FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > What is the difference between feminine and a feminist?
What is the difference between feminine and a feminist?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shag, I don’t think anyone was surprised by the complete differences " It was an intresting discussion though! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bookmarking! "That is good pal  . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shag, I don’t think anyone was surprised by the complete differences It was an intresting discussion though! "Yes it was an interesting discussion too, some didnt know tho at first as some thought both was gender based, only the feminine part is gender the feminist part is a political movement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replys in the other thread, what do you think the difference is? It is quite surprisingly what it is and not what you might not think it is." See, the more interesting question would be "what is the difference if any, between feminine and masculine, and how has the feminist movement effected people perceptions of these concepts over the past hundred years?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replys in the other thread, what do you think the difference is? It is quite surprisingly what it is and not what you might not think it is. See, the more interesting question would be "what is the difference if any, between feminine and masculine, and how has the feminist movement effected people perceptions of these concepts over the past hundred years?"" This is a much more interesting question, for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal". "Holding up a few weirdos as typical of all is disingenuous at best. Although a fairly common tactic instead of a rational debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
Holding up a few weirdos as typical of all is disingenuous at best. Although a fairly common tactic instead of a rational debate" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All feminists are feminists but not all feminists are feminine." There are plenty who claim to be feminists who are anything but feminists. See TERF. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal". " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal". "I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All feminists are feminists but not all feminists are feminine. There are plenty who claim to be feminists who are anything but feminists. See TERF." My point still stands, a feminist is a feminist. And I'm not getting into Transgender discussions. Everyone has their own thoughts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently."I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently."Do you believe that on average men aren’t physically stronger than women? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!"Interesting that both times you’ve highlighted that women are in the wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Interesting that both times you’ve highlighted that women are in the wrong."Well, that is your perception. One would argue otherwise! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replys in the other thread, what do you think the difference is? It is quite surprisingly what it is and not what you might not think it is." Score of 5 in Scrabble (excluding all letter and word score bonuses obviously) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminists are annoying - so its ok to have an all female sports group with no men, yet when men have an all male group its unfair and sexist Same as runs for cancer etc, testicular cancer only effects men, it was made for men and now women protested and run it too - and i appreciate its all for charity and the more money raised the better but bloody hell! Let us men have something " Yeah, it's really unfair that women get involved in male only diseases! Should be illegal for female doctors and nurses to treat prostate or testicular cancer. I bloody hope there were no women involved in the discovery of viagra. Male underpants had better only be made by men, don't want women touching them. Next thing there'll be bloody unisex hair salons, hands off the barber shop. Why are women allowed to wear jeans, they're male clothes for male people. Men deserve to have something of their own, women should be in skirts not trousers!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!"Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples. Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Interesting that both times you’ve highlighted that women are in the wrong."No, both times he's highlighted that *some* (and a very specific group at that) women are in the wrong - and has quite clearly stated a desire for equality not extremes - and I personally see nothing wrong in taking that stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side."Egalitarianism ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side."Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion. Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal. People should be treated fairly not equally. That's why I personally believe in equity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side."I think your equalitism is broadly what intersectional feminism sets out to promote. Lickety, before she left talked on a thread about equity as opposed to equality. It recognises the biological differences between men and women, the differences between genders, race, sexuality and in wealth and seeks to create an equitable society. I think it also addresses Nora’s unanswered question above about obvious physical differences between biological males and females, however challenges unexamined assumptions of the biases that our conditioning and privileges create. The notion Kyriarchy is also helpful in understanding this. Unexamined biases and assumptions are the downfall of most ideologies and the mind shapes of those who follow them significantly influence how well the cause is perceived. I’m not a feminist but do share values in common with some feminists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion.
Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal.
People should be treated fairly not equally.
That's why I personally believe in equity."Equity!! Yes the perfect word to describe it, thank you And yes my notion is more about how we are treated and treat each other than a specific ability - although through equity I do think a level of equality should be the ideal where possible - there will of course always be places where it may not be possible due to background or circumstance etc but that is where equity kicks in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Egalitarianism ?"yes that is possibly the closest defined term to GM said but not sure if that is the whole of his meaning? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion.
Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal.
People should be treated fairly not equally.
That's why I personally believe in equity.
Equity!! Yes the perfect word to describe it, thank you
And yes my notion is more about how we are treated and treat each other than a specific ability - although through equity I do think a level of equality should be the ideal where possible - there will of course always be places where it may not be possible due to background or circumstance etc but that is where equity kicks in "and the recognition of inherent differences that makes equality not possible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion.
Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal.
People should be treated fairly not equally.
That's why I personally believe in equity.
Equity!! Yes the perfect word to describe it, thank you
And yes my notion is more about how we are treated and treat each other than a specific ability - although through equity I do think a level of equality should be the ideal where possible - there will of course always be places where it may not be possible due to background or circumstance etc but that is where equity kicks in and the recognition of inherent differences that makes equality not possible". Facts can’t be changed unfortunately | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion.
Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal.
People should be treated fairly not equally.
That's why I personally believe in equity.
Equity!! Yes the perfect word to describe it, thank you
And yes my notion is more about how we are treated and treat each other than a specific ability - although through equity I do think a level of equality should be the ideal where possible - there will of course always be places where it may not be possible due to background or circumstance etc but that is where equity kicks in "I don't think equality works in any concept to be honest as you'll always be able to find exceptions as to how it creates unfair bias one way or the other. Equity is probably as close as we can get to a perfect notion until new advances and discoveries are made and we'll have a new notion which is even better. The most important thing is to progress and move forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... and some are more equal than others... " Ah that is important too as shapes of mind and levels of consciousness are not all equal. All have their value, but some are more valuable than others in different circumstances. And some are less useful and destructive in some circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think your equalitism is broadly what intersectional feminism sets out to promote. Lickety, before she left talked on a thread about equity as opposed to equality. It recognises the biological differences between men and women, the differences between genders, race, sexuality and in wealth and seeks to create an equitable society. I think it also addresses Nora’s unanswered question above about obvious physical differences between biological males and females, however challenges unexamined assumptions of the biases that our conditioning and privileges create. The notion Kyriarchy is also helpful in understanding this. Unexamined biases and assumptions are the downfall of most ideologies and the mind shapes of those who follow them significantly influence how well the cause is perceived. I’m not a feminist but do share values in common with some feminists." Equity is a much better way of phrasing it though than a phrase like "intersectional feminism" that suggests a female bias or that the strive for equity is somehow female led. As I said I am no more a believer in feminism than I am in the male equivalent but I can believe in equity which encompasses all genders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion.
Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal.
People should be treated fairly not equally.
That's why I personally believe in equity.
Equity!! Yes the perfect word to describe it, thank you
And yes my notion is more about how we are treated and treat each other than a specific ability - although through equity I do think a level of equality should be the ideal where possible - there will of course always be places where it may not be possible due to background or circumstance etc but that is where equity kicks in
I don't think equality works in any concept to be honest as you'll always be able to find exceptions as to how it creates unfair bias one way or the other.
Equity is probably as close as we can get to a perfect notion until new advances and discoveries are made and we'll have a new notion which is even better.
The most important thing is to progress and move forward."Yep Equity is the best current theory I have seen, but it is still a theory and all theories are wrong just some are more useful than others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion.
Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal.
People should be treated fairly not equally.
That's why I personally believe in equity.
Equity!! Yes the perfect word to describe it, thank you
And yes my notion is more about how we are treated and treat each other than a specific ability - although through equity I do think a level of equality should be the ideal where possible - there will of course always be places where it may not be possible due to background or circumstance etc but that is where equity kicks in
I don't think equality works in any concept to be honest as you'll always be able to find exceptions as to how it creates unfair bias one way or the other.
Equity is probably as close as we can get to a perfect notion until new advances and discoveries are made and we'll have a new notion which is even better.
The most important thing is to progress and move forward.
Yep Equity is the best current theory I have seen, but it is still a theory and all theories are wrong just some are more useful than others "I agree. There are way too many variables to account for just 1 theory to work in our current society. That may change with advancement in technology and gene manipulation/'designer babies' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think your equalitism is broadly what intersectional feminism sets out to promote. Lickety, before she left talked on a thread about equity as opposed to equality. It recognises the biological differences between men and women, the differences between genders, race, sexuality and in wealth and seeks to create an equitable society. I think it also addresses Nora’s unanswered question above about obvious physical differences between biological males and females, however challenges unexamined assumptions of the biases that our conditioning and privileges create. The notion Kyriarchy is also helpful in understanding this. Unexamined biases and assumptions are the downfall of most ideologies and the mind shapes of those who follow them significantly influence how well the cause is perceived. I’m not a feminist but do share values in common with some feminists. Equity is a much better way of phrasing it though than a phrase like "intersectional feminism" that suggests a female bias or that the strive for equity is somehow female led. As I said I am no more a believer in feminism than I am in the male equivalent but I can believe in equity which encompasses all genders. "
However because of privilege I think it is really helpful if some of what needs to happen is led by women but my caveat would be dependent on the shape of mind and level of consciousness.
Donald Trump leading Mahatma Ghandi’s Truth Force and Teresa May leading the order of Mother Theresa wouldn’t work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ " I think there might also be nurture bias at play here. I'm not saying there is, but if you can question it, it can raise concern and make their point somewhat valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few year ago, when I was in london Hyde park, a bunch of women were holding a poster, which said "all men are pigs" and the next line read, "men and women are equal".
I do find it fascinating that this kind of thing is used as an example of how feminism is bad, while the reverse is just a joke and not at all examples of sexism. Apparently.
I believe in woman rights and gender equality. Unfortunately, some (not all feminists) see men as a competition, when we can all co-exist in this beautiful world!
Spot on and I find it strange that you're questioned for highlighting an example of how *some* feminists do nothing to help their cause - yes it's an extreme example, and there are just as extreme examples on the other side of the coin, neither have any kind of place for me - but sadly it's the extreme examples that stand out and undermine the ultimate cause which is, and should be, equality for all regardless of gender - so I think it's absolutely right those extreme cases are held up as examples.
Personally I am not for feminism as an ideal, just as I am not for whatever a male equivalent would be called - I'm for equalitism (if such a word exists) where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc etc which I know is an ideological view but surely it's one we should all believe in, and one that does away with any extreme notions or views on either side.
Equalitism is flawed and as a result I don't think we should believe in such notion.
Equalitism like you mentioned is about equal treatment for all but that doesn't account for the fact that not all people are born equal.
People should be treated fairly not equally.
That's why I personally believe in equity.
Equity!! Yes the perfect word to describe it, thank you
And yes my notion is more about how we are treated and treat each other than a specific ability - although through equity I do think a level of equality should be the ideal where possible - there will of course always be places where it may not be possible due to background or circumstance etc but that is where equity kicks in
I don't think equality works in any concept to be honest as you'll always be able to find exceptions as to how it creates unfair bias one way or the other.
Equity is probably as close as we can get to a perfect notion until new advances and discoveries are made and we'll have a new notion which is even better.
The most important thing is to progress and move forward.
Yep Equity is the best current theory I have seen, but it is still a theory and all theories are wrong just some are more useful than others
I agree. There are way too many variables to account for just 1 theory to work in our current society.
That may change with advancement in technology and gene manipulation/'designer babies'"I have found Integral Theory very useful too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ " Exactly. Same for the lap dancers, ring girls etc. Those so called feminists want to take away their income and choices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However because of privilege I think it is really helpful if some of what needs to happen is led by women but my caveat would be dependent on the shape of mind and level of consciousness. Donald Trump leading Mahatma Ghandi’s Truth Force and Teresa May leading the order of Mother Theresa wouldn’t work. "Of course some of it by necessity needs to be led by women but terms like "intersectional feminism" don't for me necessarily help the overall cause which should come from all genders and not give the perception that it is just for the benefit of one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I think there might also be nurture bias at play here. I'm not saying there is, but if you can question it, it can raise concern and make their point somewhat valid." I agree. I think the impact of conditioning on what we think is freedom of choice is important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is very interesting is that right now it is mostly men who are talking about feminism " Are you trying to play devils advocate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is very interesting is that right now it is mostly men who are talking about feminism Are you trying to play devils advocate "Just a mere observation... The thread was also started by a male | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ Exactly. Same for the lap dancers, ring girls etc. Those so called feminists want to take away their income and choices. " As with any form of "ism" there will always be those at the extremes who serve their version as the only version and refuse to see the middle ground | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is very interesting is that right now it is mostly men who are talking about feminism " The values that we are talking about transcend biological differences | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I think there might also be nurture bias at play here. I'm not saying there is, but if you can question it, it can raise concern and make their point somewhat valid. I agree. I think the impact of conditioning on what we think is freedom of choice is important." America is a perfect example lately. Freedom written all over the country but their president restricts their freedom of trade
This discussion is becoming a slippery slope though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I think there might also be nurture bias at play here. I'm not saying there is, but if you can question it, it can raise concern and make their point somewhat valid. I agree. I think the impact of conditioning on what we think is freedom of choice is important. America is a perfect example lately. Freedom written all over the country but their president restricts their freedom of trade
This discussion is becoming a slippery slope though "That’s a whole new thread....and might not be allowed in the Lounge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is very interesting is that right now it is mostly men who are talking about feminism The values that we are talking about transcend biological differences " Oh I have no doubt of that but it reminds of the debate in France about hijab.... Only men were debating that it was wrong for those women to wear it without having any women who wear it voicing their opinions about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dr Martens and high heels " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replys in the other thread, what do you think the difference is? It is quite surprisingly what it is and not what you might not think it is." If you don't know all hope is lost for you.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is very interesting is that right now it is mostly men who are talking about feminism The values that we are talking about transcend biological differences Oh I have no doubt of that but it reminds of the debate in France about hijab.... Only men were debating that it was wrong for those women to wear it without having any women who wear it voicing their opinions about it. " Good point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ " I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is very interesting is that right now it is mostly men who are talking about feminism " This woman was on a phone call  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures." What about slaves in the Deep South pre 1865 who wanted to remain slaves, I'm sure they were some. Should they have been permitted to remain slaves as an exercise of freedom of choice? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I (Mr) consider myself a feminist , but I’m not very feminine, and in general lead and take care of my partner & girls. But I taught the girls to have very high expectations when it comes to men and not let men or society limit them in any way. " I raised strong independent girls, I’m independent. I have my own successful business. I don’t need to rely on a man as will neither of my girls I would imagine. You don’t have to be a feminist for all that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures. What about slaves in the Deep South pre 1865 who wanted to remain slaves, I'm sure they were some. Should they have been permitted to remain slaves as an exercise of freedom of choice? " There is a line, of course, and I'd probably say the evils of owning people outweighs personal choice. I'd want to know how the positives of their experience (did I just say that...) could be recreated without them being legally property. But being a housewife or an erotic dancer? Go ahead if you want to. No skin off my nose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just popped in to say..... That half the males here are more feminine than most of the females. " More power to them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I (Mr) consider myself a feminist , but I’m not very feminine, and in general lead and take care of my partner & girls. But I taught the girls to have very high expectations when it comes to men and not let men or society limit them in any way. I raised strong independent girls, I’m independent. I have my own successful business. I don’t need to rely on a man as will neither of my girls I would imagine. You don’t have to be a feminist for all that. " Not now. But many feminists made that possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just popped in to say..... That half the males here are more feminine than most of the females. " You take that back! I never worn a pink polo shirt in my life! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I (Mr) consider myself a feminist , but I’m not very feminine, and in general lead and take care of my partner & girls. But I taught the girls to have very high expectations when it comes to men and not let men or society limit them in any way. I raised strong independent girls, I’m independent. I have my own successful business. I don’t need to rely on a man as will neither of my girls I would imagine. You don’t have to be a feminist for all that. " True, but what you did might be very hard for some women though, and they would often get labelled pushy or aggressive, here but in particularly in other countries. That’s why I’m a feminist , I want gender equality so it’s not hard or exceptional or seen as aggressive when my girls do it , it’s just a choice same as a single guy raising boys and starting a business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures. What about slaves in the Deep South pre 1865 who wanted to remain slaves, I'm sure they were some. Should they have been permitted to remain slaves as an exercise of freedom of choice? There is a line, of course, and I'd probably say the evils of owning people outweighs personal choice. I'd want to know how the positives of their experience (did I just say that...) could be recreated without them being legally property. But being a housewife or an erotic dancer? Go ahead if you want to. No skin off my nose." The argument against slaves being slaves out of free choice is that the institution of slavery per se negatively effects society as a whole. Not only in the sense of normalising the ownership of human beings, but also in undercutting paid labour. Clearly, if some people will work for free, wages are going to be driven down. That's what I find curious about younger left wing people today, the emphasis on "free choice". In my day, to be left wing, meant to accept that in some circumstances the interests of the collective overrode the individuals exercise of free choice. So for example, if workers in a given industry were on strike, no one would respect an individuals choice to break the strike, because in doing so they were undermining the interests of the workers as a whole. And its the same argument the old school type of feminists run. By becoming a lap dancer or whatever, it's said that such women are undermining the interests of women as a whole by normalising the idea of women as nothing more than sex objects and thus making other women more vulnerable to sexual assault etc. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that argument, but it is about a lot more than the exercise of free choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just popped in to say..... That half the males here are more feminine than most of the females. You take that back! I never worn a pink polo shirt in my life!" Denial doesn't cut it in the face of evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I (Mr) consider myself a feminist , but I’m not very feminine, and in general lead and take care of my partner & girls. But I taught the girls to have very high expectations when it comes to men and not let men or society limit them in any way. I raised strong independent girls, I’m independent. I have my own successful business. I don’t need to rely on a man as will neither of my girls I would imagine. You don’t have to be a feminist for all that. Not now. But many feminists made that possible."
And also respect to feminist men like Paul Kagame and Abdullla Occlan who pushed for the most oppressed women in the world (at huge personal sacrifice) and made a huge difference. Rwanda is now the most gender equal country in Africa | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is very interesting is that right now it is mostly men who are talking about feminism The values that we are talking about transcend biological differences Oh I have no doubt of that but it reminds of the debate in France about hijab.... Only men were debating that it was wrong for those women to wear it without having any women who wear it voicing their opinions about it. " yes but surely women have no say in it, its a cultural thing and their religious indoctrination makes it a must do, no choice available  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures. What about slaves in the Deep South pre 1865 who wanted to remain slaves, I'm sure they were some. Should they have been permitted to remain slaves as an exercise of freedom of choice? There is a line, of course, and I'd probably say the evils of owning people outweighs personal choice. I'd want to know how the positives of their experience (did I just say that...) could be recreated without them being legally property. But being a housewife or an erotic dancer? Go ahead if you want to. No skin off my nose. The argument against slaves being slaves out of free choice is that the institution of slavery per se negatively effects society as a whole. Not only in the sense of normalising the ownership of human beings, but also in undercutting paid labour. Clearly, if some people will work for free, wages are going to be driven down. That's what I find curious about younger left wing people today, the emphasis on "free choice". In my day, to be left wing, meant to accept that in some circumstances the interests of the collective overrode the individuals exercise of free choice. So for example, if workers in a given industry were on strike, no one would respect an individuals choice to break the strike, because in doing so they were undermining the interests of the workers as a whole. And its the same argument the old school type of feminists run. By becoming a lap dancer or whatever, it's said that such women are undermining the interests of women as a whole by normalising the idea of women as nothing more than sex objects and thus making other women more vulnerable to sexual assault etc. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that argument, but it is about a lot more than the exercise of free choice. " Of course. Freedom of choice is but one element to consider here. But personally, as a younger leftie feminist, constraining people's choices around career/child rearing, attire, etc, ultimately causes greater damage than the people making those choices, to the extent that they cause damage. And the people making those choices are not those we should be going after when attempting to dismantle the power structure. Demanding everyone comply with my ideology at all times (rather than considering it and being mindful of other people's needs) is just as bad as my ideological opponents doing likewise. We engage. We discuss. We work towards helping people as we see fit. Hopefully we come to compromises. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures. What about slaves in the Deep South pre 1865 who wanted to remain slaves, I'm sure they were some. Should they have been permitted to remain slaves as an exercise of freedom of choice? There is a line, of course, and I'd probably say the evils of owning people outweighs personal choice. I'd want to know how the positives of their experience (did I just say that...) could be recreated without them being legally property. But being a housewife or an erotic dancer? Go ahead if you want to. No skin off my nose. The argument against slaves being slaves out of free choice is that the institution of slavery per se negatively effects society as a whole. Not only in the sense of normalising the ownership of human beings, but also in undercutting paid labour. Clearly, if some people will work for free, wages are going to be driven down. That's what I find curious about younger left wing people today, the emphasis on "free choice". In my day, to be left wing, meant to accept that in some circumstances the interests of the collective overrode the individuals exercise of free choice. So for example, if workers in a given industry were on strike, no one would respect an individuals choice to break the strike, because in doing so they were undermining the interests of the workers as a whole. And its the same argument the old school type of feminists run. By becoming a lap dancer or whatever, it's said that such women are undermining the interests of women as a whole by normalising the idea of women as nothing more than sex objects and thus making other women more vulnerable to sexual assault etc. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that argument, but it is about a lot more than the exercise of free choice. " The younger left'ish is still familiar with Harm principle
But younger minds tend to also be less considerate and more rebellious so their wants are often put as a priority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I (Mr) consider myself a feminist , but I’m not very feminine, and in general lead and take care of my partner & girls. But I taught the girls to have very high expectations when it comes to men and not let men or society limit them in any way. I raised strong independent girls, I’m independent. I have my own successful business. I don’t need to rely on a man as will neither of my girls I would imagine. You don’t have to be a feminist for all that. True, but what you did might be very hard for some women though, and they would often get labelled pushy or aggressive, here but in particularly in other countries. That’s why I’m a feminist , I want gender equality so it’s not hard or exceptional or seen as aggressive when my girls do it , it’s just a choice same as a single guy raising boys and starting a business. " But, coming back to my earlier point and playing devils advocate a little too - why be a "feminist" and not an "equitist" (or whatever the term for someone who seeks equity would be..egalitarian perhaps)? By genderising the term is it not in itself slightly divisive and suggesting it's how it should be for women, rather than how it should be for all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ Exactly. Same for the lap dancers, ring girls etc. Those so called feminists want to take away their income and choices. " 100% unless it’s hurting someone else, all women and men should live the life they choose to live and respect each other as equals. Even go as far as saying celebrating our differences aswell as us being the same but that’s a whole different Debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures. What about slaves in the Deep South pre 1865 who wanted to remain slaves, I'm sure they were some. Should they have been permitted to remain slaves as an exercise of freedom of choice? There is a line, of course, and I'd probably say the evils of owning people outweighs personal choice. I'd want to know how the positives of their experience (did I just say that...) could be recreated without them being legally property. But being a housewife or an erotic dancer? Go ahead if you want to. No skin off my nose. The argument against slaves being slaves out of free choice is that the institution of slavery per se negatively effects society as a whole. Not only in the sense of normalising the ownership of human beings, but also in undercutting paid labour. Clearly, if some people will work for free, wages are going to be driven down. That's what I find curious about younger left wing people today, the emphasis on "free choice". In my day, to be left wing, meant to accept that in some circumstances the interests of the collective overrode the individuals exercise of free choice. So for example, if workers in a given industry were on strike, no one would respect an individuals choice to break the strike, because in doing so they were undermining the interests of the workers as a whole. And its the same argument the old school type of feminists run. By becoming a lap dancer or whatever, it's said that such women are undermining the interests of women as a whole by normalising the idea of women as nothing more than sex objects and thus making other women more vulnerable to sexual assault etc. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that argument, but it is about a lot more than the exercise of free choice. The younger left'ish is still familiar with Harm principle
But younger minds tend to also be less considerate and more rebellious so their wants are often put as a priority."Sounds a lot like age-ism which is just as bad as anti feminism lol just saying but I’m quite young so maybe I’m just rebelling... (No offence intended just healthy discussion) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager "The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I find interesting is I have seen feminists belittle older women especially for still choosing to be a housewife where a man provides and works and the woman cleans, does most of the parenting and cooks all the food. This is still a good case of pro feminism because it’s her freedom and choice to have that balance in her home. The feminist act is about the freedom and equality of both sexes however they choose to live. It annoys me when people overlook that freedom of “choice “ I'm all about empowering everyone to choose for themselves. I do not belittle anyone for the choices they make for themselves, even where I might believe their choices might be constrained by problematic power and cultural structures. What about slaves in the Deep South pre 1865 who wanted to remain slaves, I'm sure they were some. Should they have been permitted to remain slaves as an exercise of freedom of choice? There is a line, of course, and I'd probably say the evils of owning people outweighs personal choice. I'd want to know how the positives of their experience (did I just say that...) could be recreated without them being legally property. But being a housewife or an erotic dancer? Go ahead if you want to. No skin off my nose. The argument against slaves being slaves out of free choice is that the institution of slavery per se negatively effects society as a whole. Not only in the sense of normalising the ownership of human beings, but also in undercutting paid labour. Clearly, if some people will work for free, wages are going to be driven down. That's what I find curious about younger left wing people today, the emphasis on "free choice". In my day, to be left wing, meant to accept that in some circumstances the interests of the collective overrode the individuals exercise of free choice. So for example, if workers in a given industry were on strike, no one would respect an individuals choice to break the strike, because in doing so they were undermining the interests of the workers as a whole. And its the same argument the old school type of feminists run. By becoming a lap dancer or whatever, it's said that such women are undermining the interests of women as a whole by normalising the idea of women as nothing more than sex objects and thus making other women more vulnerable to sexual assault etc. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that argument, but it is about a lot more than the exercise of free choice. The younger left'ish is still familiar with Harm principle
But younger minds tend to also be less considerate and more rebellious so their wants are often put as a priority.
Sounds a lot like age-ism which is just as bad as anti feminism lol just saying but I’m quite young so maybe I’m just rebelling...
(No offence intended just healthy discussion)"I would say it's more of a generalisation rather than ageism but I get your point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young "My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights. But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young
My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights.
But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate)"My first political memory would have been the power cuts caused by the miners' strike in 1972. I grew up in a world where the organised working class could make and break governments. You grew up in a world where it had pretty much ceased to exist as a real political force. That explains a lot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young
My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights.
But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate)
My first political memory would have been the power cuts caused by the miners' strike in 1972. I grew up in a world where the organised working class could make and break governments. You grew up in a world where it had pretty much ceased to exist as a real political force.
That explains a lot "Quite possibly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young
My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights.
But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate)
My first political memory would have been the power cuts caused by the miners' strike in 1972. I grew up in a world where the organised working class could make and break governments. You grew up in a world where it had pretty much ceased to exist as a real political force.
That explains a lot "I think the Miner’s strike in ‘72 was probably my first political memory too. I wasn’t best pleased trying to find my way around in the dark. Thankfully we had a big coal bunker so I don’t remember freezing, just darkness 
I wasn’t old enough to really understand the significance and the politics of my parents weren’t really left wing more liberal. However my father resigned from Ford the first day that the workers first went on strike, because he couldn’t stomach what the management had done, including ignoring his advice as an industrial engineer. He decided to go into education instead and took a big pay cut. I didn’t find this out until much later as a I was too young to understand when he did it. The late 70’s and early 80’s in Liverpool shaped my views considerably particularly working voluntarily in Toxteth the year after the riots, before heading off to Uni.
I have seen my perspective and way of thinking evolve over the years but the seeds were there in my teenage years for what I believe
are my core values. However I would say the way I think and act on them has changed significantly over the years and at different times in my life. Our consciousness can definitely evolve over time that may account for older people seeing things differently to younger people. However consciousness doesn’t necessarily develop with age as it can remain at the same stage or regress. Generalising by age difference is looking at the wrong indicator in my view.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One ends in IST and one ends in INE The end." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replys in the other thread, what do you think the difference is? It is quite surprisingly what it is and not what you might not think it is. If you don't know all hope is lost for you. "I do, if you look up the thread I did explain it, being feminine is a gender description, whilst a feminist belongs to a political movement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continue here, it was interesting seeing the replys in the other thread, what do you think the difference is? It is quite surprisingly what it is and not what you might not think it is." There's none women are even more deluded these days than before... Nik | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good feminine feminist thread everyone "That is good, pal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there’s lots of interpretations of the word feminine. I’d say the mainstream view of femininity is a pretty narrow set of characteristics, usually consciously or subconsciously defined by the patriarchy, of what makes acceptable women and would therefore make men unacceptable: prettiness, youth, limited sexuality, softness, nurturing. Women who are naturally like this or who conform to this are, in the main, more desirable. And men who express this feminine side are humiliated or worse. Women who express equally female but less ‘feminine’ qualities, like strength, anger, wildness, leadership face societal challenges as the patriarchy tries to subdue female strength. A feminist, I believe, is someone who believes that male and female both possess the full range of masculine and feminine energies and can choose freely how to express them all. " I like this a lot. I'd diverge some on what feminism is, but what you say is certainly compatible with my feminism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there’s lots of interpretations of the word feminine. I’d say the mainstream view of femininity is a pretty narrow set of characteristics, usually consciously or subconsciously defined by the patriarchy, of what makes acceptable women and would therefore make men unacceptable: prettiness, youth, limited sexuality, softness, nurturing. Women who are naturally like this or who conform to this are, in the main, more desirable. And men who express this feminine side are humiliated or worse. Women who express equally female but less ‘feminine’ qualities, like strength, anger, wildness, leadership face societal challenges as the patriarchy tries to subdue female strength. A feminist, I believe, is someone who believes that male and female both possess the full range of masculine and feminine energies and can choose freely how to express them all. I like this a lot. I'd diverge some on what feminism is, but what you say is certainly compatible with my feminism." Agree...more to say, but I used up all tonight’s brain cells on the feminine bit...I’m on the gin...!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist " Ooh shots fired | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist " I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all? "Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit... "Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble. "Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all? "I think so, but when I was young before I had daughters didn’t see the problem so much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards..."I agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards..."Do you think is actually more, or just different now it’s illegal (mostly) to stone, burn, imprison and r*pe! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
I think so, but when I was young before I had daughters didn’t see the problem so much "And that’s the problem...not with you (not a dig)...but with the world. It’s normalised culture for anything feminine to be less than. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards..."The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there."Have | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
I think so, but when I was young before I had daughters didn’t see the problem so much
And that’s the problem...not with you (not a dig)...but with the world. It’s normalised culture for anything feminine to be less than. "Agreed. It's a difficult pattern to undo, it's uncomfortable, and people dig their heels in. I plod on anyway, trying to do my bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards..."The failure of postmodernism almost certainly has caused societal regression In the developed nations. The difficulty is our level of thinking hasn’t enabled us to transcend the ceiling that relativistic postmodern thinking created. The evolution that accelerated over the few hundred years has come to an abrupt halt and the polarisation we are seeing globally appears to be partly due to this. I could waffle on all day but won’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have "Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The failure of postmodernism almost certainly has caused societal regression In the developed nations. The difficulty is our level of thinking hasn’t enabled us to transcend the ceiling that relativistic postmodern thinking created. The evolution that accelerated over the few hundred years has come to an abrupt halt and the polarisation we are seeing globally appears to be partly due to this. I could waffle on all day but won’t"It's hard. It's really hard. Postmodernist thinking is a massive head fuck. ... And it's still fucking necessary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public? "We need a new way of having conversations to be able to do that. More compassionate conversations that promote genuine collaborative inquiry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The failure of postmodernism almost certainly has caused societal regression In the developed nations. The difficulty is our level of thinking hasn’t enabled us to transcend the ceiling that relativistic postmodern thinking created. The evolution that accelerated over the few hundred years has come to an abrupt halt and the polarisation we are seeing globally appears to be partly due to this. I could waffle on all day but won’t"What evolution do you think has ended? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
We need a new way of having conversations to be able to do that. More compassionate conversations that promote genuine collaborative inquiry."Definitely. It's highly emotive and polarised. Very, very hard to find common ground. But I think there's more common ground for most of us than most of us realise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The failure of postmodernism almost certainly has caused societal regression In the developed nations. The difficulty is our level of thinking hasn’t enabled us to transcend the ceiling that relativistic postmodern thinking created. The evolution that accelerated over the few hundred years has come to an abrupt halt and the polarisation we are seeing globally appears to be partly due to this. I could waffle on all day but won’t
What evolution do you think has ended?"I don’t think it has ended. I think we’ve hit a ceiling at the moment and because we keep banging our heads against that ceiling societal regression is a result. Even with the most sophisticated conventional thinking we end up fragmented. We have separated and differentiated so much but have not found a way to transcend that differentiation and integrate at a new level. We value all perspectives and none are any ‘better’ than others. There’s no longer right and wrong just shades of grey. We have relied on science for our truth and separated it from morality and what we think is good, which is separated in turn from what we consider is beautiful and aesthetically valuable. This was the gift of the enlightenment and the renaissance, the primacy of scientific thought. We fight evil as if it is outside ourselves which only serves to reinforce it. The problems we have created can’t be solved with the same level of thinking that created them...hyperglobalisation, rampant consumerism, destruction of our climate and the dominance of nature, the polarisation of left and right. We need to be able to have a new conversations with real listening and empathy, a new way of making sense that enables us to integrate this fragmented world. A new kind of leadership is required..... There is hope though....look at New Zealand for one.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public? "Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views. Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?"Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?
Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis."needed * | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The failure of postmodernism almost certainly has caused societal regression In the developed nations. The difficulty is our level of thinking hasn’t enabled us to transcend the ceiling that relativistic postmodern thinking created. The evolution that accelerated over the few hundred years has come to an abrupt halt and the polarisation we are seeing globally appears to be partly due to this. I could waffle on all day but won’t
What evolution do you think has ended?
I don’t think it has ended. I think we’ve hit a ceiling at the moment and because we keep banging our heads against that ceiling societal regression is a result.
Even with the most sophisticated conventional thinking we end up fragmented. We have separated and differentiated so much but have not found a way to transcend that differentiation and integrate at a new level. We value all perspectives and none are any ‘better’ than others. There’s no longer right and wrong just shades of grey. We have relied on science for our truth and separated it from morality and what we think is good, which is separated in turn from what we consider is beautiful and aesthetically valuable. This was the gift of the enlightenment and the renaissance, the primacy of scientific thought. We fight evil as if it is outside ourselves which only serves to reinforce it.
The problems we have created can’t be solved with the same level of thinking that created them...hyperglobalisation, rampant consumerism, destruction of our climate and the dominance of nature, the polarisation of left and right. We need to be able to have a new conversations with real listening and empathy, a new way of making sense that enables us to integrate this fragmented world. A new kind of leadership is required..... There is hope though....look at New Zealand for one...."Utterly agree with all of that. The only thing I’d add is that all the incredible science/focus/drive that has contributed to this is the masculine energy, ignoring the negotiation/rhythmic/intuitive feminine, the listening and empathy that you refer to. Carefully not saying men vs women here, as all genders have both aspects. So the way forward is for us all to allow the feminine energy back in. Yin and yang, innit! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The failure of postmodernism almost certainly has caused societal regression In the developed nations. The difficulty is our level of thinking hasn’t enabled us to transcend the ceiling that relativistic postmodern thinking created. The evolution that accelerated over the few hundred years has come to an abrupt halt and the polarisation we are seeing globally appears to be partly due to this. I could waffle on all day but won’t
What evolution do you think has ended?
I don’t think it has ended. I think we’ve hit a ceiling at the moment and because we keep banging our heads against that ceiling societal regression is a result.
Even with the most sophisticated conventional thinking we end up fragmented. We have separated and differentiated so much but have not found a way to transcend that differentiation and integrate at a new level. We value all perspectives and none are any ‘better’ than others. There’s no longer right and wrong just shades of grey. We have relied on science for our truth and separated it from morality and what we think is good, which is separated in turn from what we consider is beautiful and aesthetically valuable. This was the gift of the enlightenment and the renaissance, the primacy of scientific thought. We fight evil as if it is outside ourselves which only serves to reinforce it.
The problems we have created can’t be solved with the same level of thinking that created them...hyperglobalisation, rampant consumerism, destruction of our climate and the dominance of nature, the polarisation of left and right. We need to be able to have a new conversations with real listening and empathy, a new way of making sense that enables us to integrate this fragmented world. A new kind of leadership is required..... There is hope though....look at New Zealand for one....
Utterly agree with all of that. The only thing I’d add is that all the incredible science/focus/drive that has contributed to this is the masculine energy, ignoring the negotiation/rhythmic/intuitive feminine, the listening and empathy that you refer to. Carefully not saying men vs women here, as all genders have both aspects. So the way forward is for us all to allow the feminine energy back in. Yin and yang, innit! ". Yes yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?
Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis."And the more the right wing are disgusted by the left, and the left rage against the right, the more distracted the world is from the global destruction and inequity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided..." I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided..." Agreed...utterly not doing that...its the masculine vs feminine energies...which we ALL have. I know another term but I can’t think of it now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?
Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis.
And the more the right wing are disgusted by the left, and the left rage against the right, the more distracted the world is from the global destruction and inequity. "for sure..... Covid is an important messenger in that respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. " I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"for sure..... Covid is an important messenger in that respect. " That’s the silver lining I’m putting all my hope on! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered." Oh yes that was the gift of religion when the church ruled over what was good, true and beautiful. Before the differentiation of the Enlightenment when men decided that science was the only way to truth, and morality and beauty were torn asunder. The mythical and magical thinking of the previous ages was replaced by rational thinking the domain of men. Yin and Yang aren’t based on sexist notions they are two polarities that need integrating | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered. Oh yes that was the gift of religion when the church ruled over what was good, true and beautiful. Before the differentiation of the Enlightenment when men decided that science was the only way to truth, and morality and beauty were torn asunder. The mythical and magical thinking of the previous ages was replaced by rational thinking the domain of men. Yin and Yang aren’t based on sexist notions they are two polarities that need integrating" Oh of course. I'm just trying to uncouple a good idea from problematic notions that have very real knock on effects. For men, women, and agender/non-binary/other people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"for sure..... Covid is an important messenger in that respect. That’s the silver lining I’m putting all my hope on!" oh and my fears too.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young
My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights.
But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate)
My first political memory would have been the power cuts caused by the miners' strike in 1972. I grew up in a world where the organised working class could make and break governments. You grew up in a world where it had pretty much ceased to exist as a real political force.
That explains a lot
I think the Miner’s strike in ‘72 was probably my first political memory too. I wasn’t best pleased trying to find my way around in the dark. Thankfully we had a big coal bunker so I don’t remember freezing, just darkness
I wasn’t old enough to really understand the significance and the politics of my parents weren’t really left wing more liberal. However my father resigned from Ford the first day that the workers first went on strike, because he couldn’t stomach what the management had done, including ignoring his advice as an industrial engineer. He decided to go into education instead and took a big pay cut. I didn’t find this out until much later as a I was too young to understand when he did it. The late 70’s and early 80’s in Liverpool shaped my views considerably particularly working voluntarily in Toxteth the year after the riots, before heading off to Uni.
I have seen my perspective and way of thinking evolve over the years but the seeds were there in my teenage years for what I believe
are my core values. However I would say the way I think and act on them has changed significantly over the years and at different times in my life. Our consciousness can definitely evolve over time that may account for older people seeing things differently to younger people. However consciousness doesn’t necessarily develop with age as it can remain at the same stage or regress. Generalising by age difference is looking at the wrong indicator in my view.
"My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU. That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors. That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism. I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered. Oh yes that was the gift of religion when the church ruled over what was good, true and beautiful. Before the differentiation of the Enlightenment when men decided that science was the only way to truth, and morality and beauty were torn asunder. The mythical and magical thinking of the previous ages was replaced by rational thinking the domain of men. Yin and Yang aren’t based on sexist notions they are two polarities that need integrating Oh of course. I'm just trying to uncouple a good idea from problematic notions that have very real knock on effects. For men, women, and agender/non-binary/other people." All that is needed is a simple reframing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The failure of postmodernism almost certainly has caused societal regression In the developed nations. The difficulty is our level of thinking hasn’t enabled us to transcend the ceiling that relativistic postmodern thinking created. The evolution that accelerated over the few hundred years has come to an abrupt halt and the polarisation we are seeing globally appears to be partly due to this. I could waffle on all day but won’t
What evolution do you think has ended?
I don’t think it has ended. I think we’ve hit a ceiling at the moment and because we keep banging our heads against that ceiling societal regression is a result.
Even with the most sophisticated conventional thinking we end up fragmented. We have separated and differentiated so much but have not found a way to transcend that differentiation and integrate at a new level. We value all perspectives and none are any ‘better’ than others. There’s no longer right and wrong just shades of grey. We have relied on science for our truth and separated it from morality and what we think is good, which is separated in turn from what we consider is beautiful and aesthetically valuable. This was the gift of the enlightenment and the renaissance, the primacy of scientific thought. We fight evil as if it is outside ourselves which only serves to reinforce it.
The problems we have created can’t be solved with the same level of thinking that created them...hyperglobalisation, rampant consumerism, destruction of our climate and the dominance of nature, the polarisation of left and right. We need to be able to have a new conversations with real listening and empathy, a new way of making sense that enables us to integrate this fragmented world. A new kind of leadership is required..... There is hope though....look at New Zealand for one....
Utterly agree with all of that. The only thing I’d add is that all the incredible science/focus/drive that has contributed to this is the masculine energy, ignoring the negotiation/rhythmic/intuitive feminine, the listening and empathy that you refer to. Carefully not saying men vs women here, as all genders have both aspects. So the way forward is for us all to allow the feminine energy back in. Yin and yang, innit! "I don't know if you’ve read Jineology, Kurdistan is obviously very different to the UK but I think the idea that the level of women's freedom determines the overall level of freedom in society applies to all countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered." I totally agree...not naturally gendered. But boys are shamed for expressing their feelings, and girls are shamed for expressing their logic. This causes many of the changes in both brain and society that further divide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered. Oh yes that was the gift of religion when the church ruled over what was good, true and beautiful. Before the differentiation of the Enlightenment when men decided that science was the only way to truth, and morality and beauty were torn asunder. The mythical and magical thinking of the previous ages was replaced by rational thinking the domain of men. Yin and Yang aren’t based on sexist notions they are two polarities that need integrating" Where’s the dammed heart emoji?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU. That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors. That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism. I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now. " I see where you're coming from, but my politics aren't just individualist. There's necessarily a fragmentation from society as a whole that comes with intersectional feminism. But I see it all as parts moving together. My beliefs are very much more about duty than rights, although of course I value rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered. I totally agree...not naturally gendered. But boys are shamed for expressing their feelings, and girls are shamed for expressing their logic. This causes many of the changes in both brain and society that further divide. " Yes, which is precisely why I pick at it. It's harmful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if you’ve read Jineology, Kurdistan is obviously very different to the UK but I think the idea that the level of women's freedom determines the overall level of freedom in society applies to all countries. " I haven’t..but hell yes! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young
My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights.
But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate)
My first political memory would have been the power cuts caused by the miners' strike in 1972. I grew up in a world where the organised working class could make and break governments. You grew up in a world where it had pretty much ceased to exist as a real political force.
That explains a lot
I think the Miner’s strike in ‘72 was probably my first political memory too. I wasn’t best pleased trying to find my way around in the dark. Thankfully we had a big coal bunker so I don’t remember freezing, just darkness
I wasn’t old enough to really understand the significance and the politics of my parents weren’t really left wing more liberal. However my father resigned from Ford the first day that the workers first went on strike, because he couldn’t stomach what the management had done, including ignoring his advice as an industrial engineer. He decided to go into education instead and took a big pay cut. I didn’t find this out until much later as a I was too young to understand when he did it. The late 70’s and early 80’s in Liverpool shaped my views considerably particularly working voluntarily in Toxteth the year after the riots, before heading off to Uni.
I have seen my perspective and way of thinking evolve over the years but the seeds were there in my teenage years for what I believe
are my core values. However I would say the way I think and act on them has changed significantly over the years and at different times in my life. Our consciousness can definitely evolve over time that may account for older people seeing things differently to younger people. However consciousness doesn’t necessarily develop with age as it can remain at the same stage or regress. Generalising by age difference is looking at the wrong indicator in my view.
My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU.
That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors.
That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism.
I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now. "Yes. The left has become way too focused on gender / identity politics and virtue signaling instead of continuing the struggle for workers rights and economic fairness. Current labour is nothing like the Labour of old. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if you’ve read Jineology, Kurdistan is obviously very different to the UK but I think the idea that the level of women's freedom determines the overall level of freedom in society applies to all countries. I haven’t..but hell yes!" And thank you for saying that. Not just women’s freedom, but freedom of feminine thinking...in the brain of all genders...balanced with the action and focus of the masculine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if you’ve read Jineology, Kurdistan is obviously very different to the UK but I think the idea that the level of women's freedom determines the overall level of freedom in society applies to all countries. I haven’t..but hell yes! And thank you for saying that. Not just women’s freedom, but freedom of feminine thinking...in the brain of all genders...balanced with the action and focus of the masculine. " Freedom for people to be their best selves regardless of notions of what they should be, for the benefit of all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ooh I would not want to label men as logical and women as intuitive. Maybe traits valued as masculine or feminine, and accordingly prioritised or derided... I don’t think Mabon did. She talks about masculine and femininity energies. Each energy is as valuable as the other, they need to be balanced. I think those labels derive from sexist views about innate nature of men and women, though, is I guess what I'm saying. All perspectives need to be thrown into the mix, all our baggage, privilege, disadvantage. But it seems to be a vicious circle, masculine logic, logic good, men good. Feminine feeling, feeling bad, women bad. (Obviously I'm massively oversimplifying) Logic and intuition aren't gendered. I totally agree...not naturally gendered. But boys are shamed for expressing their feelings, and girls are shamed for expressing their logic. This causes many of the changes in both brain and society that further divide. Yes, which is precisely why I pick at it. It's harmful." Love a co-picker! X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if you’ve read Jineology, Kurdistan is obviously very different to the UK but I think the idea that the level of women's freedom determines the overall level of freedom in society applies to all countries. I haven’t..but hell yes! And thank you for saying that. Not just women’s freedom, but freedom of feminine thinking...in the brain of all genders...balanced with the action and focus of the masculine. Freedom for people to be their best selves regardless of notions of what they should be, for the benefit of all." Hallelujah! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU. That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors. That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism. I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now. I see where you're coming from, but my politics aren't just individualist. There's necessarily a fragmentation from society as a whole that comes with intersectional feminism. But I see it all as parts moving together. My beliefs are very much more about duty than rights, although of course I value rights. " Obviously Im like grandpa Simpson in that I was "once with it, but then they changed what "it" was and now I find "it" to be strange and scary", but I see very little sign of any idea of collective duties in people who consider themselves to be intersectional, queer or whatever. It all seems to be about asserting ones own identity and demanding that everyone else respect that. There's also the divorce from material reality where people essentially get to play at being members of oppressed groups and we are all supposed to take it seriously. As we saw from the last election, the left now relies on the educated and the young who rather like playing with abscract ideas (as do I as it happens) but have completely alienated their traditional working class voters whose lives are grounded in material reality. We also saw how that played as an electoral strategy. Yep, I'm an old fart not with the current zeitgeist but as grandpa Simpson also said "it'll happen to you!" ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young
My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights.
But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate)
My first political memory would have been the power cuts caused by the miners' strike in 1972. I grew up in a world where the organised working class could make and break governments. You grew up in a world where it had pretty much ceased to exist as a real political force.
That explains a lot
I think the Miner’s strike in ‘72 was probably my first political memory too. I wasn’t best pleased trying to find my way around in the dark. Thankfully we had a big coal bunker so I don’t remember freezing, just darkness
I wasn’t old enough to really understand the significance and the politics of my parents weren’t really left wing more liberal. However my father resigned from Ford the first day that the workers first went on strike, because he couldn’t stomach what the management had done, including ignoring his advice as an industrial engineer. He decided to go into education instead and took a big pay cut. I didn’t find this out until much later as a I was too young to understand when he did it. The late 70’s and early 80’s in Liverpool shaped my views considerably particularly working voluntarily in Toxteth the year after the riots, before heading off to Uni.
I have seen my perspective and way of thinking evolve over the years but the seeds were there in my teenage years for what I believe
are my core values. However I would say the way I think and act on them has changed significantly over the years and at different times in my life. Our consciousness can definitely evolve over time that may account for older people seeing things differently to younger people. However consciousness doesn’t necessarily develop with age as it can remain at the same stage or regress. Generalising by age difference is looking at the wrong indicator in my view.
My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU.
That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors.
That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism.
I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now.
Yes. The left has become way too focused on gender / identity politics and virtue signaling instead of continuing the struggle for workers rights and economic fairness. Current labour is nothing like the Labour of old."I don't disagree, but I once knew Keir Starmer a bit, and he is (a) intelligent and (b) ambitious. He didn't become leader of the Labour Party to spout off pointlessly from the opposition benches. He wants to be PM. Hence I think he will take the necessary steps to reconnect Labour with its traditional voters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit long in the tooth to be a rebellious teenager
The miners strike happened before you were born and you will probably have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the existence of the USSR. To my mind, that makes you very young
My first memory of a political event is weird flashing lights on TV. Reconstructing with what I know now, the first Gulf War. But all I actually remember is weird flashing lights.
But I'm still not a teenager (immature facial expression deliberate)
My first political memory would have been the power cuts caused by the miners' strike in 1972. I grew up in a world where the organised working class could make and break governments. You grew up in a world where it had pretty much ceased to exist as a real political force.
That explains a lot
I think the Miner’s strike in ‘72 was probably my first political memory too. I wasn’t best pleased trying to find my way around in the dark. Thankfully we had a big coal bunker so I don’t remember freezing, just darkness
I wasn’t old enough to really understand the significance and the politics of my parents weren’t really left wing more liberal. However my father resigned from Ford the first day that the workers first went on strike, because he couldn’t stomach what the management had done, including ignoring his advice as an industrial engineer. He decided to go into education instead and took a big pay cut. I didn’t find this out until much later as a I was too young to understand when he did it. The late 70’s and early 80’s in Liverpool shaped my views considerably particularly working voluntarily in Toxteth the year after the riots, before heading off to Uni.
I have seen my perspective and way of thinking evolve over the years but the seeds were there in my teenage years for what I believe
are my core values. However I would say the way I think and act on them has changed significantly over the years and at different times in my life. Our consciousness can definitely evolve over time that may account for older people seeing things differently to younger people. However consciousness doesn’t necessarily develop with age as it can remain at the same stage or regress. Generalising by age difference is looking at the wrong indicator in my view.
My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU.
That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors.
That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism.
I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now. "I’m more for transformative than sensible but I understand what you mean. There appears to be four types of power at play for me now Capital power: the power of money to achieve whatever result it wants by buying and selling resources Political power: the power to effect change through governance and political systems Cultural power: the power to influence the thoughts and values of the masses through information, art, media, etc. Platform power: the power of technology to aggregate attention and influence the flow of information, money and opinion It seems to me the right have focused since the 1970s on dominating Capital Power, while the left have worked on dominating Cultural power. Both are jealous of and frustrated by what each other has, and blame each other what they see the other has caused, as they fight for the Political Power. Then we have the Digital power brokers who are influencing the public perception through their Platform power and increasing the confusion and chaos and misinformation as well as providing the vehicle for information to spread at the touch of a button. I’d like to to see leaders who can exercise transformative power that can engage us all in creating a new politics that integrates the best of both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU. That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors. That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism. I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now. I see where you're coming from, but my politics aren't just individualist. There's necessarily a fragmentation from society as a whole that comes with intersectional feminism. But I see it all as parts moving together. My beliefs are very much more about duty than rights, although of course I value rights. Obviously Im like grandpa Simpson in that I was "once with it, but then they changed what "it" was and now I find "it" to be strange and scary", but I see very little sign of any idea of collective duties in people who consider themselves to be intersectional, queer or whatever. It all seems to be about asserting ones own identity and demanding that everyone else respect that. There's also the divorce from material reality where people essentially get to play at being members of oppressed groups and we are all supposed to take it seriously. As we saw from the last election, the left now relies on the educated and the young who rather like playing with abscract ideas (as do I as it happens) but have completely alienated their traditional working class voters whose lives are grounded in material reality. We also saw how that played as an electoral strategy. Yep, I'm an old fart not with the current zeitgeist but as grandpa Simpson also said "it'll happen to you!" ?? " I'm sure it will. I think people see me picking apart language and talking about checking my or other people's privilege. They largely do not see my actions and my views regarding worker's rights, because it is out of turn for me to speak about the coal face. And my actions are done for the benefit I perceive, not for an audience. My feelings on social justice are not a postmodern bubble. I have read critical theory from before my birth. I won't talk about my family, but they very much influence my politics as well. On a thread about feminism I'm talking about feminism. On "traditional working class values" I'll probably hold my tongue, listen, try to contribute in the background. It's not my place to take attention from others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My parents were traditional working class Labour types. Not really political but voted Labour as the workers party and my dad work in an engineering factory and was a member of the AEU. That massively influenced my politics and I later went to university and theorised it all by lots of reading of Marx and other socialist authors. That's pretty much still where I am. An old fashioned philosophical materialist who believes that what politics is about is essentially material interests. I consider the individualist turn the left has taken, focusing on individual rights and personal identity, as just the mirror image of economic neo liberalism. I still vote Labour but was highly alienated from the Corbyn leadership. I'm hopeful that things will become a bit more sensible now. I see where you're coming from, but my politics aren't just individualist. There's necessarily a fragmentation from society as a whole that comes with intersectional feminism. But I see it all as parts moving together. My beliefs are very much more about duty than rights, although of course I value rights. Obviously Im like grandpa Simpson in that I was "once with it, but then they changed what "it" was and now I find "it" to be strange and scary", but I see very little sign of any idea of collective duties in people who consider themselves to be intersectional, queer or whatever. It all seems to be about asserting ones own identity and demanding that everyone else respect that. There's also the divorce from material reality where people essentially get to play at being members of oppressed groups and we are all supposed to take it seriously. As we saw from the last election, the left now relies on the educated and the young who rather like playing with abscract ideas (as do I as it happens) but have completely alienated their traditional working class voters whose lives are grounded in material reality. We also saw how that played as an electoral strategy. Yep, I'm an old fart not with the current zeitgeist but as grandpa Simpson also said "it'll happen to you!" ?? I'm sure it will. I think people see me picking apart language and talking about checking my or other people's privilege. They largely do not see my actions and my views regarding worker's rights, because it is out of turn for me to speak about the coal face. And my actions are done for the benefit I perceive, not for an audience. My feelings on social justice are not a postmodern bubble. I have read critical theory from before my birth. I won't talk about my family, but they very much influence my politics as well. On a thread about feminism I'm talking about feminism. On "traditional working class values" I'll probably hold my tongue, listen, try to contribute in the background. It's not my place to take attention from others." Not having a go at you personally, but this whole moralistic /puritanical phrasing like "checking privilege" and "not my place" is deeply alienating to most people. I take the old fashioned view that you discuss points on their merits. Telling someone to "check their privilege" is in my view, daft. If you think someone is incorrect, say why, don't play oppression one upmanship. It may be someone has a more valid point of view on something because of their personal experience, but if so explain that. Don't try to shame someone by banging on about their "privilege" If this sort of thing really irritates me, lifelong Labour voter who has ploughed his way through all three volumes of Marxs Capital, you can imagine how it plays with the average apolitical punter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not having a go at you personally, but this whole moralistic /puritanical phrasing like "checking privilege" and "not my place" is deeply alienating to most people. I take the old fashioned view that you discuss points on their merits. Telling someone to "check their privilege" is in my view, daft. If you think someone is incorrect, say why, don't play oppression one upmanship. It may be someone has a more valid point of view on something because of their personal experience, but if so explain that. Don't try to shame someone by banging on about their "privilege" If this sort of thing really irritates me, lifelong Labour voter who has ploughed his way through all three volumes of Marxs Capital, you can imagine how it plays with the average apolitical punter. " Fair. Although discomfort can be part of the process. Sometimes deep discomfort (I was sent an article railing against cis people yesterday and had to fight myself). Another way of putting it. I think we should hear from those who are going through things, not those with the benefit of education and a soap box. I think people who don't go through these things should realise that in this respect (if not necessarily others) they are fortunate, not necessarily to do with their merit. Fundamentally for me it comes down to trying to hear from everyone, prioritising those who are there. And empathy for their position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?
Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis.
And the more the right wing are disgusted by the left, and the left rage against the right, the more distracted the world is from the global destruction and inequity. "I'd have to raise the question there as to what is the driving forces behind global destruction and inequality? I'd argue that at this present time those forces aren't coming from the left are they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a very post-modernist thread isn't it? "Very. Fortunately below headache threshold | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not having a go at you personally, but this whole moralistic /puritanical phrasing like "checking privilege" and "not my place" is deeply alienating to most people. I take the old fashioned view that you discuss points on their merits. Telling someone to "check their privilege" is in my view, daft. If you think someone is incorrect, say why, don't play oppression one upmanship. It may be someone has a more valid point of view on something because of their personal experience, but if so explain that. Don't try to shame someone by banging on about their "privilege" If this sort of thing really irritates me, lifelong Labour voter who has ploughed his way through all three volumes of Marxs Capital, you can imagine how it plays with the average apolitical punter. Fair. Although discomfort can be part of the process. Sometimes deep discomfort (I was sent an article railing against cis people yesterday and had to fight myself). Another way of putting it. I think we should hear from those who are going through things, not those with the benefit of education and a soap box. I think people who don't go through these things should realise that in this respect (if not necessarily others) they are fortunate, not necessarily to do with their merit. Fundamentally for me it comes down to trying to hear from everyone, prioritising those who are there. And empathy for their position." I really can't be doing with this Maoist self flagellation. If someone says some bollocks about a group of which you happen to be a member, you're perfectly entitled to respond your "privilege". I would suggest it's pretty condescending to assume people on the other side couldn't deal with that. We make progress through respectful and polite discussion and debate, not rendering some peoples views automatically illegitimate because of their personal status. It's perfectly possible to want everyone to have a voice without taking on the persona of an alleged capitalist roadster during the Cultural Revolution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?
Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis.
And the more the right wing are disgusted by the left, and the left rage against the right, the more distracted the world is from the global destruction and inequity.
I'd have to raise the question there as to what is the driving forces behind global destruction and inequality? I'd argue that at this present time those forces aren't coming from the left are they?"Simple. The parasitic financial / bankster class that has strip mined society since the founding of the Bank of England. Some lean more left, others to the right. The end goal is the same. If you've any doubts read up on the Trilateral commission. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not having a go at you personally, but this whole moralistic /puritanical phrasing like "checking privilege" and "not my place" is deeply alienating to most people. I take the old fashioned view that you discuss points on their merits. Telling someone to "check their privilege" is in my view, daft. If you think someone is incorrect, say why, don't play oppression one upmanship. It may be someone has a more valid point of view on something because of their personal experience, but if so explain that. Don't try to shame someone by banging on about their "privilege" If this sort of thing really irritates me, lifelong Labour voter who has ploughed his way through all three volumes of Marxs Capital, you can imagine how it plays with the average apolitical punter. Fair. Although discomfort can be part of the process. Sometimes deep discomfort (I was sent an article railing against cis people yesterday and had to fight myself). Another way of putting it. I think we should hear from those who are going through things, not those with the benefit of education and a soap box. I think people who don't go through these things should realise that in this respect (if not necessarily others) they are fortunate, not necessarily to do with their merit. Fundamentally for me it comes down to trying to hear from everyone, prioritising those who are there. And empathy for their position. I really can't be doing with this Maoist self flagellation. If someone says some bollocks about a group of which you happen to be a member, you're perfectly entitled to respond your "privilege". I would suggest it's pretty condescending to assume people on the other side couldn't deal with that. We make progress through respectful and polite discussion and debate, not rendering some peoples views automatically illegitimate because of their personal status. It's perfectly possible to want everyone to have a voice without taking on the persona of an alleged capitalist roadster during the Cultural Revolution. " I'll agree to disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?
Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis.
And the more the right wing are disgusted by the left, and the left rage against the right, the more distracted the world is from the global destruction and inequity.
I'd have to raise the question there as to what is the driving forces behind global destruction and inequality? I'd argue that at this present time those forces aren't coming from the left are they?
Simple. The parasitic financial / bankster class that has strip mined society since the founding of the Bank of England. Some lean more left, others to the right. The end goal is the same. If you've any doubts read up on the Trilateral commission."Who are these left leaning banksters in the city of london of which you speak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pointless question really .its like asking tbe difference between trees and bricks. Anyone and everyone can and should be be a feminist I agree. Why wouldn’t anyone want equality for all?
Strange some women being "anti"feminism though. Sort of like being black and being pro slavery innit...
Fear of being excluded from the patriarchal acceptance aka survival bubble.
Yeh I could see that...Interesting how feminists and progressives in general have been getting more and more stigmatised over the last few years though via right wing social media channels though. Almost as if there's an agenda to move society backwards...
The radical elements in these movements are been far more helpful in switching off public sentiment to their cause than anything else. Perhaps start there.
Have
Public sentiment? Really? The press focuses 99% of their energy on vilifying the radical elements so that 99% of the message is thrown out. How about starting with creating and developing a critically thinking public?
Funny. They seem to do the same thing with regard to people who express more conservative views.
Perhaps because the radical elements seem to be in the driver's seat?
Probably because of the polarisation of what is deemed conservative and what is deemed progressive. I think you commented on a previous thread how the extreme left and extreme right look very similar. While one is the thesis and the other is the antithesis the conflict will continue. An integrative approach is neared to create a new synthesis.
And the more the right wing are disgusted by the left, and the left rage against the right, the more distracted the world is from the global destruction and inequity.
I'd have to raise the question there as to what is the driving forces behind global destruction and inequality? I'd argue that at this present time those forces aren't coming from the left are they?
Simple. The parasitic financial / bankster class that has strip mined society since the founding of the Bank of England. Some lean more left, others to the right. The end goal is the same. If you've any doubts read up on the Trilateral commission.
Who are these left leaning banksters in the city of london of which you speak?"The city of london is just one aspect. Include the BIS, Federal Reserve, IMF / World Bank, ECB, BOJ, etc. All part of the same system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
