NineBirds wrote:
Something to keep in mind is that what you consider to be the "modern women's lib movement" is neither women's lib nor feminism, but reactionary sexism. Feminists by definition believe in equality of the sexes, pure and simple. Women who hate men are not feminists, they are misanders.
Glad to see you make some distinctions. Not everyone does, unfortunately.
As usual, the problem lies in the difference between mere names and actual practices. The self-proclaimed "feminist" movement of today is rather different from the feminists of, say, 1900, which is why I used the older name "suffragette" to refer to them.
NineBirds wrote:
Err, what about that quote was vicious again? Anyway, exactly what freedoms are your so-called female empowerers taking away? The freedom to be discriminated against and regulated to housewifery? I'm confused. The feminist movement gave women the ability to choose between home or work or a balance of the two (though there's still some work to be done in eliminating gender roles). If freedom isn't the right to choose, then how do you define freedom?
Depends which quote you're asking about. The one fellow accused me of being some kind of knuckle-dragging Puritan, and then launched into an attack on my opinion of pornographers that made me sound like I was taking a women's lib line. Uh... am I the only one who doesn't follow the "logic" here? In any case, it was an ad hominem attack.
Then, MadBunny had to jump in and start ranting about how I must be a troll for answering this attack. His particular line was a guilt-by-association ad hominem: "Oh, you're one of
those people!" (In this case, the association was with Rush Limbaugh, and the claim was apparently that on the basis of this imagined association, no one should listen to me.) Well, two things about that:
A. I've only heard Rush Limbaugh about two times in my whole life. I don't watch TV or listen to talk radio.
B. Everybody's arguments should be judged on their own merits. Rush Limbaugh may or may not be reasonable. The same goes for me.
As for what freedoms feminism has tried to suppress, you mention one of their obnoxious utopian schemes yourself, as if it were laudible: "eliminating gender roles." Feminists don't want boys to act like boys, or girls to act like girls. Anyone who does is cruelly ostracized and punished wherever feminists have power, such as in the public school system.
Moreover, no, feminism has not "given women a choice" about work! It has done its worst to regulate them into the office, and demonized any who refuse to go. Freedom to choose between these occupations has only come where feminism is beginning to recede.
NineBirds wrote:
Hmm, I guess I was too 'cause I didn't see anymore coherency than Madbunny did. So could you elaborate a bit more for all us stupid and blind ones?
Nice one, Ninebirds. I guess you're into guilt-by-association tactics, too: "Anything you say against him, you say against all of us!"
Concerning my arguments, well, let me give you a little refresher concerning what I said of modern feminism (a.k.a. women's lib). According to women's lib:
Raising children is not "real" work; if a woman stays home instead of pursuing an office career, she's a parasite; women who don't work in the office should be castigated.
That's only one subject feminist discussion covers, but it is basically the relevant part of the modern feminist philosophy.
NineBirds wrote:
Pornography is the depiction of sex. You call pornography mechanics, but not sex? Whaa? Again, explanation needed. Sex is the act of parts of people grinding together. Anything more than that is dependent on the relationship of the participants.
Glad you asked. Put simply, pornography portrays ONLY the physical act. The sex act itself is an act of the heart and mind as well as the body. Note that I say sex is not "just" mechanics; that is sex involves mechanics, but other things too. Since the camera can't capture the activities of the heart and mind, pornography is entirely mechanical.
NineBirds wrote:
Really? It did? Where? Because my friends who've watched pornography, they totally don't see women or men that way at all.
That your friends resisted pornography's lessons does not absolve pornographers for teaching them, or others who do absorb the lessons. You must have a rather select group of friends, given how many guys I've heard bragging about their sexual exploits.
NineBirds wrote:The view of pornography objectifying/subjugating women has evolved. People have recognized that a woman (or a man) can choose to be sexually active in front of a camera without it being exploitation, and that watching pornography does not equate an opinion than women/men are meat. Yes, pornography, like everything else, is only poisonous dependent on the dose. It can be a part of a healthy sex life!
First, I should point out that it was my detractors who were doing most of the talking about pornography's effects on women. What little I said was on how it's degrading to everybody.
Second, as I've just said, that some people resist pornography's lessons does not excuse either the "teachers" or the "students" who do absorb the lessons.
Finally, I'm don't really see how watching someone else doing something can even begin to compare to doing it yourself, so I don't really see any way that pornography helps the sex life at all.
NineBirds wrote:
Right now the argument is over whether pornography degrades the participants. In my opinion, that's really dependent on the type of porn.
Given that just about any kind of pornography tends to portray people as nothing but sex machines, it certainly degrades humanity, whatever one might think of what it does for the individual participants.
NineBirds wrote:
I suppose you're referring to recent scholarly assertions of Puritan sexual openness? You're misinterpreting. Not being uptight about sex does not equate gender equality. They still maintained a strict patriarchal structure. Women were expected to fully submit to their husbands.
I'll grant this openness was not a full granting of equal rights. Still, it was a step in the right direction, given how women in Victorian society had been secluded and isolated during pregnancy, were not supposed to know much about sex, and were basically shamed for any sexual desire they might have. Liberation from that kind of thinking allowed people to start getting the idea that maybe women didn't need all this smothering protection and could take care of themselves.
NineBirds wrote:
I'm totally going to ignore the all-too-common insanity of Japanophiles basing their concepts of ideal women or men (or what Japanese women or men are really like) on characters from manga or anime. But your wacky ideas about the freedom of Japanese women really have to be addressed.
Most people tend not to live up to ideal depictions, but am I to believe that what a culture portrays in its ideal characters has nothing to do with what it advocates as its moral objectives? The portrayal of slaves in Roman plays was hardly true to how those slaves actually lived either, but it did amount to a statement that masters should treat their slaves well, that slaves are humans too, etc. In any case, as I'll explain in a minute, my ideas are not "wacky" and they don't originally come from anime at all.
NineBirds wrote:Let's get this straight. Japan is a first-world economy with third-world ideas when it comes to gender equality. At UN prodding they've been attempting to make some headway, but the patriarchy is so deeply ingrained into the heirarchal social structure that it will be a long, long time coming before Japanese women come close to the social equality of their American counterparts.
I'll put it this way: the UN and its minions are hardly trustworthy sources for information, given their radically leftist and "feminist" biases. ("Feminist is in scare-quotes because I am referring to the modern women's libbers) I trust neither their data nor their commentary on that data.
NineBirds wrote:Your Japanese ideal is created through a patriarchal, domineering society that practices systematic discrimination and repression of those members lowest on its social heirarchy. That's the kind of woman you're looking for?
Again, your picture of Japan comes to you through the crooked glasses of the UN, an organization whose claims I do not trust. No, of course I don't want a caricature of a woman from some UN caricature of Japan! Don't assume that I agree with everything your favorite authorities say on anything. What I want, if I should ever bother to marry at all, is a woman who acts like a woman.
I notice you mention "reproductive rights," which pro-lifers like myself know to be a euphemism for abortion. While what I think of the "freedom" to murder an unborn child should be obvious, I find it a bit unlikely that women in Japan don't have this "freedom," given the number of idols to their murdered children dotting the landscape there.
You've given me a few interesting links to examine. In return, if you're wondering where I'm getting my ideas about Japan and feminism (which are apparently rather unfamiliar to you), you might look into a book by F. Carolyn Graglia called "Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism," which has influenced my views quite a bit. It details, among other things, the philosophical arguments behind modern feminism, and how modern feminism is different from earlier forms of feminism.
I've also drawn certain conclusions from news stories that drift in from Japan from time to time, such as bits about Japanese men working themselves to death, and a story about how Japan's prostitution business is increasingly providing fantasy scenarios for its customers involving young schoolgirls. I've also read about these "home jobs" (I want one!) which are apparently something like telecommuting here in America. Real freedom for women brings freedom for men, too: it's not like we males all appreciate having to go to the office either, you know.
NineBirds wrote:(Heh, is your username and your opinions about "screeching feminist harpies" purely coincidental?)
Mostly coincidental. If you wonder about where I got my name, though, you can check out the lengthy self-description I provided in my profile.
Some of the women I sleep with on a regular basis have bigger porn collections than I do! 