The Death of Modern Liberal Feminism (And its Rebirth in the Conservative Movement) - Page 5

we go way back.

Quote

I love to flirt. You sexy thang! Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Awwww. Thanks.

Quote

I guess it's good to be mod!

Quote

I never mentioned anything about the founding fathers. They were more in tune with their feminine side than Atlla, whatever that says about them. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Hi Olivia,
I agree - my bad: I meant founding mothers :-) of course ....(lol)

Fast forward to the Modern Era, women are where they are because we forced the issue. Yes, men did have to ratify the amendment giving us the vote and they did bend to pressure, but I don’t see how you equate where you are today as a gift from males. Men are wonderful. I adore them. I prefer their company to women. I love having sex with them. I have earned my living in and among men all my life either through direct patronage or in my professional career in manufacturing and real estate dealings. But they didn’t get me to where I am today.

This is nothing we disagree on, of course feminism was good too, but it has its lacks and flaws.
I agree with you that men did not get you where you are today, but my point comes from a different direction. Probably you would not have been the ability to be able to find resources that brought you where you are today without the help of wealthy men. That is what happened to me. I was born poor, no one told me to study or stuff like that. Its about choice. Point being i had a boyfriend for 7 years and with his help and money i established where i am today. He gave me a choice i did not have before.
Point being if you equal that to males, they sometimes do not have these kind of abilities to choose. So i can`t say i am a feminist, because i did not work all by myself and achieve what i achieved today without the help of protective males.

I have the feeling you misunderstood this notion of myself. I know feminists and they are usually of the sort as of to never take money from a man because it makes you dependent. The true feminists i know have worked hard - harder than i had to work - to get where they are today, because they did not have a rich boyfriend that got you out of a brothel with 18 and took care of you or 7 years.
I would not do it any differently - but to label myself as a feminist would be gross, wouldn`t it? And how many women nowadays are still married because they can`t make it on their own?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Perhaps you are confusing feminism with the sexual revolution. Queer theories, polyamorousness (sp), etc. have nothing to do with social, legal and financial equality and freedoms.

You`re wrong. They do. Actually a lot of it has to do with social, legal and financial equality and freedoms. It is just not only catering to the "male/female" bias but also to other issues.

I do not consider men and women to be two ends of the spectrum, but rather two parts of the same. I can only assume you are and your theories distinguish between sex and gender differences. I would agree with that.

you are saying gender differences are more important to feminism than sex differences, I can see how that would have some impact on feminism and is germane, while at the same not negating reproduction and child rearing.

I feel you have misunderstood me here too. The point was its 2. Ok i agree, no need to portray it as two ends of a spectrum, you can also portray it as two parts of the same, right. But that does not make the core point of my input and critic void, which was about the simple number 2. Feminism, same as patriarchy has only two ways of identification (you can be either female or male and it has stereotypical roles - it has nothing to do with the "sex vs. gender" debatte, i agree with you there) . There are more than 2 sexes out there and more than two ways of gender identification than heteronormativity suggests. Ok lets not talk about transgender identities here, or bisexuals, which are all excluded in the feminist discourse. It would lead to far. To make it simple - also for a simple heterosexual woman there are more ways to identify than with being "female gender" or "female sex". It can stray outside of these values. That is where queer theory comes in. Its not feminisms enemy as you seem to see it.
Point is, and i hope you see where i am getting at - that i would value to not portray too many differences between the genders as stream of thought for getting the agenda of inequality.

Point being: if you focus on differences rather than on similarities then you will widen the gap between the sexes (genders) rather than endorse understanding. I am not saying this is the only valid point in such a discussion it`s just a point i personally favour. I am aware of its intricacies as well.

I absolutely do not agree with your queer theory. I called my daughter who has studied some of these topics and she also disagrees not just with you, but with her professors. Now, my daughter’s area of expertise isn’t abstract sexual identification, but merely geology, but I trust her scientific intuition. It has no bearing on feminism or the human condition in my opinion.

On what points does your daughter disagree? you don`t seem to explain this here so it actually has no valuable information for me within the notion that your daughter disagrees with me and her professors as well :-)), as long as i don`t know what exactly she disagrees about? There are many many points to a story. I have my view and distracted with my brain out of theories also what i favour, of course, i assume your daughter does the same. Believe it or not, i also disagree with a lot of my professors. Its not that i sit there and suck slime all day :-)

Now here’s my theory on why women aren’t considered true competitors by men. Women tear each other down. We fight amongst ourselves when there is nothing to fight over. While men are busy minding the pecking order and competing for position and real ground, we are busy nit-picking and bitching about who is out of dress code and who files better than someone else even at middle and upper-middle management positions. Why would men consider a group a threat that is engaging in a damaging but contained civil war? Answer: They don’t, and we just chase our own tails.[/SIZE][/FONT]

I agree. Its not only your theory its a fact that is widely recognised in feminist discurses, queer theories and the influences of patriarchy. Its called "solve et coagula" (divide and unite). Patriarchy has divided females into two categories (whore /holy virgin) and is busy keeping them fighting against each other instead of uniting. Oh and bad tongues also say that fashion and beauty addiction , eating disorders and whatnot are all coming from patriarchal power so that women don`t invest their money or attention into de-establishing male power structures.

And - if two women fight against each other because of a man - its the same. When i had the fight with the wife of my ex, she was never acknowledgint the fact that not I was doing her not right, but HE was. Its always better to see the evil women then to see what a jerk of a guy does. And women are very successful and busy with that strategy to glorify men and destroy other women in the process. I am not saying i have not been guilty of doing such things to in the process of my life.

My theory is that competition about non-issues is behavior that has been engrained since the polygamist era thousands of years ago. Polygamy was a necessity for population growth, safety, wealth building, etc. My thought is this, when you have multiple wives competing for attention from their collective husband and resources for their personal offspring they are going to be competitive about what we could consider today non-issues. This is an evolutionary reflection of the competition among women for resources. It’s just my thought; I’ve not read it anywhere.

Again right. Polygamy is very patriarchal. Well, believe it or not, i am also capable of thinking by myself and not just reading and parrotting books, if that is what you think i am doing ;-).

A. Non-judgmental people don’t use the terms suck cock and twat.

B. Tell your “out of date theory” to the lower and middle class of women that haven’t realized political, social, and financial freedom. Just because the laws are on the books doesn't mean everyone is equal. Don’t forget, just because you and I have made it, not every one has. I believe it’s the US Marines that say, “Leave no man behind.”

what terms do non judemental people use? Its your definition of the words that make them bad and not my use of it. Just to point this out to you, who accuses me of intellectual double talk , i do live in a certain reality as well. And it is fashionable in the dilemma of outcasts to use "bad" words like "slut" or something like that - to describe themselves and use it as a trophy as well. So, before accusing me of being something or doing something i`d be a little more careful on the meaning of words in subcultures. There is a book called "the ethical slut" for a reason or another "whores and other feminists" (whore is a deragtory term in heteronormativity) , and women like "Meg Barker" have published studies on re-defining words that are used to chastice people outside the heteronormative norm. It happens a lot. Some subcultures even use the chasticing words to coin the meaning of their subcultures. Its called empowerment.

So point being: If you think words like "suck cocks" are negatively associated, its your ethical framework that gives them a negative meaning. Pardon me, i know you are "making love" of course :-). Is that enough of "plain vanilla romantic" ;-) ? (joke)

I do give you credit for the "twat" though. It was meant to judgemental and it was a negative judgement. But i insult women that fuck their way up in an office instead of handling themselves like other people do for the simple fact that they are enemies of feminism and betray anything and everything a woman should stand for when she calls herself feminist. And i have seen too many women doing such things and then deliberately calling themselves feminists. If calling them "twats" is a judgement , so be it.

Then i take back the notion that i am not judgemental and you are right with what you stated. Yes i am judgemental. Very much so. And you are right again.
Good point! I have to reflect on that one, thanks for pointing that out to me.
I agree with you.

And just because i state feminism is out of date - it does not mean i agree with suppression of females and their agendas. Hello? I am as well as you for the equality of the genders, and various sexes. I just would go a bit further and enhance the theories, that is all. Feminist theory has its limitations. And of course it does not pay the bills. That is all i am saying. I myself come from a working class family so i know more than a little about such things and issues.
Feminists do not agree on all terms within their own mindframes, so you expect me to agree with everything they say? You seem to think feminism is a monolithic stream of thought and its only purpose is to support women? No it isn`t. Feminism is also guilty of bringing up women against each other by portraying some women as bad and others as good. For example some feminists say escorts are supporting patriarchy, while others say they don`t. So which feminism is it that you support? I think the streams are outdated because there are newer and better working methods out there to support people. Queer theories for example don`t JUDGE sexwork neither in one or the other direction. That IS per se better as feminist judgements.
Just ONE example of many.

Quote

To paraphrase Mel Brooks: "It's good to be King/Mod." But, Olivia and I have been talking since I first joined eccie. Apparently MA knows her prior to mod-ship, too. Olivia knew us when we were just "pups."

Quote

I agree with both of you. There are as many differing positions on just about every kind of social or political topics as there among any demographic. I for one, do not care for pornography. However I think, unlike Nina, think prostitutes or women that “suck cock”, as it was so eloquently put, through out history have been far more liberated than most women because we/they have their own purse.
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

You misquote me: i am supportive of sex positive feminism so yes i do like escorts and i am an activist for escort rights. Sex positive feminists are the ones that like escorts not the ones that dislike them. And not everywhere escorting and prostitution (note sexwork would be non judgemental since prostitutes is a derogatory term and you seem to be so keen on non judgemental) is illegal. I am european, so you are free to " prostitute" yourself whereever you please.

So i do think -same like you - escorts are liberal and liberated. That is the point of sex positivism.

To the discussion on why sexwork is illegal in the USA and not anywhere else. It has nothing to do with the "purse". Its a history of religions. that differed in their notions on celibacy vs. the "better evil" prostitution. Its about celibacy vs. marriage as the highest ideal. That is all. I don`t have all the facts handy now to differ it out, but i did research on that a while ago for my thesis. (a too long while ago)