Feminism

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

That's soooooo two posts ago.

I think my dick just fell off

 

[the]

 

[Apone]

^Actually, that one may have gone a little too far.

 

[Paladin-X]

[video=youtube;ZC6nvYDg8ss]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC6nvYDg8ss[/video]

 

[acd]

 

[subwayrider]

I don't like feminism. Or rather the way it tends to be used. Because it seems to encourage the pussification of men, and I'm strongly attracted to strong manly men that act like men and not pussy whipped little boys. Maybe that's just me though.

Whatever all that means.

Sounds like more of the same narrow-minded gender role BS. IMO.

I really think people of either sex should strive to find some balance between the qualities to be desired, qualities that seem to be assigned to one of the two sexes almost exclusively, for some reason i.e. men should be more like women and women more like men.

I bet there are people who find it very attractive you're a female INTJ just as there are people who find it attractive that I'm a male INFJ. And this is as it should be. There is nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

[subwayrider]

Great thread. It's very eye-opening.

I feel like a rapist now, though. I have to figure out the whole what-consent-actually-means thing.
:/

 

[the]

Whatever that all means.

Sounds like more of the same narrow-minded gender role BS. IMO.

I really think people of either sex should strive to find some balance between the qualities to be desired, qualities that seem to be assigned to one of the two sexes almost exclusively, for some reason i.e. men should be more like women and women more like men.

I bet there are people who find it very attractive you're a female INTJ just as there are people who find it attractive that I'm a male INFJ. And this is as it should be. There is nothing inherently wrong with it.

So because air likes a certain kind of manly man you think that is wrong and instead of being yourself and finding someone to like you for you, you want to change the manly men of this world to be more like you. I assume to improve your odds and level the playing field.

What is narrow minded about liking what you like in a partner, and being opposed to systems that change the things you like into things you don't like? The whole balance thing is over used. I don't think we should be making men and women more and more androgynous, how is that supposed to fix anything?

 

[Apone]

I really think people of either sex should strive to find some balance between the qualities to be desired, qualities that seem to be assigned to one of the two sexes almost exclusively, for some reason i.e. men should be more like women and women more like men.

Why?

Don't you think it makes more sense for everyone to keep their minds open and understand that gender identity isn't black and white and that each shade of grey is just as valid as the others? Shouldn't people be trying to end the hate/disgust/negativity/judgment-- NOT forcing others to change who they are?

 

[subwayrider]

Why?

Don't you think it makes more sense for everyone to keep their minds open and understand that gender identity isn't black and white and that each shade of grey is just as valid as the others? Shouldn't people be trying to end the hatiie/disgust/negativity/judgment-- NOT forcing others to change who they are?

I do believe some of the meaning was lost in the translation (my mind to yours) because if I'm not mistaken that was my point.

This is why I have trouble with the whole discussing ideas thing: "What is this person trying to say? Did they correctly interpret my words? Did I misinterpret theirs? Are they putting words in my mouth?"

I'm not advocating forcing anyone to change. I'm actually speaking out against the overly rigid gender roles, imposed by society, in turn imposed by the self. It's people who often limit themselves and opt out of getting touch with what's perceived to be the domain of the opposite sex, a form of suppression. If they find it's not for them, fine, but what I find to be the evil is being stuck one way only because of expectations.

I think I see the problem: see, I was referring to qualities that for some reason are assigned to us according to gender e.g. males are independent and strong and females are patient and nurturing. This is the analogy: a male INTJ with developed Ni and Te who doesn't develop Feeling-- incidentally, the stereotype that women are the emotional ones seems to arise from the fact that most of them are Feelers. Feeling plays an essential role for all the types. To not develop feeling is not to develop fully as a person. We could use the example of a female INFJ who refuses to develop Ti and thus is unbalanced also. Note: don't focus on the technicalities of MB, focus on the analogy.
[MENTION=731]UBERROGO[/MENTION] I guess this post also serves as a response to yours.

 

[Air]

Hey, [MENTION=4717]subwayrider[/MENTION]. Be however womanly you want to be, just know that I'll never fuck you and no woman like me will either. Which is probably a blessing really, since different people are into different things. My point was that there is nothing wrong with people acting within gender roles if they so desire to. I think when those of us who choose to stick to traditional roles get told we're doing it wrong, that is were we begin to get pissed off. It works for you fine, but that doesn't mean mixing up gender roles is for everyone.

 

[Apone]

I don't think that saying that people should 'find a balance between the genders' is the same as saying 'everyone should just be who they are'.

Some people are stereotypically 'masculine' men and some people are stereotypically 'feminine' women. It's not liberation if you're advocating a different brand of preferential treatment, or touting a replacement 'norm'. Doing that is just going to alienate people.

EDIT: Looks like [MENTION=4552]Air[/MENTION] beat me to it.

 

[subwayrider]

Hey, [MENTION=4717]subwayrider[/MENTION]. Be however womanly you want to be, just know that I'll never fuck you and no woman like me will either. Which is probably a blessing really, since different people are into different things. My point was that there is nothing wrong with people acting within gender roles if they so desire to. I think when those of us who choose to stick to traditional roles get told we're doing it wrong, that is were we begin to get pid off. It works for you fine, but that doesn't mean mixing up gender roles is for everyone.

Yeah, I probably screwed up the discussion by getting all emotional about it first. That said, I accept your insult with grace because I initiated. I am sorry. Now back to logic.

Clearly people are going to act and think in the ways they please and, except for the times I get all worked up, I realize it is silly and wrong to want to change people to the way I would like them to be. One of the problems with even holding such a discussion is what "gender roles" and "gender stereotypes" even mean. Using the traditional assignations of men being strong and women being emotional, I managed to put together a pretty good argument for why integrating the classic traits of both is so essential to the healthy development of any human being. That post can be found above, it was two or three posts ago.

Know that I say this not to try and make you angry: I think the language you chose to use was very unintellectual and makes you seem sort of bigoted. I think it would be easy for a lot of people to take it the wrong way, whereas if you rephrased it, it might actually have substance.

 

[subwayrider]

[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] -- you'll have to bear with me because I'm on my phone and I'm also a bit of an idiot.

I'm not aware of advocating preferential treatment. I'm not even aware of a norm.

This is how I see my argument:

Traditional gender assignations:

Male --> Thinking
Female --> Feeling

Developing both functions is essential to healthy development of all humans. Therefore, traits of both genders as outlined by tradition should, assuming you want to be a well-rounded human being, be integrated on a sufficient level. I mean, if someone doesn't want to be a balanced person, that's their problem I guess. It sorta sucks though.

I'm sorry if this doesn't do it. I just honestly don't understand. Just let it go if it's a waste of time.

 

[acd]

@Apone -- you'll have to bear with me because I'm on my phone and I'm also a bit of an idiot.

I'm not aware of advocating preferential treatment. I'm not*even aware*of a norm.

This is how I see my argument:

Traditional gender assignations:

Male --> Thinking
Female --> Feeling

Developing both functions is essential to healthy development of all humans. Therefore, traits of both genders as outlined by tradition should, assuming you want to be a well-rounded human being, be integrated on a sufficient level. I mean, if someone doesn't want to be a balanced person, that's their problem I guess. It sorta sucks though.

I'm sorry if this doesn't do it. I just honestly don't understand. Just let it go if it's a waste of time.

You are not an idiot. Far from it. Don't let these people push you around because they can't handle another opinion. Seems a few here are just pissy about the topic in general and looking to be offended. I thought you made a great point--it's not healthy for people to repress or not develop certain sides of themselves because these aspects do not conform to traditional (and unrealistic) gender norms.

 

[Apone]

Wait... when did you add all of that other stuff?

I guess that if you're talking about learning from each other and benefiting then yes, that's great-- but I don't think it's always easy for people to be so well-rounded and I don't think that there is one specific way that people should be expected to be.

If they're not hurting anyone, then there's really no point in changing. I don't think that conforming to what's traditionally expected of men or women is inherently harmful... and I don't think that balancing the two makes you some sort of ideal human being.

 

[Quiet]

i feel a bit nostalgic, the first post i made on this site was about feminism. i joined the site to post on that thread. i was a lurker for a month or so before then.

Feminism is not equality-http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20171.

Anyway, i do consider myself to be a feminist- whatever that means. I think its impossible to define what 'true' feminism is because ultimately it means something unique to each individual based on their mind filters, perception, culture, environment etc.

Feminism, to me, is essentially equality or humanism. Without feminism our world would be much shittier place. It is because of feminism and feminists that women can say things like 'i dont like feminism, i dont need it'. And isnt that awesome! Maybe im generalising a bit with that comment, but i think there is truth in it. Feminism is what gave both men and women the opportunity to start being free. This is true for men, women, transgender, those that are feminine or masculine.

Our world is still in desperate need of feminism. Women are still being oppressed and treated as second class citizens in most of the countries in the majority world. Feminism is the force that brings more balance in a patriarchal dominant world. Neither patriarchy or matriarchy is the answer. Balance is the answer. Equality.

Feminism is so important to equality because we cannot understand the true value of life if we think that one sex is better or more powerful than the other. In this sense inequality hurts all people, the oppressed and the oppressor. Denying the feminine also means denying the masculine. The oppression of women has hurt men as much as women. We need to accept and nurture both these qualities. Feminism has given many people the permission to be more themselves- whether it is to be truly feminine, masculine, man, woman or to be a balance of these.

The notion of feminism has also been misconstrued as used as justification for all manner of narrow bigoted beliefs, hate, victimising, victim mentality etc. This is what happens with all culturally constructed concepts. It is the nature of the mind to fuck things up and use them as justification for whatever the mind wants to believe. Feminism has also been used as a way to pursue consumeristic agenda and has inadvertantly damaged the family unit. In some ways, feminism was used as the vehicle to 'shame' women into working or making women that want to spend time nuturing their children feel foolish. This is the same idiotic cultural shame that makes men feel foolish or too 'feminine' when they want to nuture children and choose to be more sensitive, communicative and aware. So now we have all these men and women that are working around the clock in dead end jobs so they can pay their bills and their debts and buy more plastic shit while their children are raised in a state run facility and everyone is miserable feeling unfulfilled and constantly lacking and no one any idea of who they are because they are constantly comparing themselves to others and looking at external sources for validation. Yay for fake freedom! This is just another bullshit way for people to enslave themselves. In these ways feminism can be destructive and is not fostering the goal of true freedom for all.

I respect the right of each indiviudal to choose their gender and be what they will. However, i do not personally believe that gender needs to be so strongly tied to identity. Your gender is not who you are. It is simply a part of how you are, how you choose to interact, the roles you play etc. There is no reason to identify so strongly with gender. Just lose the labels and be whoever you want to be. Dont think about whether its feminine or masculine. Just do what feels comfortable and natural. You dont need to buy into culturally constructed stereotypes. Stop letting others dictate who you are. Life is too short to waste time worrying about those things.

I admire and respect individuals that embrace both masculinity and feminity, and strive to find a harmonious balance within that duality. In a truly successful and equal society there would be no need for feminism. I think the goal is to reach that point where we can eradicate the need for feminism.

 

[Apone]

The oppression of women has hurt men as much as women. We need to accept and nurture both these qualities. Feminism has given many people the permission to be more themselves- whether it is to be truly feminine, masculine, man, woman or to be a balance of these.

I like what you have to say, but seriously, look at this statement:

'the oppression of women has hurt men as much as women'

So if they're both equally hurting, why is it 'the oppression of women' and not 'the oppression of men and women', or more succinctly 'oppression'?

I don't think that it's unreasonable to suggest that the biggest disparities in history haven't been between men and women or even between the races-- the biggest disparities have been between rich and poor, between developed and developing. The roles of both men and women were largely defined by their economic status, not by some sort of one-way oppression.

Here's a video about that as it pertains to race:

[video=youtube;LWwLt5_M6s0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWwLt5_M6s0[/video]

This isn't even taking into consideration the workers who weren't technically slaves, but who might as well have been. Not everyone was a plantation owner, or a rich businessman, or a bigoted member of the aristocracy... most people were just ordinary nobodies doing their best to survive in a world where life was nasty brutish and short... it was wholly impractical for people in that situation to consider whether or not what they were doing was 'equal'.

Before the 20th century (and first wave feminism), women were expected to stay home and have children because children were a source of profit. Families were much bigger (average 8 children) because there were no restrictions on child labor, and children could bring money into the house... either by working or by being sold. The reason men went to work was because, as you know, they're incapable of having babies. The same thing is happening in developing nations today, because of economics... it's not because of some inherently 'male' need to oppress people. Women oppress people too, provided they have more money than the people they're oppressing.

I agree with humanism but I don't equate feminism with humanism or equality, and I think that feminism has devolved into something that divides people more often than it unites them, mostly because it too often polarizes the genders and demands change from people who aren't responsible for the 'oppression', if it's even genuinely applicable. These are the feminists who cannot or will not seek out any legitimate cause so they create illegitimate ones where they wouldn't otherwise exist and demean the entire movement. These people should be kept separate from more serious-minded causes like women's suffrage/women's rights. Maybe the issue here is semantics, but I don't think that someone like the woman in the Christmas song video above deserves the same title or degree of consideration as someone who is campaigning for women's rights in other countries... but at the same time, she fits the current definition of feminism perfectly.

 

[Quiet]

[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] i like what you have to say. I'll watch the video and reply properly when i have some more time. Off to make dinner for the family for now.

 

[Quiet]

I like what you have to say, but seriously, look at this statement:

'the oppression of women has hurt men as much as women'

So if they're both equally hurting, why is it 'the oppression of women' and not 'the oppression of men and women', or more succinctly 'oppression'?

Absolutely! It is simply 'oppression'. A dynamic of powerplay.

Quite often the 'oppressors' are simply playing a culturally learned role. Their beliefs about themselves and 'other' are simply generic cultural beliefs that they have assimilated and used as a framework for their thinking. Sometimes there is genuine hate, but hate isnt necessary to oppress someone. I think that fear and lack of self love is at the core of opression.
And whats truly fascinating about this powerplay is that sometimes the oppressor and oppressed simply think that the oppression is the normal state of things. There isnt even a problem- its just reality for them. Its normally when the 'oppressed' decide they've had enough or when the 'oppressor' starts acknowledging and dealing with their own issues of fear and self love that the process of resolution begins. The conflict marks the start of the healing process. The conflict is the awareness of what has been happening

I don't think that it's unreasonable to suggest that the biggest disparities in history haven't been between men and women or even between the races-- the biggest disparities have been between rich and poor, between developed and developing. The roles of both men and women were largely defined by their economic status, not by some sort of one-way oppression.

I dont think thats unreasonable either. Although i still think that the oppression of men and women over history has been real, i do agree that the root and matrix of this issue is more complicated. The oppression of one sex by another simply becomes a symptom of deeper emotional and psychological repression and dysfunction.

Here's a video about that as it pertains to race:

I liked the video. I like his main premise- struggle for power and the need to take personal responsibility. And also the importance of making the 'oppressed' feel powerless and seperate, even from each other. I also like how he simplified the core of racism to economic control, or more simply the need to control and use others for financial gain. Whenever i think of money, wealth, greed as motivation- i think that the root is always fear. I know you and i have argued about this in the past and have agreed to disagree.

I dont think that the means for taking personal responsibility and self empowerment is economic liberation. This could imply that the opressed simply now become the oppressor and they cycle continues. However, the man does state in the video that the issue is more complicated and related to metal, emotional and spiritual health and awareness. He also says that he has made other relevant videos. So i guess he probably fleshes that arguement out properly in other resources.

This isn't even taking into consideration the workers who weren't technically slaves, but who might as well have been. Not everyone was a plantation owner, or a rich businessman, or a bigoted member of the aristocracy... most people were just ordinary nobodies doing their best to survive in a world where life was nasty brutish and short... it was wholly impractical for people in that situation to consider whether or not what they were doing was 'equal'.

Bascially people too caught up in the game survival and powerplay to be able to see and recognise who they are and who their fellow man is.

Before the 20th century (and first wave feminism), women were expected to stay home and have children because children were a source of profit. Families were much bigger (average 8 children) because there were no restrictions on child labor, and children could bring money into the house... either by working or by being sold. The reason men went to work was because, as you know, they're incapable of having babies. The same thing is happening in developing nations today, because of economics... it's not because of some inherently 'male' need to oppress people. Women oppress people too, provided they have more money than the people they're oppressing.

Children were indeed a source of profit for their parents and others. The attitude towards children in our current age is generally speaking quite novel and wonderful in context of history. Their rights have improved a lot and need to be improved further towards greater equality. I understand what you mean about developing countries and i agree that economics or as many who are entrenched would see it 'practicality' is the main reason for the oppression. And i agree that women oppress people too. There have been cycles in history where women were the oppressors of men. And where women oppress other women. mem oppress other men. where people oppress people. And it always come down to the same think to me- fear and lack of self love.

I agree with humanism but I don't equate feminism with humanism or equality, and I think that feminism has devolved into something that divides people more often than it unites them, mostly because it too often polarizes the genders and demands change from people who aren't responsible for the 'oppression', if it's even genuinely applicable. These are the feminists who cannot or will not seek out any legitimate cause so they create illegitimate ones where they wouldn't otherwise exist and demean the entire movement. These people should be kept separate from more serious-minded causes like women's suffrage/women's rights. Maybe the issue here is semantics, but I don't think that someone like the woman in the Christmas song video above deserves the same title or degree of consideration as someone who is campaigning for women's rights in other countries... but at the same time, she fits the current definition of feminism perfectly.

Yes using feminism to divide rather than unite completely defeats the purpose of feminism. The oppressed is then trying to become the oppressor. Another powerplay. How irritating and wasteful of energy. Rather tahn striving for balance, it simply becomes about turning the tables.
Some people feel the need to blame others for their problems because they do not yet have the self awareness, fortitude and strength to address their own personal issues. In their world there will always be an oppressed and oppressor. They dont really want the conflict to end. They feed off the conflict and feel validated by their victim mentality/defender of the powerless roles. This role gives them safety. Yes there is even safety and comfort to be gained in believing that you are the oppressed and therefore your life is a struggle and you can be held responsible for all your actions. And there is someone to balme for all your problems. It is not equality they want- it is simply external validation. What these people really need is self love. No amount of extenal validation or hating on others will give them peace from their self induced and created insecurities. Once they can free themselves with self love, they will see that they dont have to accept oppression if they dont want to. There is no one to fight. The enemy has disappeared.