• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Fun with Feminism

Started by Grunt, February 10, 2005, 10:03 PM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

Grunt

Ill try to keep this simple. This is a poltically oriented forum. This forum is self-described as pro-liberty, opposed to tyranny. Of all the dogmas, communism is perhaps the most tyrannical. 

Therefore, here is the reason for my little experiment: Can otherwise "enlightened" adults discuss a relevent, timely, and utterly entrenched political movement without politically correct epiteths of "racist", "homophobe", "misogynist", or worst of all..."troll" being bandied about? Preliminary findings dont look encouraging.

Case in point. Simple research shows feminism to be, admittedly, a communist inspired ideal. Not by me, but by the very founders of feminism and the communists themselves. "Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the publication of The Feminist Mystique launched the modern women's movement." -- David Horowitz SALON MAGAZINE  Jan. 18, 1999 

Therefore we can deduce that communism and feminism are intrinsically linked, and are a grave threat to liberty in America.. So why is it the topic cannot be discussed truthfully and honestly? It could perhaps be best described by journalist Fred Reed:

"And why so? Because of The Chip. The Attitude. The bandsaw whine of anger, anger, anger that makes American women an international horror. It's there. It's real."

"You, a young man, may not recognize the Chip if you have never seen normal, warm, happy women. If you are twenty-something and haven't been out of the US, you haven't seen them. They exist by the billion ? in Latin America, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaya, China and, last I looked, France and Holland. And of course not every woman in America carries the Chip. None of them think they do. Yet it is the default, the usual, what comes out of the box."

"Now, you might well wonder, why are American women carrying the Chip? Practically, it doesn't matter: They do carry it, and will continue. Still, it is partly because from birth they are fed the notion that they have been oppressed, battered, cheated, deprived, harassed, used as sex objects, not used as sex objects, on and on. Being rational, you are perhaps inclined to point out that never has a female population been less any of these things, but don't bother. It will have no effect. The Chip is an emotional artifact to which they respond emotionally."

As an American, do I respond irrationally and emotionally when I am confronted with facts about Americas faults? Nope. As a former member of the military, do I become offended or insecure when I am told of the abuses of the U.S. Army in Iraq? Not at all. I am willing to talk about the above issues without fear of "losing karma" or being otherwise stamped in a Hillary Clintonesque fashion as an internet heretic.

Its a shame a group that touts itself as oh so honest cant do likewise.

P.S. Countering opinions INVITED, but Ill take silence as a concession to defeat.  ;D

wdg3rd

You're talking about Gender Feminism, the collectivist form.  There is also Individualist Feminism, which actually has a longer history.  Check out http://www.ifeminists.com operated by Wendy McElroy.  (You can also read her columns in The Libertarian Enterprise http://www.ncc-1776.com, where Jason Sorens first publicized the FSP).

Grunt

Well, keep in mind the definition of feminism.

Feminism: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

Now I am going to ask a question some may not have asked themselves. In order to strive for "equality", dont things first need to be "unequal"? Or, simply put, in order to be a oppressed, one first needs an oppressor. This by default makes men the oppressors and females the oppressed. 

My fundimental problem is that any person that feels they must attach gender to any concept is intellectually disingenuous.  Why "libertarian feminist"? Isnt libertarian good enough? Apparently not.

I find is exceedingly difficult to take people seriously when they swear they are "downtrodden", when absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Smacks of "pack mentality"...or...communism?

wdg3rd

Well, _I_ certainly didn't use the term "libertarian feminist", though I guess I are one despite this greying beard.  The term I used (and pointed to a good source of information about) is "Individualist Feminist".  Gender Feminism has nothing to do with "equality".  It makes the claim that women are oppressed as a collective group, and that individual exceptions to the stereotypes of the two genders don't exist.  Yes, that's the collectivist, communist aspect of feminism.

Personally, I try to treat all people as individuals, unless they insist on claiming to be members of a group.  In which case I do my best to ignore such individuals.  (That can be difficult, when there are a bunch of people in identical blue costumes surrounding your house and one of them has a bullhorn).  I ignore most of those claiming to "represent" me in Trenton, for instance, because they insist on calling themselves demoncrats or republicants and definitely don't represent me.

BlueLu

#4
Yeah, yeah.? Grunt has been directed to iFeminists in this post, but has not caught on.

In brief:

  • The Feminist Mystique only came out in 1963.? Jeez Leweeze!? There had to be a thing called "feminism" before 1963 for there to be a book about it.  Long before.
  • The fight for female human equality is vastly older than the Communist movement.
  • Yes there was an oppressor, called the government, which enforced at gunpoint (and before that at swordpoint) an order in which women could not own property, vote, engage in many occupations, or generally make decisions for themselves.? Things WERE unequal.? Women WERE profoundly vulnerable, and often, downtrodden.? There was a need for a liberation ideology.? Unfortunately, the Commies made a lot of hay out of it, but your contention that there was no inequality nor oppression is ridiculous.
  • "Libertarian" is good enough.? Ask any "libertarian feminist", if they are OK with going by the description "libertarian".? All of them will say, "Yes."? The "libertarian" adjective is necessary to distinguish them from the commie feminists, not to distinguish the feminist libertarians from the non-feminist libertarians.

Oops.? Forgot the link under "this post", and spelled "adjective" wrong.  Added "long before" to clarify that the first bullet point depends on the second.

Grunt

Interesting points wdg3rd. You may not feel represented specifically, but *all* feminism is as Trotsky intended..."You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". Should you find yourself in divorce, alimony, or paternity court past present or future, youll know what he meant.

And bluelu, if anyone has not "caught on", it certainly aint me. Do you own a mirror? Red herrings and straw men flying in all directions! Ill address them 1 at a time. No sweat, Ive seen them all a 100 times before.

    * The Feminist Mystique only came out in 1963.  Jeez Leweeze!  There had to be a thing called "feminism" before 1963 for there to be a book about it.

When I said relevent and timely, I meant it. Todays "feminist libertarians" must have a keen sense of justice. Or maybe not. Selective indignation...go look it up.

    * The fight for female human equality is vastly older than the Communist movement.

Some might even say...never ending?


    * Yes there was an oppressor, called the government, which enforced at gunpoint (and before that at swordpoint) an order in which women could not own property, vote, engage in many occupations, or generally make decisions for themselves.  Things WERE unequal.  Women WERE profoundly vulnerable, and often, downtrodden.  There was a need for a liberation ideology.  Unfortunately, the Commies made a lot of hay out of it, but your contention that there was no inequality nor oppression is ridiculous.

Really? The operative word being WERE. PAST TENSE. And is this the same gov't that, for instance, forces men to pay for children that are proven not to be thier own progeny? Oh...your eyes are glaizing over. No frothing diatribe? Is your sense of "equality" somehow "tuned towards female suffering"?  Men are so unimportant these days. Some might even say expendable. Ho hum. Whats the word Im looking for. Hypocrite?


    * "Libertarian" is good enough.  Ask any "libertarian feminist", if they are OK with going by the description "libertarian".  All of them will say, "Yes."  The "libertarian" adjetive is necessary to distinguish them from the commie feminists, not to distinguish the feminist libertarians from the non-feminist libertarians.

Dont worry, all feminists dutifully polish the railings on thier own little Titanic. Just scattered port to starboard, bow or stern. Maybe you should attack my grammar or syntax now bluelu?

jcpliberty

Kat Dillon,

Is there a way to ignore people on this list, like with chatrooms?

James Christian Perry
Nashua, New Hampshire

Grunt

"To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore." -- John Bryant

jcpliberty

Never said I wanted you silenced, just wanted to see if there was a way I could ignore you more easily :D

JP

Grunt

Oh, so you calling on the moderator falls under the "You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the police. -- John Bryant" category?

Book 'em Kat-O!

BlueLu

My former comments still stand well on their own.  There is little left to say, except that McElroy and the iFeminists are doing a good job, tactically, of fighting socialism and institutionalized violence against human beings.  Denying this, because the vague word, "feminist" is in a description they use for themselves is a bad tactic and IMO will not accomplish ones intended goals.

On another issue, I really don't see why you think my impugning one of your 225 year-old authorities in the immigration debate was a straw-man tactic.  You were using a widely respected source, in Alexander Hamilton, to bolster your side of a debate.  I challenged his character, because I do not think he deserves to be widely-respected (at least not for the things people celebrate about him today), and described why it should be challenged, and by association, why his position on immigration should be suspect.  I just don't see the straw man aspect of that.

Grunt

The word feminist denotes, by its very existence, females being oppressed by men. Its practically screams "I AM VICTIM!" There is no "grey area". Saying one is a "libertarian feminist" is no different then saying one is a "nazi feminist" or "communist feminist". And the rhetoric is identical as well when it is said that "Oh, Im not like those BAD nazis or communists...Im different!"

The root of the issue is as Sabine Barnhart points out:

"Modern woman's quest to manipulate her society with her crippled perception about her "hardship" has influenced most Western nations. It is seen in the legalization of her false image as a minority and victim. The feminist spirit impregnates her land with selfishness, complacency, apathy and dependency leading men into bondage. Her world consists of worshiping the idol of her own image. She seeks absolution from her sins through secular counseling, bringing her to a false sense of contentment and security. Thoughtlessly, she drifts into the vices that make her dependent on objects and useless causes bringing her only temporary feelings of happiness. The man who once cherished her is never good enough to take his rightful place by her side."

Or more specifically pertaining to todays soft, white, selectively-indignant 4th wave "ifeminists" it is as Amy Alkon states.

"Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hairy-armpitted underbosses gave the order to the "victimized", women, largely privileged and white, on campuses across America, to crawl out from under the boot of "male oppression." In reality, what they were fighting wasn't male oppression, but maleness of any kind, based on the erroneous feminist notion that equality means sameness."


Your comments on Hamilton were interesting. But his view was in keeping with Washington and other Founding Fathers...and most importantly...logic. When I start calling myself a "Hamiltonian Libertarian" you can worry  8)

Dreepa

You mean like Reverse discrimination? Discrimination is discrimination.

Grunt

These days feminists openly admit its not about equal treatment, its about *special* treatment.

Females today dip into some of the most obscure examples of "oppression", then scream bloody murder about "injustice".

All the while utterly ignoring, or at best paying token respect, to blatant, irrefutable, entrenched, persistent, and wholesale abuse of men.

Anyone that takes the wailing of todays feminists, *any* of them, seriously is a dupe and falls under the "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." category.

What fool speaks of "liberty" while unable to address the 400 lbs gorilla AND the flying pink elephant sitting in the living room in the form of communistic, parasitic feminists?

The females know this full well, the whole scam is starting to unravel. That is why they come positively unglued when the light of truth is aimed at them. They support the status quo because THEY benefit. They care NOTHING how the rest of society is imploding, as long as they reap the (temporary) benefit. All the while chanting thier mantras: "We wymyn gotta stick together dontcha know?" "All men are potential rapists *slow nodding*" "Were 50% of the voters now, better get used to your servitude!"

Until feminism is addressed, exposed, and obliterated there will BE no liberty. That is why this whole movement is DOA, doomed from day one. Ive seen it before, Ill see it again.

So Ill sit back with my bowl of popcorn, lovely *feminine* Ukrainian wife. Enjoy the show as the whole FSP succumbs to the 5th column it welcomed into its midst. Then I will releive myself on the Smoldering Wreckage (tm)  ;D