Where Pretty Lies Perish
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:25:02 +0000
There are two types of feminism, and they are mutually opposed to one another.
There was/is a feminism that wanted women to be able to exist by and for themselves (Let's call this individualist feminism).
The other feminism is one that wants the world to exist for women (and this collectivist feminism).
To more thoroughly represent these two ideas, I will list some examples for each.
Individualist Feminism:
-Acknowledging the right of female suffrage
-Eliminating legal barriers on women to join professions
-Using reason or other peaceful measures to end the stigma on career women
-Acknowledging the right of women to sovereignty over their own body (abortion)
Collectivist Feminism:
-Ensuring favoritism for women in professions (affirmative action, quotas)
-Portraying women as helpless victims in their dealings with men
-Bullying people who portray women in an allegedly negative light
-Supporting hate crime laws that create a tiered system of justice
-Supporting hate speech laws that effectively bar opponents from joining the debate
-Demanding that society pays for abortions or birth control (whether in the form of government or insurance companies)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is not yet obvious how these two types of feminism cannot coexist, consider how each expects women to be treated. Individualist feminism seeks for women essentially to be treated as men in the public sphere. Collectivist feminism, however, has a different goal. Despite all its protestations to the contrary, it does not want men and women to be treated equally.
Let us break down some of the characteristics and/or policies of collectivist feminism mentioned above, and examine how they cannot coexist with individualist feminism:
-Ensuring favoritism for women in professions (affirmative action, quotas)
These policies are treatments that exist for the benefit of women (and to the detriment of men). Applying these policies to men and women equally is irrational, since the policy would then be meaningless. It follows that to support these policies is to oppose the equal treatment of men and women.
Some will object: "Women have historically been disenfranchised. These policies exist to right past wrongs."
The past affected past peoples. There is of course some carry over, but by and large women now have the same opportunities in professions as do men. These policies continue to be defended by collectivist feminists even as women are outperforming men in most professions, and the same feminists often react neutrally to angrily when it is suggested that men be given preferential treatment in fields in which women are performing better. In these reactions to changing circumstances, collectivist feminists have just shown their hand, and their cards are s**t. If they were truly interested in equality (a dubious notion in itself) they would favor adjusting these policies as the demographics in professions change.
-Portraying women as helpless victims in their dealings with men
This is often exemplified by the ever-expanding definition of rape. Whether it is drunken sex as rape, underage sex as rape, or sex between "uneven power levels" as rape, collectivist feminists find more and more ways to make women victims. Among the more troublesome consequences of the loose definition of rape is that it becomes a matter of whether the woman finds the man creepy, or regrets having sex with him.
Rape is a serious crime that no woman seeks. Forcible rape is thus easily defined. The problem with defining the other forms of sex as rape is that some women don't mind those things, depending the the man she is with. A 17-year-old girl having sex with a 21-year-old man ought not to be considered rape unless we can assume that 17-year-old would find this sex in every case undesired. The same goes for the other standards of rape.
Objection: "Men are physically stronger than women, and therefore women need increased protection against men."
This may be true, but the protection exists in the fact that rape and assault are crimes with serious punishments. Giving carte blanche to women in deciding whether sex was rape is not a solution, as it does nothing to address the strength difference, and rather serves as a tool for vengeance and/or saving face. Furthermore, the victimization of women is at odds with the self-power for which individualist feminism stood.
Note: I am not suggesting that the occurrence of these broader definitions of rape preclude that sex from being genuine rape. If a man (or a woman?) has sex with someone who is clearly unconscious or preys upon a young girl who cannot make decisions for herself (and no, being under 18 years old doesn't necessarily make one incapable of doing so), he should be charged with rape, and I hope he receives a long punishment. My point is that the occurrence of these broader definitions additionally don't ensure it's rape.
-Bullying people who portray women in an allegedly negative light
Political correctness lite, essentially.
If women are supposed to be treated equally to men, they must be able to take (VERBAL) punches like men. Hurt feelings do not grant bullying privileges, especially to people who spend the rest of their time of late whining about bullying. As a somewhat unrelated but easily recalled example: Gay bashing is obviously bullying. But so too is threatening and/or blacklisting earnest people or groups who politely oppose gay marriage. As no one generally bullies people when men are portrayed in a negative light(except whiny MRAs), the same should apply to women.
-Supporting hate crime laws that create a tiered system of justice
A crime is a crime. Suggesting somewhat get a harsher punishment for inflicting it on a certain group is abominable. Would the Holocaust be any less bad if Hitler targeted, say, Christians (assuming Hitler didn't identify himself as a Christian)? All violent crimes not committed for money are "hate crimes". This is at odds with treating treating people equally, obviously.
Objection: "But they targeted this person because they hated the group to which he or she belonged"
And?
-Supporting hate speech laws that effectively bar opponents from joining the debate
Of all the slimy tactics used to win an argument, this has to be the worst. Apart from being fiercely illiberal, this is a b***h move (as in whiny). This is the last refuge of an intellectual coward. It is antipodal to equal treatment under the law.
Objection: "But certain speech is just counterproductive, or beyond an acceptable standard of taste."
******** you.
-Demanding that society pays for abortions or birth control (whether in the form of government or insurance companies)
So which is it: "I am women, hear me roar" or "I am needy, give me more"? Feminism was supposed to be about women kicking a** out on their own, without a need for the help of anyone else. Individualist feminism asked for the respect woman as hero earned. Collectivist feminism now asks for unearned respect, and free s**t.
Objection: "I have the right to do what I want with my body."
Not with my money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectivist feminism is the return to women as a fragile, privileged class, only now the special treatment is on their terms (you go girl!).
The novel problem with this is that collectivist feminists expect us to treat us with the respect that individualist feminists earned.
Sorry girls, but contrary to collectivist feminist propaganda, respect isn't a birth rite, it's granted only to the deserving. This idea is obvious when one looks how men are respected. No one respects a bum. They respect men who work hard and care for their family (etc.)
Individualist feminists are respected by me because they ask for nothing and instead contribute to society. Collectivist feminists are despised by me because they expect to contribute nothing and yet they ask for everything.
Collectivist feminists aren't women, they are babies, who run crying to Big Daddy Government when they don't get their way. When they stop whining about everything and start getting their s**t together (on their own) they can sit at the big boy table again, like their grandmothers did.
There was/is a feminism that wanted women to be able to exist by and for themselves (Let's call this individualist feminism).
The other feminism is one that wants the world to exist for women (and this collectivist feminism).
To more thoroughly represent these two ideas, I will list some examples for each.
Individualist Feminism:
-Acknowledging the right of female suffrage
-Eliminating legal barriers on women to join professions
-Using reason or other peaceful measures to end the stigma on career women
-Acknowledging the right of women to sovereignty over their own body (abortion)
Collectivist Feminism:
-Ensuring favoritism for women in professions (affirmative action, quotas)
-Portraying women as helpless victims in their dealings with men
-Bullying people who portray women in an allegedly negative light
-Supporting hate crime laws that create a tiered system of justice
-Supporting hate speech laws that effectively bar opponents from joining the debate
-Demanding that society pays for abortions or birth control (whether in the form of government or insurance companies)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is not yet obvious how these two types of feminism cannot coexist, consider how each expects women to be treated. Individualist feminism seeks for women essentially to be treated as men in the public sphere. Collectivist feminism, however, has a different goal. Despite all its protestations to the contrary, it does not want men and women to be treated equally.
Let us break down some of the characteristics and/or policies of collectivist feminism mentioned above, and examine how they cannot coexist with individualist feminism:
-Ensuring favoritism for women in professions (affirmative action, quotas)
These policies are treatments that exist for the benefit of women (and to the detriment of men). Applying these policies to men and women equally is irrational, since the policy would then be meaningless. It follows that to support these policies is to oppose the equal treatment of men and women.
Some will object: "Women have historically been disenfranchised. These policies exist to right past wrongs."
The past affected past peoples. There is of course some carry over, but by and large women now have the same opportunities in professions as do men. These policies continue to be defended by collectivist feminists even as women are outperforming men in most professions, and the same feminists often react neutrally to angrily when it is suggested that men be given preferential treatment in fields in which women are performing better. In these reactions to changing circumstances, collectivist feminists have just shown their hand, and their cards are s**t. If they were truly interested in equality (a dubious notion in itself) they would favor adjusting these policies as the demographics in professions change.
-Portraying women as helpless victims in their dealings with men
This is often exemplified by the ever-expanding definition of rape. Whether it is drunken sex as rape, underage sex as rape, or sex between "uneven power levels" as rape, collectivist feminists find more and more ways to make women victims. Among the more troublesome consequences of the loose definition of rape is that it becomes a matter of whether the woman finds the man creepy, or regrets having sex with him.
Rape is a serious crime that no woman seeks. Forcible rape is thus easily defined. The problem with defining the other forms of sex as rape is that some women don't mind those things, depending the the man she is with. A 17-year-old girl having sex with a 21-year-old man ought not to be considered rape unless we can assume that 17-year-old would find this sex in every case undesired. The same goes for the other standards of rape.
Objection: "Men are physically stronger than women, and therefore women need increased protection against men."
This may be true, but the protection exists in the fact that rape and assault are crimes with serious punishments. Giving carte blanche to women in deciding whether sex was rape is not a solution, as it does nothing to address the strength difference, and rather serves as a tool for vengeance and/or saving face. Furthermore, the victimization of women is at odds with the self-power for which individualist feminism stood.
Note: I am not suggesting that the occurrence of these broader definitions of rape preclude that sex from being genuine rape. If a man (or a woman?) has sex with someone who is clearly unconscious or preys upon a young girl who cannot make decisions for herself (and no, being under 18 years old doesn't necessarily make one incapable of doing so), he should be charged with rape, and I hope he receives a long punishment. My point is that the occurrence of these broader definitions additionally don't ensure it's rape.
-Bullying people who portray women in an allegedly negative light
Political correctness lite, essentially.
If women are supposed to be treated equally to men, they must be able to take (VERBAL) punches like men. Hurt feelings do not grant bullying privileges, especially to people who spend the rest of their time of late whining about bullying. As a somewhat unrelated but easily recalled example: Gay bashing is obviously bullying. But so too is threatening and/or blacklisting earnest people or groups who politely oppose gay marriage. As no one generally bullies people when men are portrayed in a negative light(except whiny MRAs), the same should apply to women.
-Supporting hate crime laws that create a tiered system of justice
A crime is a crime. Suggesting somewhat get a harsher punishment for inflicting it on a certain group is abominable. Would the Holocaust be any less bad if Hitler targeted, say, Christians (assuming Hitler didn't identify himself as a Christian)? All violent crimes not committed for money are "hate crimes". This is at odds with treating treating people equally, obviously.
Objection: "But they targeted this person because they hated the group to which he or she belonged"
And?
-Supporting hate speech laws that effectively bar opponents from joining the debate
Of all the slimy tactics used to win an argument, this has to be the worst. Apart from being fiercely illiberal, this is a b***h move (as in whiny). This is the last refuge of an intellectual coward. It is antipodal to equal treatment under the law.
Objection: "But certain speech is just counterproductive, or beyond an acceptable standard of taste."
******** you.
-Demanding that society pays for abortions or birth control (whether in the form of government or insurance companies)
So which is it: "I am women, hear me roar" or "I am needy, give me more"? Feminism was supposed to be about women kicking a** out on their own, without a need for the help of anyone else. Individualist feminism asked for the respect woman as hero earned. Collectivist feminism now asks for unearned respect, and free s**t.
Objection: "I have the right to do what I want with my body."
Not with my money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectivist feminism is the return to women as a fragile, privileged class, only now the special treatment is on their terms (you go girl!).
The novel problem with this is that collectivist feminists expect us to treat us with the respect that individualist feminists earned.
Sorry girls, but contrary to collectivist feminist propaganda, respect isn't a birth rite, it's granted only to the deserving. This idea is obvious when one looks how men are respected. No one respects a bum. They respect men who work hard and care for their family (etc.)
Individualist feminists are respected by me because they ask for nothing and instead contribute to society. Collectivist feminists are despised by me because they expect to contribute nothing and yet they ask for everything.
Collectivist feminists aren't women, they are babies, who run crying to Big Daddy Government when they don't get their way. When they stop whining about everything and start getting their s**t together (on their own) they can sit at the big boy table again, like their grandmothers did.
