View Full Version : BDSM, Feminism, and Politics
Equal pay, right to choose, right to be educated, vote - of course. You don't need to be a feminist to agree with these. I would call that 'humanist' if it didn't mean something else - 'personist', perhaps.
"Egalitarian" is the word you're looking for. Which means that you acknowledge and oppose unfair treatment for anyone, whether from reasons of sex, race, religion or sexuality.
If life treats women unfairly just because they are women, it can do the same to men. Men can be just as much victims of the so-called patriarchal society as women are.
It's been shown that from almost Day One, nurses tend to pick up and cuddle babies in pink more than ones in blue: boys are supposed not to need comforting. This is why men classically have problems with expressing emotions, getting close to their children etc.
But I have to admit, I don't quite get women who claim there is no relevance in feminism or who revile it. One only has to look around the world and see the powerless, uneducated, grinding struggle that is the lot of too many girls/women.
My sister has a sign on her kitchen wall saying "I'll be a post-feminist when the world is post-patriarchial."
AdrianaAurora
10-16-2008, 12:59 AM
I dont mind patriarchal family units, but to argue for it as a social model for the 21st Western society is naive and one-sided conception of history. Not to mention it is incompatible with Democracy, (Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.)
denuseri
10-18-2008, 08:37 AM
One must point out that the patriarchal family unit was a well entrenched foundation when the United States became a country, just as it was when all but the most recent other democratic nations were established, the Founding Fathers never imagined it would be abolished or undermined in the fashion it has becuase the concept of total political equality between the sexes to them was quite literally insane.
It has been the social model for all of known human history and every nation that has attempted to abandon it (soviet union case in point as well as other comunist nations )have indeed fallen if not in title in practice; China for instance has embraced a socialist view of captitalism despite its nostalgic clinging to the title: so to argue that it shouldnt be the social model for the 21st Western society is naive and one-sided conception of not only history (becuase it so obviously ignores history) past and present but of sociological and political future as well.
But thats no surprise as feminisim is more in keeping with comunisium than democracy.
No system of Democracy has ever held principles that granted all members of the society equal access to power nor have they allowed all members universally recognized freedoms and liberties; until the experiment of feminisim reared it's misguided head. It would be in fact thier greatest fear. There was allways a distinction made between not only the sexes but many other areas as well, and the Founding Fathers attempted to incorperate these aspects into America quite wisely, origionally they only intended property owning men of a certian class to hold any power at all. They greatly feared mob rule and that what happened to Athens would happen also to us. So our countrys design was more wisely based more on the Roman republican model that lasted 500 years before turning into an empire that lasted another 500, than the failed democracy of the greeks that barely made it to 200 years if that, as it was frequently intersected with periods of chaos and tyranny.
The greek democracy btw also never allowed everyone to participate or equal access to power or so called "universal" freedoms, only the male citizens of a certian age in Athens had any responsibility or privilege that gets close and in fact were forced to participate as most positions or duties in government were decided by the drawing of lots. To do otherwise was to be branded quite literally an "idiot" and face ostracation or worse ; additionally all women and forigen males not born to a known family of both parents holding athenian blood; had no say whatsoever.
Utopian ideals don't hold up to logic. Patriarchy works becuase it indeed works in practice as well as theory.
Where as feminisim, just like comunisim before it, threatens the moral basis of our democratic society in a way that will lead to the fall not only of our country but of western cizilization as a whole.
AdrianaAurora
10-18-2008, 11:52 AM
Despite their common roots in enlightenment discourses of liberation, Marxism and feminism have always regarded each other with a degree of exasperation. The central problem of Marxism from a feminist point of view is its failure to theorize adequately either subjectivity or gender. In addition, though Marxism explains the workings of capitalism with great conviction and, when pushed, can comment on womens place within capitalism it has not thrown significant light on the origins of the oppression of women, endemic to most known societies. Indeed, it has often been convenient for Marxists to overlook the oppression of women since that oppression serves the interest of men. From a Marxist point of view on the other hand, feminism has often been perceived to incline towards historicism and essentialism in its claims to speak for and about women as a group. Feminism has never theorized patriarchy as convincingly as Marx theorized capitalism and has lacked a political programme.
Marxism and feminism seemed to find common ground in the seminal statement by Simone de Beauvoir that "one is not born a woman, one becomes one", which laid the basis for the sex/gender distinction, and provided a meeting-point for Marxism, feminism, and psychoanalysis on the all important question of subjectivity. Generations of students on gender studies courses felt the penny drop when they heard it argued that while biology is immutable the acquisition of gender identity depends on the complex mix of the psycho-sexual, historical, political, and cultural factors mediated through the family and through Althusser's other Ideological state apparatuses.
John Stuart Mill wrote, "In early times, the great majority of the male sex were slaves, as well as the whole of the female. And many ages elapsed ... before any thinker was bold enough to question the rightfulness, and the absolute necessity, either of the one slavery or of the other."
During the democratic and anti-slavery movements of early 19th century Europe and America, kingdoms became constitutional monarchies or republics and slavery was made illegal. The civil rights movements of 20th century America also sought to overthrow various existing social structures that were seen by many to be oppressive and corrupt. Both social contexts led naturally to an analogous scrutiny of relationships between women and men.
The 19th century debate ultimately resulted in women receiving the vote; this is sometimes referred to as first-wave feminism. The late 20th century debate has produced far ranging social restructuring in Western democracies – second-wave feminism. Some consider the "second wave" to be continuing into the 21st century, others consider it to be complete, still others consider there to be a "third wave" of feminism active in contemporary society.
Most feminists do not propose to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, rather they argue for equality.
Humanity evolves, we move forward. Racism worked. Segregation worked. Patriarchy worked (note past tense) it is no longer sustainable (at least not in the militant way that is here insisted upon).
Proof - say it in any distinguished public forum, please do and see who will hire and take you seriously after that. Not to mention I feel completely silly debating against posts that are a bunch of incoherent rambling and demonstrate lack of comprehension of terms and historical context. Those that wish to continue so - please do, thanks to feminists you have the right to express it. I am too busy. Indeed, you may argue till you are blue in the face - it wont change the facts or the reality of the world we live in.
One must point out that the patriarchal family unit was a well entrenched foundation when the United States became a country, just as it was when all but the most recent other democratic nations were established, the Founding Fathers never imagined it would be abolished or undermined in the fashion it has becuase the concept of total political equality between the sexes to them was quite literally insane.
One could say exactly the same of slavery. That, too, at the time of the founding of the Republic was considered not only normal, but essential for the health of the nation. The States that went to war to keep the right to own slaves were not fighting merely for their own interests, but from a principled belief that the insane idea of giving equal rights to inferior races would undermine civilisation.
And yet, slavery ended and the Republic survived. Nor did the warnings that Europe would be impoverished by the abolition of slavery come to pass. A final attempt to re-establish the principle of superior and inferior races died in the ashes of Berlin. Today, slavery survives only in economically backward nations.
Institutions have their time, and then pass. While they last, they are considered as natural and inevitable as the seasons. Afterwards, they are seen as quaint archaisms.
It has been the social model for all of known human history and every nation that has attempted to abandon it (soviet union case in point as well as other comunist nations )have indeed fallen if not in title in practice; China for instance has embraced a socialist view of captitalism despite its nostalgic clinging to the title: so to argue that it shouldnt be the social model for the 21st Western society is naive and one-sided conception of not only history (becuase it so obviously ignores history) past and present but of sociological and political future as well.
It's not clear here whether you are speaking of patriarchy or capitalism. You appear to consider them equivalent, which explains your equation of feminism with communism.
No system of Democracy has ever held principles that granted all members of the society equal access to power nor have they allowed all members universally recognized freedoms and liberties
I beg your pardon? This would appear to contradict every serious definition of democracy I have ever encountered.
Please explain which members of your democracy are barred from access to power or from generally recognised freedoms? Barred on principle, I mean: there are politically powerless and oppressed classes in every society, but this is generally seen as a failing of democracy, not a necessary part of it.
Utopian ideals don't hold up to logic. Patriarchy works becuase it indeed works in practice as well as theory.
As clearly shown by the poverty of those misguided Western nations that allow women into positions of power (even sometimes make them Heads of State!), as compared to the wealth and strength of places such as Africa and the Middle East where women are kept firmly in their place. :-}
Where as feminisim, just like comunisim before it, threatens the moral basis of our democratic society in a way that will lead to the fall not only of our country but of western cizilization as a whole.
Um, I thought you had just evidenced communism as a failed ideology that collapsed from its own weakness?
Ragoczy
10-18-2008, 03:46 PM
One could say exactly the same of slavery. That, too, at the time of the founding of the Republic was considered not only normal, but essential for the health of the nation. The States that went to war to keep the right to own slaves were not fighting merely for their own interests, but from a principled belief that the insane idea of giving equal rights to inferior races would undermine civilisation.
Incorrect. Slavery was a contentious issue during the founding of the US and for nearly a hundred years thereafter. The Constitution itself contains language (the 3/5 clause) to balance the power of Slave and Free States as a compromise to keep the newly formed country whole. It was no longer considered "normal" outside of the Slave States and the "principled belief" was a result of generations of rationalization and justification, not any true, long-term belief system.
The comparison between slavery in the US at the founding of the Republic and patriarchy is simply invalid. The mere type of slavery practiced by European colonies during that period was an historical aberration, while patriarchy has been widespread throughout history for very valid reasons.
leah06
10-18-2008, 05:49 PM
The Constitution itself contains language (the 3/5 clause) to balance the power of Slave and Free States as a compromise to keep the newly formed country whole.
I'm sorry, the 3/5 rule was designed to give MORE power to slave states by counting the slave population as part of the census for purposes of alloting Congressional representation, even though, obviously, slaves were disenfranchised. It resulted in the votes of white men in slaves states as counting for more, because they received greater representation, than the votes of enfranchised voters in free states.
Yes, slavery was contentious at the Founding, but its wrongness was clearly not as universally acknowledged as it is now. I think people who are comparing moral intuitions now and then are saying that there has been, for the most part, a move in Western nations since the Enlightenment toward MORE equality, MORE representation, MORE inclusiveness in regard to "who count" as a fully participating member of the larger society, and that feminism is a part of that movement. More people now recognize women as fully participating members of the social and political realm than did 200, or 60, or 30 years ago. Even the people on this thread who espouse a contrary view for the most part include a line about "of course" wanting equal pay for equal work - but this was by no means obvious even 30 years ago.
Ragoczy
10-18-2008, 06:28 PM
I'm sorry, the 3/5 rule was designed to give MORE power to slave states by counting the slave population as part of the census for purposes of alloting Congressional representation, even though, obviously, slaves were disenfranchised. It resulted in the votes of white men in slaves states as counting for more, because they received greater representation, than the votes of enfranchised voters in free states.
It was a compromise between counting slaves fully for representation and not at all. I suppose lessening or increasing the political power of the Slave States depends on your starting position -- which was fully-counted for the Slave States and not-at-all for the Free States. The variety of proposals floated between those two positions clearly shows the contentiousness of the issue.
Yes, slavery was contentious at the Founding, but its wrongness was clearly not as universally acknowledged as it is now. I think people who are comparing moral intuitions now and then are saying that there has been, for the most part, a move in Western nations since the Enlightenment toward MORE equality, MORE representation, MORE inclusiveness in regard to "who count" as a fully participating member of the larger society, and that feminism is a part of that movement. More people now recognize women as fully participating members of the social and political realm than did 200, or 60, or 30 years ago. Even the people on this thread who espouse a contrary view for the most part include a line about "of course" wanting equal pay for equal work - but this was by no means obvious even 30 years ago.
My point is simply that the comparison between an institution that existed, in that form, for two hundred years (slavery in the Americas) and one which has existed throughout much, if not all, of human history (patriarchy) isn't valid. One doesn't compare a relative norm to an aberration for those purposes.
Posts relocated to Politics area
BUT remember a little latitude is allowed here,, key words "A LITTLE" Comments on topic GREAT,, remarks about/inreturn to others members opinions NOT GOOD!!!
Thanks
T
All theory aside, i think a close look at today's world clearly shows that feminism and egality between sexes lead to: Prosperity and all that comes with it.
There are exceptions to this, like some Arabian nations, but those are easily explained by natural resources. In the long run a nation that locks away half of it's intellectual resources just wont stand a chance in the race against others that don't.
My point is simply that the comparison between an institution that existed, in that form, for two hundred years (slavery in the Americas) and one which has existed throughout much, if not all, of human history (patriarchy) isn't valid. One doesn't compare a relative norm to an aberration for those purposes.
My reference to the US experience was not intended to indicate that I was only speaking of slavery as practiced in the US.
My point was that slavery as an institution (irrespective of the particular form practiced in one country in recent centuries) goes back as far as recorded history: a fact that was repeatedly referenced by anti-abolitionists. They pointed out, quite correctly, that many of the great and noble civilisations of the past had rested on slave labour, and concluded from this that (a) slavery is a civilised and enlightened institution, and (b) civilisation could not survive if it were abolished. History has not supported either conclusion.
I think I may reasonably draw a parallel with other cultural norms of equal antiquity which are now called into question, and which some claim to be (a) civilised and enlightened, and (b) essential to the health of society.
All theory aside, i think a close look at today's world clearly shows that feminism and egality between sexes lead to: Prosperity and all that comes with it.
There are exceptions to this, like some Arabian nations, but those are easily explained by natural resources. In the long run a nation that locks away half of it's intellectual resources just wont stand a chance in the race against others that don't.
Exactly so. As a practical ongoing example, aid agencies have repeatedly proved that educating and empowering women is the most effective way to lift nations out of poverty. (Besides the direct economic benefits, it has such useful consequences as curbing overpopulation and stopping the spread of HIV.)
It's notable that people who are happy to refer to the judgement of history with regard to failed ideologies like, for instance, communism, don't care to follow the same logic with regard to the oppression of women, where the verdict of history is already clear.
Ragoczy
10-20-2008, 07:52 AM
My reference to the US experience was not intended to indicate that I was only speaking of slavery as practiced in the US.
I seemed so, from the references to the Republic and States.
My point was that slavery as an institution (irrespective of the particular form practiced in one country in recent centuries) goes back as far as recorded history: a fact that was repeatedly referenced by anti-abolitionists. They pointed out, quite correctly, that many of the great and noble civilisations of the past had rested on slave labour, and concluded from this that (a) slavery is a civilised and enlightened institution, and (b) civilisation could not survive if it were abolished. History has not supported either conclusion.
Historical analysis is difficult because of context and hindsight. It's easy to say something like "See, such-and-such wasn't necessary or useful" hundreds of years later or ignoring the changes in societies, the world and technology that made such-and-such no longer useful or necessary. This is not a defense of slavery or oppression of women, but is simply my opinion that analyzing an event outside of the historical context can cause us to overlook things.
Take the Vietnam War, for instance. There are those who say the US never should have fought it and those who say that the US should have fought it differently and won. Both sides have valid points.
But I wonder, had the US not fought that war, would it have encouraged the Soviets to expand their influence further and faster, thus providing them with more resources and allowing them to achieve their stated goal of world domination?
Had the US prosecuted the war more vigorously, allowing the military to do its job instead of quarterbacking from across the globe, would a US victory and its implications have scared the Soviets into thinking they had no alternative but a nuclear option?
It's possible that the US involvement in Vietnam and the defeat there was the best possible outcome for the world -- even that "civilization" would not have survived had events not unfolded as they did.
Just because slavery was ended in Year X without the collapse of civilization, one can't draw the conclusion that it could have been abolished in Year Y (or never been instituted at all), without catastrophic impact to general civilization.
We can state a moral absolute that the institution (slavery or oppression of women) was wrong, but not conclusively that the reason or justification, based on its impact, was entirely incorrect.
I seemed so, from the references to the Republic and States.
Yes, I could see that was misleading with hindsight.
Historical analysis is difficult because of context and hindsight. It's easy to say something like "See, such-and-such wasn't necessary or useful" hundreds of years later or ignoring the changes in societies, the world and technology that made such-and-such no longer useful or necessary. ...
Just because slavery was ended in Year X without the collapse of civilization, one can't draw the conclusion that it could have been abolished in Year Y (or never been instituted at all), without catastrophic impact to general civilization.
And I did not intend any such conclusion. When I refered to those who pointed out the antiquity of slavery, and who concluded that because it had lasted for so long it must and should last forever, my point was that they failed to recognise that the world had changed. Whether or not slavery was a good thing in Classical times, that was not a justification for it in the Nineteenth Century.
By the same token, the fact that many (not all) past civilisations have been male-dominated does not prove that such a culture is morally or practically desirable in the Twentyfirst Century.
Ragoczy
10-20-2008, 04:48 PM
And I did not intend any such conclusion. When I refered to those who pointed out the antiquity of slavery, and who concluded that because it had lasted for so long it must and should last forever, my point was that they failed to recognise that the world had changed. Whether or not slavery was a good thing in Classical times, that was not a justification for it in the Nineteenth Century.
By the same token, the fact that many (not all) past civilisations have been male-dominated does not prove that such a culture is morally or practically desirable in the Twentyfirst Century.
This I agree with, thank you for clarifying.