Feminism: whats wrong with it?

[larkin31]

Originally Posted by John21652

It would seem, Larkin, a few are already pointing out to you the 'harm' done to society by Feminism. Eventually I willm go so far as to point out ton you that Feminism has disgraced femininity.

Feminism has been driven by Marxist ideology ever since the so called "second wave" feminists took over the agenda, radicalising it and deliberately setting about destroying the status quo under the guise of 'womens liberation'. It doesn't take much homework to find this out.

None of this was driven by Marxism, and it all isn't even true.

Just because you and a few others say it, doesn't make it true. As a Catholic, you understand that, right?

Secondly, when injustice is occurring and the injustice is entrenched in the "status quo," then that part of the status quo must be attacked and dismantled. Even our Declaration of Independence attacks and dismantles the political "status quo" of the time. ALL rebeliions against social injustice attack the social status quo.

You have yet to demonstrate any "damage." All you are pointing to is change. And yes, progress requires change. Even spiritual progress requires change. Even Jesus confronted the status quo.

[John21652]

Originally Posted by larkin31

None of this was driven by Marxism, and it all isn't even true.

Just because you and a few others say it, doesn't make it true. As a Catholic, you understand that, right?

Secondly, when injustice is occurring and the injustice is entrenched in the "status quo," then that part of the status quo must be attacked and dismantled. Even our Declaration of Independence attacks and dismantles the political "status quo" of the time. ALL rebeliions against social injustice attack the social status quo.

You have yet to demonstrate any "damage." All you are pointing to is change. And yes, progress requires change. Even spiritual progress requires change. Even Jesus confronted the status quo.

What's the trouble Larkin, all of this too confronting for you? That happens when a veil is lifted from your eyes and reality hits home. You responded to my post so quickly, you never even did any 'homework'. Did you check up on Millett and Greer? Have you read 'The Female Eunuch'? Have you found where Greer herself expressed that she was a Marxist? Have you read yet where she has stated that she wants to bring down the family unit? It is all on the public record Larkin, just waiting for you to 'see' it. Did you read through the thread I linked to? Or did you immediately go into a state of denial , not even wanting to see what you admitted to not seeing?

In an earlier post, you stated you were reared by a feminist. Well, here's a quote on parenting from a very famous feminist leader -

"The great mass of women throughout history have been confined to the cultural level of animal life in providing the male with sexual outlet and exercising the animal functions of reproduction and care of the young."

Now tell us, Larkin, does this quote accurately describe your upbringing? Do you think this quote accurately desribes motherhood? Was your feminist mother like this? Were you brought up in a manner and in an environement that was merely an "animal function"? Do you know whose quote that is?

There is a very obvious link between Marxism and Feminism. What I haven't even touched on yet is another "tool" of feminist ideology and that is Deconstructivism, or Deconstruction, depending on what university you attended. Deconstruction is one of the most insidious intellectual 'tools' feminist ideology employes and its emphasis is on denying the very basis of western thought, philosophy and morality. Surely you have heard of it? Because Deconstruction combined with a Marxist dialectic is the root cause of much of the ills of western society and they underpin the very basis of feminist ideology. These two "tools" of feminism create a synthetic 'philosophy' which really does not deserve the title.

[larkin31]

Originally Posted by John21652

What's the trouble Larkin, all of this too confronting for you?

No, if you keep making this an opportunity for some sort of dig at me, I will report your post.

That happens when a veil is lifted from your eyes and reality hits home

Your personal condescension is off the point.

You responded to my post so quickly, you never even did any 'homework'

I am familiar with both Greer and Millett and have read both. I have taught Millett, even. Stop assuming that those who disagree with you are uninformed. It is false argument.

Did you check up on Millett and Greer? Have you read 'The Female Eunuch'? Have you found where Greer herself expressed that she was a Marxist?

I SAID that some feminists are Marxists.

Have you read yet where she has stated that she wants to bring down the family unit? It is all on the public record Larkin, just waiting for you to 'see' it. Did you read through the thread I linked to? Or did you immediately go into a state of denial , not even wanting to see what you admitted to not seeing?

This isn't worth reply.

Now tell us, Larkin, does this quote accurately describe your upbringing? Do you think this quote accurately desribes motherhood? Was your feminist mother like this? Were you brought up in a manner and in an environement that was merely an "animal function"? Do you know whose quote that is?

You error is to presume that the more radical of feminist writings represents "feminism" and that this then gives you the right to say your criticisms are true throughout.

There is a very obvious link between Marxism and Feminism

Sure. They were both begun by humans; a very clear "link."

The rest on "deconstruction" isn't worth reply either. You appear to be blaming feminism for every academic social ill you can think of. Shucks, some feminists were smart and used the skills they learned in college and in their readings to challenge the injustices around them. I, for one, am glad that they did.

You, for another, have still shown no "damage".

[Hastrman]

To deny, as Larkin31 does, that there is a Marxist narrative at play in modern feminism, even among capitalist feminists, is to announce that one does not know what is meant by "Marxist narrative". The Marxist narrative's fundamental trait is the claim that relations between two groups—or classes, or in this case the sexes—are purely characterized by victimization and oppression. All evidence to the contrary, that the alleged victim group likes or chose its position, is dismissed as false consciousness. To deny that this is in play in virtually all forms of modern feminism, is either delusional, or a confession of total ignorance of the subject.

Also she seems to think that when people (me) explicitly deny a causal link between feminism and the rise in crimes against women, they are trying to claim one. I merely pointed out that feminism hasn't helped any, which one might think would be a high priority.

[edwest2]

The pattern is clear: a small group with a clear ideology -

1) Creates a victim class. Radicalizes that class by announcing a clear enemy; in this case, men. Adds descriptive slogans: "Male chauvenist pigs." And creates words like Ms.

2) The next goal is to create psychological and actual separation between men and women. I watched as Women's Studies and Women's Literature began to appear as courses in colleges.


So the feminist radical leaders become the core of a cult. The Cult of Woman. Various manifestos are published. But it all has its roots here:

"Statement of Bill Wood
FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

"The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR. Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA. It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

"When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America. America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.

"From Bill Wood's testimony to the
Ways and Means Committee"

[John21652]

Originally Posted by larkin31

No, if you keep making this an opportunity for some sort of dig at me, I will report your post.

Well, you went straight into a state of denial by writing that "None of this was driven by Marxism, and it all isn't even true". The evidence is to the contrary.

I am familiar with both Greer and Millett and have read both. I have taught Millett, even. Stop assuming that those who disagree with you are uninformed. It is false argument.

If it is the case that you are familiar with and have read both Millett and Greer, then you would not, in good conscience, write that none of this was driven by Marxism. As for assuming that you are uninformed because you disagree with me, I make the point once again, that you denied that Marxism drove any of this, yet both Millett and Greer are self avowed Marxists. Surely you can see that your denial would lead most people to assume you have read neither? If it is the case that you have read both, then surely you shold be able to mount an argument either for or against them, instead of writing a simple denial.

I SAID that some feminists are Marxists.

Yes you did. What you failed to point out is the fact that all of the leaders of the feminist movement were marxists and that the entire doctrine is based on marxism and literary and philosophical deconstruction.

This isn't worth reply.

It was worth a reply, Larkin. I gave you a link to a thread focusing on a woman who aborted twin boys because she wanted a girl instead. I linked that to the stated goal of feminist leaders to destroy the family unit. This is all at the very crux of feminist ideology and yet you brush it aside by stating "this isn't worth a reply"!

You error is to presume that the more radical of feminist writings represents "feminism" and that this then gives you the right to say your criticisms are true throughout.

Those whom you call the "more radical of feminist writers" were at the very forefront of the women's liberation movement. They set the agenda and told women how they were sexually, socially and politically oppressed. They did not act simply as writers, but were active as social commentators and active leaders of the drive for change.

Sure. They were both begun by humans; a very clear "link."

You are being disengenuous here. Feminism embraced marxist methodology.

The rest on "deconstruction" isn't worth reply either. You appear to be blaming feminism for every academic social ill you can think of. Shucks, some feminists were smart and used the skills they learned in college and in their readings to challenge the injustices around them. I, for one, am glad that they did.

I would have thought that you would at least mount some argument for or against the 'tools' used by feminists to 'prove' oppression and repression. Not only did you not do so, but you made a connection between those tools and "...every academic social ill you can think of." Would I be correct in assuming that even you can see that these tools are the root cause for very poor academic method? As for writing that some feminists were smart enough to challenge the injustices around them, you are admitting offhandedly that they did indeed have an impact, yet you avoid telling us what those injustices were. Despite writing that those feminists wrought change, you avoid, even deny, how they did it.

You, for another, have still shown no "damage".

Yes I have. I gave you a link to an article which perfectly shows just what 'damage' has been done to our society. As a Catholic, how do you reconcile the tremendous number of abortions being carried out with your joy that feminist leaders wrought change, when that change they demanded included the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so chose. Abortion, after all, is one of the very foundational demands of feminism. Of course, having read both Millett and Greer, you would know that.

[larkin31]

Originally Posted by John21652

Yes I have. I gave you a link to an article which perfectly shows just what 'damage' has been done to our society. As a Catholic, how do you reconcile the tremendous number of abortions being carried out with your joy that feminist leaders wrought change, when that change they demanded included the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so chose. Abortion, after all, is one of the very foundational demands of feminism. Of course, having read both Millett and Greer, you would know that.

I am not Catholic, so I gather than you are not even looking to the top right corner of my post boxes. You don't even know whom you are calling a "Catholic."

I don't object to abortion. Furthermore, abortion has existed for millenia, as well, long before "feminism" was even a word. Feminists are clearly not responsible in any way for abortion. Moreover, abortion is not "Marxist" either.

This is tiresome, and no one else seems to be interested in this circular exchange. I am no longer interested either. You can take it up with someone else from here if anyone is interested.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by larkin31

I am not Catholic, so I gather than you are not even looking to the top right corner of my post boxes. You don't even know whom you are calling a "Catholic."

I don't object to abortion. Furthermore, abortion has existed for millenia, as well, long before "feminism" was even a word. Feminists are clearly not responsible in any way for abortion. Moreover, abortion is not "Marxist" either.

This is tiresome, and no one else seems to be interested in this circular exchange. I am no longer interested either. You can take it up with someone else from here if anyone is interested.

This is the saddest of posts.

There is no reason to leave this dialogue unless one cannot refute the arguments proposed.

That seems to be a common modus operandi for many non-Catholic posters here.

[Ichthys4121517]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

This is the saddest of posts.

There is no reason to leave this dialogue unless one cannot refute the arguments proposed.

That seems to be a common modus operandi for many non-Catholic posters here.

Personally, I think the saddest part is his mentioning the fact that he "doesn't object to abortion." Heck, most pro-choicers at least like to play a little of game of "I don't personally support it, but I think women should have the right". He outright admits he has no problem with abortion. Now that's refreshing intellectual honesty, if not somewhat disturbing.

[larkin31]

Originally Posted by Ichthys4121517

Personally, I think the saddest part is his mentioning the fact that he "doesn't object to abortion." Heck, most pro-choicers at least like to play a little of game of "I don't personally support it, but I think women should have the right". He outright admits he has no problem with abortion. Now that's refreshing intellectual honesty, if not somewhat disturbing.

You shouldn't be surprised by sincerity. I am surprised by the lack of it when I encounter it. Furthermore, I do not question those who morally object to abortion. I understand and accept moral disagreements with it. I just don't agree with those moral objections, but I respect them.

[John21652]

Originally Posted by edwest2

The pattern is clear: a small group with a clear ideology -

1) Creates a victim class. Radicalizes that class by announcing a clear enemy; in this case, men. Adds descriptive slogans: "Male chauvenist pigs." And creates words like Ms.

2) The next goal is to create psychological and actual separation between men and women. I watched as Women's Studies and Women's Literature began to appear as courses in colleges.


So the feminist radical leaders become the core of a cult. The Cult of Woman. Various manifestos are published. But it all has its roots here:

"Statement of Bill Wood
FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

"The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR. Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA. It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

"When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America. America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.

"From Bill Wood's testimony to the
Ways and Means Committee"

Ed, with this post you have really gotten to the core of what drives Feminism. Engels wrote a book called The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. Anyone with no real exposure to, but with any semblance of interest in this topic, can do a quick Google search and find out what the drivers of the feminist movement are. Why, a rundown on Engel's book can be found right here on Wikipedia. Not hard, is it!

As that article tells us, Engel's wrote that "... that a woman's subordination is not a result of her biologic disposition but of social relations." It never seemed to occur to either Engels, or those who subsequently took up the feminist cause, that social relations might have actually sprung from the biologic disposition of women! That wash conveniently ignored and the strident demands of feminism then gave rise to the catchcries that you have pointed out as being descriptions of a divide created between men and women. Like you, I saw the rise and rise of gender studies and 'womens issues' in universities. I had the (mis?) fortune to attend Germaine Greer's Alma Mater, Monash University, in Melbourne. Womens Studies pervade the entire Arts Faculty there and there is now no debate even about the very basic assumptions of the feminist ideology. And ideology it is. Even Gloria Steinem considered academic feminism to be little more than 'careerism'. She also recognised the dangers inherent in the use of philosophical and literary deconstruction.

Now the feminist movement has broken up into radical feminism, black feminism, socialist feminism. What has any of this achieved? We see the sexualisation of women across society more than ever, the family unit has been damaged, the respect for life has been undermined and tarnished and still, women cannot agree on a coherent feminist philosophy. Now, we are up to the so called "third wave" of feminism and still nothing is resolved, except that each wave of feminism recognises the mistakes of the previous waves. As for the basic question this thread topic asks, which is what's wrong with feminism, my answer would be that it is an unstructured 'philosophy' which is divisive because of the very nature of the intellectual tools which it uses to arrive at basic assumptions about the human social relations. It has divided women and it has divided women from men and does not seek to find common ground. If anything, it espouses an individuality which I suspect Queen Elizabeth 1st and Margaret Thatcher could have taught most admirably at any modern university!!

[edwest2]

Putting politics aside for the moment, let's look at Sex and the City. The male chauvenist pig has become the female chauvenist pig. Television shows us a very attractive woman telling a man, both highly paid professionals, that their encounter from the night before was "just sex." When love and expressions of love, are turned into struggles for power and control, then all that's left is a constant groping in the dark.

Biology doesn't matter or it becomes a hindrance. Revolution has been the battle cry. Let's turn everything upside down and see what happens! Obviously, up to this point in time, nothing good.

Family, motherhood. The radical feminist has been trained to hear those words like fingernails scratching across a chalk board.




Peace,
Ed

[John21652]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Putting politics aside for the moment, let's look at Sex and the City. The male chauvenist pig has become the female chauvenist pig. Television shows us a very attractive woman telling a man, both highly paid professionals, that their encounter from the night before was "just sex." When love and expressions of love, are turned into struggles for power and control, then all that's left is a constant groping in the dark.

Biology doesn't matter or it becomes a hindrance. Revolution has been the battle cry. Let's turn everything upside down and see what happens! Obviously, up to this point in time, nothing good.

Family, motherhood. The radical feminist has been trained to hear those words like fingernails scratching across a chalk board.
Peace,
Ed

Well worth a read: A 2002 article in the Melbourne, Australia, daily newspaper The Age, written by a feminist who woke up to the 'con' that is feminism.

The Sins of our Feminist Mothers

Virginia Haussegger writes -

"As we worked our way through high school and university in the '70s and early '80s, girls like me listened to our mothers, our trailblazing feminist teachers, and the outspoken women who demanded a better deal for all women. They paved the way for us to have rich careers.

They anointed us and encouraged us to take it all. We had the right to be editors, paediatricians, engineers, premiers, executive producers, High Court judges, CEOs etc. We were brought up to believe that the world was ours. We could be and do whatever we pleased.

Feminism's hard-fought battles had borne fruit. And it was ours for the taking.

Or so we thought - until the lie of super "you-can-have-it-all" feminism hits home, in a very personal and emotional way...

We're alone, childless, many of us partnerless, or drifting along in "permanent temporariness", as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman so aptly put it in a recent Age article by Anne Manne to describe the somewhat ambiguous, uncommitted type of relationship that seems to dominate among childless, professional couples in their 30s and 40s...

The point is that while encouraging women in the '70s and '80s to reach for the sky, none of our purple-clad, feminist mothers thought to tell us the truth about the biological clock. Our biological clock. The one that would eventually reach exploding point inside us....

For those of us that did marry, marriage was perhaps akin to an accessory. And in our high-disposable-income lives, accessories pass their use-by date, and are thoughtlessly tossed aside. Frankly, the dominant message was to not let our man, or any man for that matter, get in the way of career and our own personal progress.

The end result: here we are, supposedly "having it all" as we edge 40; excellent education; good qualifications; great jobs; fast-moving careers; good incomes; and many of us own the trendy little inner-city pad we live in. It's a nice caffe-latte kind of life, really.

But the truth is - for me at least - the career is no longer a challenge, the lifestyle trappings are joyless (the latest Collette Dinnigan frock looks pretty silly on a near-40-year-old), and the point of it all seems, well, pointless.

I am childless and I am angry. Angry that I was so foolish to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel. Angry that I was daft enough to believe female fulfilment came with a leather briefcase."

[larkin31]

Originally Posted by John21652

...I am childless and I am angry. Angry that I was so foolish to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel. Angry that I was daft enough to believe female fulfilment came with a leather briefcase."

At least she had the choice. There is no obligation in a free society that individuals will use their freedom wisely and make the best choices for themselves. She has no one to blame but herself for misunderstanding her needs.

[John21652]

Originally Posted by larkin31

At least she had the choice. There is no obligation in a free society that individuals will use their freedom wisely and make the best choices for themselves. She has no one to blame but herself for misunderstanding her needs.

No doubt that's the argument you will use when confronted with the millions of lives harmed by abortion, teenage sex, unsound marriages, high divorce rates and all the children so harmed and disadvantaged. Your argument is typical of those who will never accept responsibility for what they preach and teach. The feminist arguments can saturate newspapers, magazines, academic journals and even infiltrate the curricula of academic institutions, but according to you, anyone who listens and is harmed, well, its all their fault for listening and believing.

If you had bothered to read the article in its entirety, you would have noticed that she was not simply speaking for herself, but for the countless thousands of women who feel cheated by what the feminist movement has thrown at them. If you'd bothered to do even more research, you'd find she has been quite vocal over a long period of time as a left wing, progressive feminist social commentator. That's what makes her admission such a big deal. Virginia Haussegger is not the only one to come to this realisation. If you ever get your head out of the sand and do some research, you'd notice.