ZOMBIE FORUMS

Let me just make my position clear first, so no one gets confused: I am not a feminist, and I loathe and avoid many of those who are. While equality between the sexes* is a noble ideal, I think the feminist movement has fallen to the same problems that many other civil rights groups have recently; namely, misdirected anger, misplaced priorities, and a good deal of zeal and, yes, hatred that simply isn't warranted. As anyone with functioning eyes and half a brain (hint: look under my avatar) should know, I come from Santa Cruz, California; what you may not know is that the town, and more particularly the University, of Santa Cruz has all the liberalism of Berkeley with about a third of the collective IQ. Consider this my hate letter to the town, and especially to the Women's Studies majors within it. Simply put, I am trying to make clear my position on what the modern feminist movement is, where it's right, and where it went wrong. No offense is intended, save to the overzealous cabbages among you with the idiocy to take it personally. They can all blow me.

I may be oversimplifying, but the core concept of modern feminism is that women are being oppressed. Simple concept, complicated implications. I agree that women, on average, tend to have more social pressures and arguably fewer opportunities than men, but I would disagree with a number of the implications attached to the word 'oppression'. First of all, 'oppression' implies an institutionalized denial of rights and opportunities; this is simply not present in current, Western (or at least American) culture. There are no legal or customary barriers to female election to public office or promotion in a company; the fact that any women at all are present in the upper echelons of said subcultures is proof of that. The so-called "glass ceiling", and/or gender income gaps, are often cited, but these have declined steadily since the 1960s, even in eras when feminism was not as hip as it is today; in other words, they are simply functions of time. Secondly, 'oppression' implies an outside oppressing force; this, too, is not present. The issue of social pressures is important enough to address seperately; for now, let it be said that men (or at least the men I work and hang out with) do not mind women in the workplace, the White House, or anywhere else that is thought of (primarily by feminists) as a predominantly male society. For context, I write code and am studying to become a career programmer; engineering is overwhelmingly male percentage-wise, but those women that do choose the career tend to be welcomed.

The single greatest failing of modern feminism is its culture of victimhood. In context, it's probably inevitable; in today's society, and particularly in academic circles, it's practically impossible to be cool unless someone's spent some time oppressing you. Etiquette dictates that one give sympathy to the oppressed, and a lot of recent feminists have plied that unwritten rule into more airtime and bookshelf space than anyone who hasn't been accused of blowing up a daycare center (to borrow a phrase from Neal Stephenson, one of my favorite writers) should get. As profitable as this approach might be, however, it is both wrong and ultimately counterproductive; besides leading to untold self-esteem issues, institutional sex-based oppression, for reasons described above, simply does not exist. As a result, we get a lot of feminist material that chooses to take issue with all sorts of bizarre and frequently consensual "misdeeds"--pornography, "men" and "women" signs on bathrooms (no, I'm not kidding), and so on. Rape is also seemingly a major source of 'oppression', despite the fact that no non-rapist men and no major "patriarchial" thinkers, with the possible exception of Ayn Rand (sorry, Goldstandard, it's true), agree with it.

Then there's the concept of the "patriarchy" as a conspiracy to oppress women and otherwise be a Source of All Evil. Other than our custom of tracing lineage through the father (which anthropologists agree is a fairly late development, and which is entirely cultural anyway; i.e. parents and/or children are free to choose the geneological method of their choice), the United States is not a patriarchical system. Sorry. Practically the only sex-biased programs which survive are in fact constructed to benefit women preferentially, the draft being a prime example.

So where do all the whorish repulsively over-made-up biological sex toys that feminists like to point out as victims of oppression come from? The simple answer is <i>other women</i>. No, I don't mean this in the crudely flippant sense of childbirth; the social expectations that lead many women to insert perfumed pussy plugs (not my phrase, unfortunately) and pursue Mrs. degrees come almost entirely from the female half of the equation. Sure, there are some men that like submissive women, but there are also a good number of women that like submissive men; I, for one, much prefer the type of woman that can take care of herself (as evidenced by my well-known ninja chick fetish). Who writes the Cosmo articles? Who buys the fashion magazines? Who creates the female version of the "popularity" that people sacrifice their brain cells and cash (in the form of cosmetics and fashion clothing) to in high school and junior college? Other women. There's a ton of hypocrisy going on, too; pick up a <i>Cosmo</i> or <i>Seventeen</i> and you'll see comfortably bland "you go girl" pseudo-feminism being printed right alongside ads for halter tops or Britney Spears' new CD. Feminists like to point to pornography and other primarily male institutions as the source of these expectations, but some casual comparison shows that this is not in fact the case; compare the measurements of the women in <i>Penthouse</i> and those in <i>Redbook</i> for a convenient object (pun intended) lesson.

I suppose that after all that I should include a personal opinion of sex roles, so here one is. Men and women are not biologically equal (if they were, sex would be rather arbitrary), but neither are they biologically locked into one role or way of living. The archeological record shows that what we now think of as gender roles have not always been the same; there are cave paintings of women running down large animals with spears, for example. There probably are divisions between hunter-type minds and gatherer-type minds (that's another rant, really), but these are not locked in by gender; I've known many women that I would peg (pun intended) as hunters, as well as many men that I would classify as gatherers. Somewhere along the line, we got confused and delegated these roles according to sex. That's a Bad Thing, and we shouldn't be bound to it. I suppose you could call me an egalitarian.

*Grammatically speaking, the word "gender" only refers to words. "Sex" is the equivalent term for humans, and is the term I will use in this essay.

P-M

-><-

Yeah...I can agree with that. Basically I'd say the role pattern isn't a case of men against women. It's a case of society against individual. When a mother teaches her son that 'boys don't cry' you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the mother is being the victim (except in the way that she too got 'molded') and the boy is the 'bad one' We're ALL victims, and we're all caught up in society's expectations. It is stupid to start arguing that the other guy's (or in this case, the guys') prison cell is better, and that this must mean he is somehow responsible for the prison, instead of trying to break free of the prison.

Of course, I have been spared of any feminists like that, so I have no such worries. okay, there was this one book I read...

_________________
Proud member of the cult of Godless commie traitors.

Icy: I'm sorry, but a society that puts mercedeses above hentai is fundamentally sick

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rand Al'Tor on 2002-11-15 14:13 ]</font>

Mothers telling their boys not to cry?! Never heard of that, I always thought it was the fathers who told their boys that.

all i can say, pyro, is "you go girl!"

on a serious note, i have to agree with most of what you said, it's my view, only put a lot more eloquently and cohesively than i ever could.

so i won't say any more.

That was the core when women were oppressed, but obviously you want to ensure that you can keep those hard won rights, and I think most moderate feminists are doing just that.

What you're complaining about sounds like male-bashing and political correctness. Even as a staunch conservative, I wouldn't blame those entirely on feminists. PC originated in cloistered environments when academic standards (such as freedom of speech) were sacrificed to political ends. Then conservatives (you can thank us later ) turned it into a dirty word... err... which was pretty much pointing out the obvious. And most people get that, which is cool.

So don't despair the downfall of feminism, after all, it did it's job quite well. What you on the left need to do is come up with new ideas.

Being a conservative myself, I would still need to contest that. Feminism's job isn't done, the problem with it is their solutions and their tactics (which remain at the bullying nessesary to get women equal rights in the eyes of the law.) Social constraints and stereotypes on women still run high, and the feminists are now trying to combat THAT.

Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, they still bully and threaten, and a lot of them view men in a hostile manner still (more understandable when a lot of those men thought that you were stupid people who didn't deserve the right to vote.)

The same problems remain with other issues that the left has taken up- race, class, etc. Unfortunately for everyone, the people running that stuff yearn for the days when their heroes were there, and run their organizations (which could do some important work) accordingly.

-Kills Commies
Lord, I was born a patriot man
Trying to kill some commies, and doing the best I can

Ok, so maybe feminism's work is done in America, but you gotta admit that there is a whole lot more to the world than just this country, or even just first world countries. Many, maybe even most, third world countries do not grant women the same rights that first world countries do. The middle eastern countries seriously circumscribe what women are alowed to do, wear, say, where they go, and with whom. Also some eastern European countries still restrict their women, as well as South and Middle American cultures. Unfortunately Pyro is correct in his statement that this sort of "oppression" does stem from the women in the society, usually the older women. However feminism's job should not be fighting, but education. Ignorance is the worst enemy, and what really leads to these "opressions" not an active wish to oppress.

Heh, my problem with feminism... is that it's roots are in this activist, political upstart group. In Canada, the femenist movement really started around getting women the vote. This required alot of female perticipation, it caused the movement to be run like a political party. Holding rallys, taking memberships, etc. The problem with this is: 'In grouping, Out grouping'

Desmond Morse says that the easiest way too unite your group is too tell them who they are not. In canada for example, our major cultural identity is pretty much, 'We have free healthcare, we play hockey, we are not american.' canadians have a bit of a condecending look on our neighbors to the south... its just natural when we define ourselves as being 'not american' that we then view 'american' as less than us. Well feminism seeked to unite all women under its banner, unfortunatly, the only thing that 'all women' have in common is that they are not men.

Choke (a book by chuck palanhuick, the guy who wrote 'fight club') has a really cool rant about the effects of this, 'A male chauvanist pig isn't born, he is made, and more often than not, he is made by women. I mean, how many times can someone be told he is the opressive, evil, biggoted, crietinest crieten before he becomes one? You live down to peoples expectations, even if the shoe doesn't fit, you will shrink into it.'
And women in general now do have a 'victim complex' It really makes me sad/angry. We are bombarded with all this femenist propeganda about how women are victimized, and this normalizes victimization in the heads of women (and men). We start seeing it when it isn't there. I know girls who sware vehamently that they can't walk down the street without being subject to lewd stares and cat calls from at least a dozen men. I have walked down many streets with her, and never noticed any, I even followed behind her once, allowing her to walk somewhat alone. Hearing nothing. Women WANT to be victimized now, this is how sick our societee is. It gives them a degree of 'normalcy', of acceptance. It makes me personaly sick.

The biggest problem with a victim mentality is that to be a victim you have to be oppressed and have an oppressor.
The femminist movement has achieved a lot of good things for our society, equality of voting, eductaional equality and equal oppotunities in the workplace being the main ones, however the downside is that these can be used against groups and orgainisations in petty arguements.
Say a woman doesn't get a promotion because shes only secondin the department and number one guy gets it, she can sue, she won't win but its irritating enough for the company.
This woman in Australia a few years ago(Old newspaper report from '99 I believe) said that her male co-workers avoided doing anything 'chummy' around her because the company had been sued the year before by a female emplyee who claimed that rude jokes were sexual harasment, she quit because every guy in the place was always walking on eggshells around her.

What I'm trying to say is that women won the most importaant battles years ago, now they are just hanging around, looking for something to object to.

Also I loved Choke, its probably his best book, better than Fight Club in a lot of ways.

Actor.

I never quite figured out how woman - 51% of the world's population - could ever become "oppressed" or considered a minority. How the hell could a "majority" be discriminated against - how could the "majority" let themselves be discriminated against?

Because other women tell them that they are oppressed. Well, that and sexual dimorphism.

I consider myself a feminist in that I believe in devoting time and effort to help when women are getting the short end of the stick in something when it's based <i>solely</i> on their gender. A man getting a promotion over a woman because he is more competent isn't a problem.

And I agree with Pyro that it's mostly other women's fault. Ro, I hate most members of my gender.

Quite easily. Numeric superiority bows to socioeconomic superiority. Just look at South Africa during apartheid, or the US before the expansion of the voting franchise.

Not in a democracy with reasonable voting rights, it doesn't. Apartheid got turned around when the polls were opened to the black majority, not when said black majority got their hands on the majority of the country's wealth (I believe they still don't have that). Women have been able to vote in the United States since the early 1920s, have held a population majority ever since medical advances rendered childbirth relatively safe, and have enjoyed considerable support from the other half of the population ever since the 1960s, and yet feminists still find things to complain about. That would indicate to me that there's something other than simple socioeconomic bias going on here.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-12-31 22:45 ]</font>

For quite awhile after the expansion of the voting franchise--that is, until the civil rights movement--women were marginalized. Granted, it is to a far lesser extent today, with the distribution of wealth -almost- equal. Reasonable voting rights can indeed be subverted by an education deficit. I think we may see this play a role in women's rights in the Middle East, perhaps in Afganistan. Even after all of the social institutions that held women down are lifted and democracy , for at least a generation or so there will certainly be inequality on a grand scale, as the women will be unable to make informed votes and thus will be underrepresented.

This is assuming democracy can even flourish there. That's a completely different topic, though.

The expansion of the voting franchise is only a step toward institutionalizing equality. The marginalization of African Americans endured even after poll taxes and other obstructions to democracy were lifted.

I consider myself somewhat of a feminist, and I do like the way the feminist movement is handling the abortion issue, with the exception of the argument that men have no place debating the issue. I'm yet appalled by some of the whinier aspects of the movement. Sexual harassment legislation is ridiculous, as is in some cases date rape. By playing toward victimization, I think that the feminist movement accomplishes the exact opposite of what it strives for; they set up institutions that essentially say that women do not have the potential to be assertive.

Don't even get me started on feminism's contributions to the PC movement. That bullshit makes me ashamed to be a lefty.

On the other hand, I think that the gay rights movement is today's continuation of the feminist movement, with the omission of some of the weaker arguments of the latter, such as institutionalizing political correctness. After all, having seen gay pride parades, how can anyone be expected not to poke fun at that demograph?

Brief thoughts on related matter,

I must not be a white male because:

1. I never owned a slave,
2. I never kept a woman from voting
3. I never gave anyone lower wages than they deserved because of their race or sex.
4. I don't own a fortune 500 company and belong to an all white male omnipotent oligarchy.

Whoever is opressing you, it isn't me! I belive women should be drafted in to the military, that's fair. Why should I go and die for people who are too good to fight beside me? If women want rights and belive in them, shouldn't they fight for them too? Israeli women fight and I have tremendous respect for those women that do.

Why is it that the same women who scream for equality also howl if they are held to male standards? The military has different levels of physical fitness in America for women than for men, so does the FBI, why is that?

Everyone on this earth is a victim, get over it, life is a landscape painted in shades of pain, I have a great deal of sympathy for women who've been abused or mistreated, but I didn't do it and they can't blame me or "men" for it, that's idiotic.

Final note, any complaints women have about men can be turned around on them, over the last 40 years or so men have been raised almost exclusively by women, mothers who got all of the parenting responsibility and elementary teachers who are almost exclusively female (and who become hostile at the mere suggestion that a man could do the same job, or that children might need male role models).

P.S. It was my mother that told me that boys don't cry.

"I mean, I'm just tired of being wrong all the time just because I'm a guy.
I mean, how many times can everybody tell you that you're the oppressive, prejudiced enemy before you give up and become the enemy. I mean, a male chauvinist pig isn't born, he's made, and more and more of them are being made by women.
After long enough, you just roll over and accept the fact that you're a sexist, bigoted, insensitive, crude, ctretinist cretin. Women are right. You're wrong. You get used to the idea. You live down to expectations.
Even if the shoe doesn't fit, you'll shrink into it."
-Chuck Palahniuk, Choke

"They're all just in it for themselves. They all think men are obsolete. Useless. As if we're just some sexual appendix.
Just the life support system for an erection. Or a wallet.
From now on, I say, I'm not giving any more ground.
I'm going on strike.
From now on, women can open their own doors.
They can pick up the check for their own dinners.
I'm not moving anybody's big heavy sofas, not anymore.
No more opening stuck jar lids, either.
And never again am I going to put down another toilet seat."
-Chuck Palahniuk, Choke

"Some days, life just looks like me versus every stupid chick in the whole damn world."
-Chuck Palahniuk, Choke

I HAVE to read that book!

The problem with it is that I still know and associate with women who aren't represented by the hordes of sexist bigoted female chauvinist bitches. In fact I am of the opinion that that sort of woman only makes up about 25%, that 25% are decent, intelligent, reasonable people (that doesn't mean that they are not still women and thus largely confusing in their way of thinking), and that about 50% follow the rhetoric of the louder minority blindly, echoing whatever they are told to do and believe.

Mind you that is not an indictment of women as I only have any respect for about 25% of men. Another 25% shouldn't be allowed to waste air, and the remaining 50% follow whoever leads them. That is the human race, I wouldn't swear to the percentages, (probably more like (10-10-80) but that is the reason that politics work the way they do, politicians don't sway die hard Republicans, Democrats, Labor, Tories, you-name-it, they sway people who have no ideas opinions, values, or beliefs that they've worked out for themselves. If people all made their own opinions, All candidates would have to do it list their stands on all major issues in complicated language like for-against, and show their voting record to prove it (if they have been in it long enough to have one).

What stands out about feminists is that they claim to represent all women everywhere. If you are against them you are against women, if you question that claim, you are against them, and thusly against women.

Well Clay, I have to agree with just about everything else in this post, but I fail to see what is confusing in the way women think. In fact, I fail to see anything confusing about how anyone thinks, except of course geniuses who I just don't understand at all because they're so much smarter than I am. Women in general, though, don't think in any confusing pattern. In fact usually its pretty straight-forward, consisting of thoughts of fashion, people's opinions, men, work, and comfort/fun.

There is that idea that women are more prone to humanities than sciences- men are vice versa. The two different disciplines require different modes of thinking, thus one who is inclined only twords one discipline is confounded by one who is inclined only in the other.

Or something...

-Kills Commies
Bah...

Classic example of what I mean. My parents. When my father works 40-45 hours a week my mother complains that they don't have enough money, if he works overtime, she complains he is not spending enough time with her. It's alway's my Dad's fault, and there is nothing he can do right, He makes 17 dollars/hour and his personal spending money is 20 dollars a WEEK! He has no hobbies, he never drinks and doesn't have any friends from work to hang out with, he has work and home, that's it.

I had to deal with that kind of logic my whole childhood, never getting a straight answer as to what the hell I was supposed to do. All but a few of the women I've known have been like that, those that have been different I have gotten along with extremely well, the others, I have no way to deal with.