in my own apartment.

There were married couples in this place and that worked out great. What did not work out great was kids because there were two few and they felt badly outnumbered by the adults and over-parented by the "village" that was always around them. They hated it passionately because to them it was like having a dozen parents bossing them around. They are adults now. I wonder what they think looking back on that childhood? But it could work with many children and I think in some intentional communities it does. It is necessary to have balance so the kids don't get outnumbered.

If you have communitarian ideals, you would be happy in such places. If you have not already joined your nearest food co-op, you should.

Janissy, I've been reading the different articles by different people and I have to say it is wonderful. The pictures of some of the communities are what I see in my dreams sometimes.

You need to find better friends.