Radical Feminism Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Psychology, Sociology & the Mind » Radical Feminism « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Found Goat
Advanced Member
Username: foundgoat

Post Number: 335
Registered: 8-2010
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 1:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The main theme of this post is feminism, or specifically a sub-section within feminism, so let it be stated right from the start that I, like the majority of people, am neither a male- nor female-supremacist. As a man, I detest the mistreatment and subjugation of women by male-supremacists just as much as the feminist does; likewise, equal is my contempt of a certain strain of feminism that seems to get off on portraying all or the majority of men as sexist pigs and potential rapists.

I, like most, am all for the equality of the sexes. Yes, it is true that woman may be, in some cases – physically speaking – the weaker sex, but that does not make women inferior to men, contrary to what patriarchal, phallic-centric belief may tell us.

Women have certainly had it tough dealing with chauvinistic men throughout the ages. If they have not been thought intellectually inferior to men (this, perhaps based on Darwin's belief that women have smaller brains than men), they were at one time condemned to a role of stifling domesticity as man-serving housewives. In some parts of the globe despicable men subject women to barbaric clitoridectomies and to the mandatory wearing of submissive veils. In so-called civilized societies women are battered by abusive husbands. Elsewhere, as shown in the documentary, The Invisible War, they are raped. Not even are they immune from the otherwise haven-like environment of religious superstition; consider the patriarchal deity that sadistically cursed the act of labor for the woman, in so doing making the child-bearing process excruciatingly painful for her.

Women, of course, were not always devalued. In ancient times, in certain cultures, it was men who were beneath women on the religious totem pole. There were the fertility deities like the Canaanites' Astarte, the Sumerian Innana, the Egyptian Isis, as well as the Babylonian Ishtar. There were also temple high priestesses, and queens, like Cleopatra. Matriarchies existed before patriarchies. Female dominance displays itself within the animal world. As just one example of this, the female is the dominant gender within beaver colonies. In some so-called primitive tribes women have equality with men. These women not only gather but hunt too. At one time, among tribal cultures, women were revered in the belief that they alone were responsible for conceiving children. As soon as men found out that their contribution was equally needed, it brought matriarchy to its knees.

Then came the 1900s and the heroic suffragettes. Women would soon have the right to vote.

The first wave of feminism that swept across the Western world focused on, and rightfully so, the social and sexual equality of women, of women's rights (following in the footsteps of the earlier suffragettes). This, an admirable cause. Take the main reason for the Baby Boom: Here you had men returning home from war and who were as horny as hell and wanted to spawn life after having witnessed so much death. Woman's place was in the sack. Soon thereafter, the feminist movement began in the late sixties, and good for it.

Not that the female gender is the only gender that is at times sexually objectified. For if women can't live up to the unattainable image of an ideal woman as put forth by some men of stringent physical criteria (e.g. the look of airbrushed or Photo-shopped supermodels), then neither can men of women readers of romance stories, that portray "the perfect man" women want in the form of Prince Charmings and Knights in Shining Armor, who are buff from neck to toe and probably never once pass gas at the inappropriate moment of orgasm.

But then, it seems, a certain (probably small) part of the movement (and certainly not all feminists think alike and agree with each other), say, a sub-section within feminism, became corrupted by the flip side of misogyny: misandry.

These seemingly anti-male feminists, as if out to get even for decades and centuries of their gender having been mistreated by men, are often intelligent, well-educated, articulate, vocal ... and sometimes condescending towards men. In their eyes, it is now "all men" that are stupid, are himbos.

And as George Carlin observes in his comedy album, "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" (1990), as I have (possibly even on this often brilliant but sometimes "retarded" message board), some feminists want to tell you how to speak, how to be politically correct.

As just one example of the way some of these anti-male feminists have infiltrated their anti-male attitude into – from the perspective of mainstream feminism – semi-contectual spheres, is seen in regard to the sexual abuse of children. We all, not just feminists, know that rape, be it of men (in prisons), women, children, is immoral, vile, abhorrent. Yet what some anti-male feminists have done is turn child sexual abuse into a man-hating feminist concern, by proclaiming that since the majority of child sexual molesters are men then therefore – according to their view – all men are monstrous, are potential rapists. This is an offensive stereotyping of men.

I wonder: Are some feminists proponents of feminism or misandry? Is the idea of feminism to promote equality of the sexes or female-supremacy?

I understand and accept the fact that there are many lesbians that are so by nature but I wonder if some are out of latent misandry? Worth emphasizing here is that I could care less whether a woman is a lesbian (or a man a homosexual), I simply pose the following musings as trivial, contemplative curiosities.

(A digressive paragraph): For that matter, does the lesbian feel superior to straight women? What do heterosexual feminists think of lesbians? Why is it that so many masculine lesbians seem to take on the role and attitude of a tough man? Could it be that as a child they were forced by circumstance into taking on a manlike role in the absence of a father? Are they power-seekers out to dominate a weaker partner and think that they will only find such a person in the so-called weaker sex? In so doing do they unconsciously fear playing a submissive role in their perceived primarily patriarchal culture? Or is it simply a case of them resigning themselves to the fact that since they may look unfeminine that they might as well behave unfeminine, and in so doing being "true" to their features? Do "manly" women have an unconscious penis-envy? Do some feminists really want to be men?

Perhaps this seemingly anti-male attitude that some feminist-thinking women share is also demonstrated in regard to the abortion issue. Might it be that some women are pro-choice, pro-abortion, more on account of their wanting to be liberated from the stigma/stereotype of baby-making machines, than out of genuine care for another's victimization? (in this case, the fetus that pro-lifers declare is murdered ... so that the woman can make a point and show just how independent she is of man and his impregnating penis).

Then you have a few high-profile and influential feminist sexologists within academia that, in direct opposition to the unbiased research of non-sexist, pro-women man sexologists within academia, refuse to admit that vaginal orgasm is stronger, deeper for the woman than clitoral stimulation (which according to these man sexologists within academia many non-feminist women agree with), because they desire to leave the man out of the sexual equation, out of their lives – out of life – altogether.

(Message edited by foundgoat on April 14, 2013)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buddie
Senior Member
Username: buddie

Post Number: 5949
Registered: 3-2008
Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 11:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Oh liked vocabulary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark A. Foster
Intermediate Member
Username: markfoster

Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 12:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Radical feminism is one of numerous feminisms. Toward the bottom of this page, I have a large listing (the largest, as far as I know) of feminist movements ("Social Constructions of the Women's Movement") on the web:

http://liberation.neurelitism.com/

Radical feminism, or emancipation from patriarchy, is one of them.
Cheers, Mark
Portal to 29 domains: http://www.markfoster.net
Radio Show: http://www.markalanfoster.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buddie
Senior Member
Username: buddie

Post Number: 5956
Registered: 3-2008
Posted on Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 5:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM8POv-1n2M
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

NATiVE ALiEN
Senior Member
Username: blue_screen

Post Number: 5014
Registered: 4-2008
Posted on Sunday, April 28, 2013 - 12:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

We have to be careful in this era of radical feminism, not to emphasize an equality of the sexes that leads women to imitate men to prove their equality. To be equal does not mean you have to be the same.


Many of our troubles in the world today arise from an over-emphasis of the masculine, and a neglect of the feminine. This modern world is an aggressive, hyperactive, competitive, masculine world, and it needs the woman's touch as never before.

Eva Burrows
"This gets me to a question that returns to my mind practically every day of my life: what are the visitors?"

Whitley Strieber
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark A. Foster
Intermediate Member
Username: markfoster

Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Sunday, April 28, 2013 - 3:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

My perspective in sociology is strongly influenced by third-wave (aka revisionary) feminism - specifically, intersectional theory (intersectionality) which developed out of it.

Although third-wave feminism and intersectionality developed out of social constructionism (roughly, postmodernism), I have placed intersectional theory into the context of critical realism and its ontology (model of reality or existence).

In other words, most intersectional theorists treat reality as entirely socially constructed (dialogic or conversational), I have incorporated a concept of reality which exists, more or less, independently of our social constructions.
Cheers, Mark
Portal to 29 domains: http://www.markfoster.net
Radio Show: http://www.markalanfoster.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buddie
Senior Member
Username: buddie

Post Number: 5972
Registered: 3-2008
Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 8:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

MAFoster...
SOOooo ...
you have never
ever Met a Magnificent
Woman?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark A. Foster
Intermediate Member
Username: markfoster

Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 8:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Buddie:

All women and men are potentially magnificent.
Cheers, Mark
Portal to 29 domains: http://www.markfoster.net
Radio Show: http://www.markalanfoster.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bean
Senior Member
Username: tina

Post Number: 2398
Registered: 12-2001
Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 9:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Native...God Bless your heart for being so dang SMART and SUCCINCT!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cherokee
Senior Member
Username: cherokee

Post Number: 1356
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 12:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Native-"To be equal does not mean you have to be the same."

Boy, I hope not. It has not escaped me that men and women are different. I like it!

I think women who do not rant and rage, but simply go out and accomplish anything and everything they want, deserve some mention. They ignore sexual barriers almost as if they don't see them or as if to them they don't exist. I admire these women greatly- the Barn Goddess being one.

Another example is Pancho Barnes. Florence Barnes was born to a well off family in 1901. Not exactly a time when women had a lot of advantages. She was an independent spirit to the dismay of her mother. Her mother wanted to marry her off but Florence had another uh handicap. She was, by everyone's account including her own, ugly.

But her mother found the perfect husband for Florence. Not only was he willing to marry her but he was a very straight laced minister. At last Florence would be tamed by being in a respectable not to mention restrictive life style.

Florence stayed with it and had a baby but her free spirit and ambition won out. She asked for a divorce, which was rare in those days and seen as shameful for all involved so naturally her husband refused.

One day Florence saw an aeroplane. Wow! and decided to take flying lessons. She was a natural. Still wanting a divorce, she took great delight in buzzing her husband's church while he was delivering his sunday sermans. She eventually got her divorce.

She bought a plane and took up stunt flying performing in Hollywood movies including Howard Hughe's Hells Angels. Next she took up racing and broke Amelia Earhart's record, plus a lot of other records. She set record after record.

When pilots licenses were instituted, Orville Write was put in charge of issuance. He refused to issue a license to any woman. When Pancho appled she sent a photo of herself wearing her leather pilots cap and Orville, assuming she was a he, issued her license.

She bought a ranch in the desert. The Air Force established a base for test pilots nearby. She contracted with the base to haul off their garbage, fed it to her pigs, then sold the meat back to the base- making money coming and going.

She built a beautiful ranch house complete with bar, dance floor, and guest rooms. The test pilots, including the likes of Chuck Yeager, were her guests. They considered Pancho one of their own. Years later when she passed away, hundreds attended her funeral including all those test pilots. Every year to this day a memorial service is held at her former ranch.

She is a legend.

Best Wishes from Mole Hollow

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: