The Woman's World

[Kelly Jones]

In praise of mediocrity.

[Anders Schlander]

I don't have much to comment on the short essay, but I was struck by the same realization some months ago, namely, that feminism promotes mediocrity. First off, feminism is first and foremost about trying to articially boost women up to a level where they can be useful in a capitalistic setting. For that reason, they need to be able to get education and jobs, and hence, the main focus, in light of the economy, is to make women equal in the workforce, and pander their material desires so they produce more wealth. One of the problems that arises while when people crave wealth in a feminist setting, is that the material desires will often overshadow jobs that are meaningful, it will usually be stupid jobs that weren't needed if people weren't so dimwitted. To create an economy based on women's whims is about the worst foundation ever. It is really men who need to wake up, and see the damage it's doing...

edit: structure revising--


edit2: I do find myself sounding abit obvious though.. ofcourse that's the case, but what are we gonna do about it?... well, jobs would obviously improve if people changed, and thus their priorities and focuses changed, so again, it comes back to people becoming more conscious

[Kunga]

My boss is a woman (a self made millionaire) .
Yet she lives like she's poor (she's from India).
I'm at work now...but when i get home i will rip your misogenic world apart.
LOL

[Robert]

Before you attempt that Kunga, remember that Kelly's woman is also man; she's making a larger statement about the feminine of both sexes. So you'd be better to try and "rip her misanthropy apart", but even that would be to miss the whole point.

[namae nanka]

Opposers of feminism are dubbed as misogynists by the naive.People are waking upto the duplicity of it, as society spirals downward.Internet is helping as a platform for men to get organized and speak against which PC culture would not let them speak in public.

Worthwhile reads:

Feminization of Mankind by Satyr(is he here on this board?)
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussi ... d-t370.htm

The Misandry Bubble
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/ ... ubble.html

[Carmel]

namae nanka:
Opposers of feminism are dubbed as misogynists by the naive.

Carmel:
"Feminism" is equally as regressive as masculinism or nationalism. They're all manifestations of egotism. People who try to find an identity through a group, rather than as an individual, then revering that group over others...it's pure ego.

namae nanka:
People are waking upto the duplicity of it, as society spirals downward.Internet is helping as a platform for men to get organized and speak against which PC culture would not let them speak in public.

Carmel:
Most modern masculinists and feminists from progressive cultures i.e. U.S. just sound whiny.

Both genders have free speech and equal rights (homosexuals being the exception;U.S.) "PC culture" certainly doesn't prevent people from whining about "the opposite" sex.

It's as though they're creating enemies out of half the population unnecessarily and blaming the "other" when really, it's clearly an internal conflict, or attempt to boost one's ego, in most cases.

[Tomas]

Carmel:
Both genders have free speech and equal rights (homosexuals being the exception;U.S.) "PC culture" certainly doesn't prevent people from whining about "the opposite" sex.

Homosexual being the exception? Please explain.

[Carmel]

Tomas,

...more specifically, I was referring to legal marital rights. 45 out of 50 states prohibit same sex marriage, but other than that, they are entitled to the same Constitutional freedoms that heterosexuals enjoy, to the best of my knowledge.

[Tomas]

Tomas,

...more specifically, I was referring to legal marital rights. 45 out of 50 states prohibit same sex marriage, but other than that, they are entitled to the same Constitutional freedoms that heterosexuals enjoy, to the best of my knowledge.

Seeing that 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce .. why would homo/lesbian couples care to travel down that path?

I mean, why do they not start their own "churches" (mosques/temples/buddhist/whatever) and truly be liberated? Why go into the mainstream "churches" where there will always be resistance at every turn. As long as the voters of each state keep turning it down at the ballot box it will always be this way.

As far as the federal government getting involved, well, look at Elena Kagan, she'll probably be confirmed to the -US Supremes- and then she will be able to probably? break the close sexual/gender issues that come up every year.

Change comes at the edges - not from the center .. or the old left/right schisms.

It's like the cookie. No matter how careful one takes a bite, a crumb or two always escape. That is where the homosexual issue should be taken up at.

If the federals force the little people (of each state) to conform to their dictates it simply creates another firestorm that is next to impossible to put out.

Witness that former (Republican) senator from Idaho. He's cruising for some gay sex in a toilet stall, the whatchamacallit foot tapper dude. It just sets the whole thing back for everybody concerned. Or, Democrat Barney Frank chasing after some 17-year-old page/intern back in the 1980s.


It comes down to the age of consent and that is age 18. Leave the kids alone and the "problem" would go away.

You know, Carmel, their are child molesters in the homosexual/lesbian community, you see? It sends a message that those perverts are rife in the gay world and they are all out to get your son/daughter to take a walk on the wild side.

Look. My opinion? Just shack up with some guy/girl and get on with living...... The hell with society and making a difference.

Just get on with one's own "relationship" out of the public eye.

In conclusion (for today, anyway) I'm reminded of a few parades that I've attended in the San Francisco area. When you see some guy shoving a bullwhip up another guy ass .. you know?

Or, some woman jamming a tickler on another girls twat, you know?

Get the idea .. why legalize something like same sex marriages when in the end, we're all just a bunch of degenerates anyway. Get on with life and concern oneself with the person lying next to you.

[pointexter]

...a self made millionaire.

like... she's from India

I'm at work now...but

your misogenic world...

LOL

l'm

your

LOL

[Carmel]

Tomas:
Seeing that 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce .. why would homo/lesbian couples care to travel down that path?

Carmel:
yes, I know, as a matter of fact, I'm part of that statistic. That statistic is further evidence that marriage may be becoming increasingly obsolete as I contended in another thread... Anyway, I don't think you're asking the right question. The question is should homosexuals be entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexuals? Whether or not marriage is a good idea from a personal, subjective viewpoint is a different matter entirely. Personally, I ascribe to a general anti-marriage viewpoint for a variety of (mostly)objective reasons, but in spite of this, I wouldn't want these views legally imposed upon anyone else.

Tomas:
I mean, why do they not start their own "churches" (mosques/temples/buddhist/whatever) and truly be liberated? Why go into the mainstream "churches" where there will always be resistance at every turn. As long as the voters of each state keep turning it down at the ballot box it will always be this way.

Carmel:
Tomas! really, separatism? Should homosexuals have their own separate drinking fountains like blacks used to...? I don't know why you would consider that true liberation. This is what the civil rights activists fought against in the 60's, was it not?

Tomas:
Change comes at the edges - not from the center .. or the old left/right schisms.

Carmel:
You're right. It does...but, beyond that, it comes from groups of people who consider themselves oppressed in some way. I seriously doubt that homosexuals will find contentment by slinking off quietly into their separatist churches as you seem to be proposing. They'll continue to fight for legal equality until they achieve goals.

Tomas:
It's like the cookie. No matter how careful one takes a bite, a crumb or two always escape. That is where the homosexual issue should be taken up at.

Carmel:
I have no idea what this means. :)

Tomas:
If the federals force the little people (of each state) to conform to their dictates it simply creates another firestorm that is next to impossible to put out.

Carmel:
nor this...Could you please elaborate?

Tomas:
Witness that former (Republican) senator from Idaho. He's cruising for some gay sex in a toilet stall, the whatchamacallit foot tapper dude. It just sets the whole thing back for everybody concerned. Or, Democrat Barney Frank chasing after some 17-year-old page/intern back in the 1980s.

Carmel:
Yeah, alot of people(read men) are obsessed with sex, this type of behaviour is not exclusive to homosexual men... and some women and girls are promiscuous as well, obviously. Larry Craig is anecdotal, meaning, one can't judge an entire group of people based upon one person's actions.

Tomas:
You know, Carmel, their are child molesters in the homosexual/lesbian community, you see? It sends a message that those perverts are rife in the gay world and they are all out to get your son/daughter to take a walk on the wild side.

Carmel:
Are there more child molesters in the gay community than in the heterosexual comm...per capita, I mean? Do you have any evidence of this?

Tomas:
Look. My opinion? Just shack up with some guy/girl and get on with living...... The hell with society and making a difference.

Carmel:
Well, personally, I hear ya :)...but, I simply don't think it's for me or the government to impose our "morality" or lifestyle on others, dictating how they should lives their lives, who they can or can't marry...It's should be a personal choice and freedom.

[Dan Rowden]

Bit on their loe you get could get something going!

Er, you are one trip away from banishment.

[Kelly Jones]

namae nanka: Opposers of feminism are dubbed as misogynists by the naive.

Carmel: "Feminism" is equally as regressive as masculinism or nationalism. They're all manifestations of egotism. People who try to find an identity through a group, rather than as an individual, then revering that group over others...it's pure ego.

I don't think that follows, Carmel. There's no essential difference between calling myself a liker of oranges, or calling myself a masculine individual. Both of these identities are based on observations of my own qualities (why I prefer oranges, or what my character is like), and then confirmed with more encompassing observations of the wider environment (what other fruit is available, or literature by individuals that demonstrates similar character qualities). What other people are like only confirms my own conclusions, but isn't necessary to know what I am.

namae nanka: People are waking upto the duplicity of it, as society spirals downward.Internet is helping as a platform for men to get organized and speak against which PC culture would not let them speak in public.

Carmel: Most modern masculinists and feminists from progressive cultures i.e. U.S. just sound whiny.

That's quite a belittling comment, isn't it? It seems as if you hold all complaints to be equally self-indulgent, and based on no reasons whatever. Lumping everything into the same basket may be convenient, but it probably overlooks some important distinctions. For instance, the irony that a major complaint of men in the men's rights movement is that feminists often have a victim mentality, causing them to complain for self-indulgent reasons.

Both genders have free speech and equal rights (homosexuals being the exception;U.S.) "PC culture" certainly doesn't prevent people from whining about "the opposite" sex.

It doesn't prevent anyone, but it causes the majority to turn a blind eye to men that complain about women (and who don't then turn around and seek women's approval, like Billy Connolly, Adam Carolla, Chris Rock, and so on). This can be very dangerous. The "non-existent" complainer can be treated like an untouchable, and no one would care if they are accidentally eliminated - because no one can actually even see them.

It's as though they're creating enemies out of half the population unnecessarily and blaming the "other" when really, it's clearly an internal conflict, or attempt to boost one's ego, in most cases.

Interestingly, this is the same argument that women have used to support feminism. Namely, that men would treat the "female complaints" as hysteria, rather than acknowledging that there is indeed something causing the complaint. In women's cases, it is psychological mismanagement, and indeed is internal.

...

[Dan Rowden]

Your drug-induced posts are about as funny as a heart attack. If you make me have to delete a swag of that crap again I'll ban you. Hokay?

[Dan Rowden]

You are being, by any sane measure, a complete fuckwit. This is - really - your last warning. I have made my position clear. I don't give a damn if you don't like it. I'm not here to make you happy and provide a venue for your ridiculous whimsy.

Seriously, any other admin would have banned you by now. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, stupid.

[Dan Rowden]

I'll delete any damn thing I like. Post that sort of drug-addled shit and I will delete it - end of story and of discussion.

Oh and go wipe your nose - you have snot pouring out of it.

[Carmel]

Kelly:
Interestingly, this is the same argument that women have used to support feminism. Namely, that men would treat the "female complaints" as hysteria, rather than acknowledging that there is indeed something causing the complaint.

Carmel:
In some cases, it is hysteria and both genders participate in it. It's just as ridiculous when men engage in egotistical tirades and histrionic rants about women as when women do it regarding men. As I see it, they're both subjecting themselves to a form of egoic mental slavery.

Kelly:
In women's cases, it is psychological mismanagement, and indeed is internal.

Carmel:
l-o-l! Yeah, that applies to men, as well, but you conveniently overlooked that fact, in favor of your usual one-sidedness.

When do you turn 35, Kelly? :)

[Kelly Jones]

Carmel, you have basically repeated your view that a man complaining about a woman, or a masculine individual promoting masculinity, is being egoistic. There is obviously an abundance of people who rant and rave about their offended sensibilities, and this is obviously egoistic. Yet this doesn't address those men who make justified, and reasoned, calm complaints - or, indeed, women. Your argument really doesn't address those situations in the slightest. And, in addition, it doesn't address those who know that their own character traits can be suitably identified as masculine, which is what I have already explained. Would you care to respect the mechanics of a rational dialogue by responding to these points?

You must have already realised that your attitude relies on that very argument. Namely, that people can make justified, and reasoned, complaints, without being dumped in the "egoistic, whiny" basket. Otherwise, we would have to dump you in that basket, wouldn't we? Why is your own complaint not subject to the same charge?


.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: In women's cases, it is psychological mismanagement, and indeed is internal.

Carmel: lol! Yeah, that applies to men, as well, but you conveniently overlooked that fact, in favor of your usual one-sidedness.

Well, what would you make of that ironic situation I mentioned?

To be clearer: women are statistically more prone to anxiety and distress. But, like a child who plays "sick" to get off school, some women exploit that reputation for anxiety or emotionalism. It allows them to avoid a lot of the stress of responsibility, which others are forced to shoulder. Naturally, those others complain about it.

Do you see why it would make sense to describe the men complaining about women's "victim mentality" - rather than it being a men's internal problem? If not, that's your prerogative, of course. But I hope you would explain why.

...

dejavu,

Thanks for providing an example of how a person may be "playing crazy" on purpose to get the responsibility of his own foolishness taken off his shoulders. It is really very good timing.


Kelly

[Carmel]

Kelly:
Why is your own complaint not subject to the same charge?

Carmel:
It is. I was whining about the whiners. Whining begets whining, get it? :)

I'm sure there are plenty of whiny, insecure teenagers and geriatric xenophobes on youtube who would love to whine, uh...discuss the same redundant points about gender that have been rehashed here ad nauseum. meh.

[Dan Rowden]

I changed the censor system to show "l-ol" as "I'm a moron". What, you don't find that funny?

[Robert]

I changed the censor system to show "l-ol" as "I'm a moron". What, you don't find that funny?

lol

[namae nanka]

Carmel

"Feminism" is equally as regressive as masculinism or nationalism. They're all manifestations of egotism. People who try to find an identity through a group, rather than as an individual, then revering that group over others...it's pure ego.

I don't know how that relates to what I said, but masculinity doesn't lead to groups.If masculinism, as said here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism exalts masculinity while promoting equal treatment of sexes then it's much better than feminism for today's society.
When you have a pure ego you don't need groups. Feminization of mankind that I linked to earlier uses "feminization" to indicate this increased tendency of people to fall in groups since their egos are being diminished.

Most modern masculinists and feminists from progressive cultures i.e. U.S. just sound whiny.

Masculinists do have genuine concerns.I am from India btw.

Both genders have free speech and equal rights (homosexuals being the exception;U.S.) "PC culture" certainly doesn't prevent people from whining about "the opposite" sex.

Sexual harassment laws will like to differ.
Also,
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/e ... DN8pAlWdNJ

Look up Lawrence Summer's Harvard fiasco if you think free speech exists.Sexist charge will shut up most of the men.

It's as though they're creating enemies out of half the population unnecessarily and blaming the "other" when really, it's clearly an internal conflict, or attempt to boost one's ego, in most cases.

Women are not the enemies, they can't be, 1)because men care for women 2)enmity is between equals.
It's the current ideologies prevailing in society, the inability of people to accept the truth that men and women are not equal and trying their best to bring about equality by artificial means; lowering standards as Kelly points out, being one of them, institutes that specifically help women another.
Masculinists oppose these artificial means, especially where equality has been achieved and gone in the direction of women and when law discriminates against men as fathers and husbands in divorce and domestic abuse cases respectively.

[Pye]

1. I have got to wonder how many have received their notion of 'feminism' strictly through popular media, or through older notions of the form? I know women at the big uni who teach feminism as synonymous with humanism, and it has been this way for several decades. There's nothing separatist or hegemonic about it: their target is sexism; their aim is everyone's release from it, up to and most certainly including the male paradigms that every small boy has suffered from his playground name-calling; his disinterest in sports; his disinclination to see women as prey; his 'unmanly' sensitivities to thought, art, philosophy, retrospection, etc. and anything else that he 'violates' regarding the traditional male paradigm. Most of the women I know who teach feminism, teach it as a matter breaking all behavioral expectations that are supposed to align themselves with one's sex. Interestingly, a few of them might even be a friend to the idea that women have and can have what are considered traditionally masculine traits and vice versa. Any kind of persecution over failure to meet the traditional paradigm is the target of a few of these women. They are not trying to align themselves with the male paradigm, or promote a strictly female paradigm. They are trying to get rid of the paradigms altogether. That's the ground you ought to be addressing your complaints to, at least, regarding this kind of feminism.

because:

2. We cannot say "the feminists" anymore, any more than we can say what "they" think. Saying that displays one's ignorance of the splintered views that characterize anything that falls under this rubric these days. It is a wildly mixed bag right now. It's largely been watered down to something called Gender Studies.

3. Further, I know of a species of feminism that is expressly focused upon differences. It came quickly upon the heels of the women-just-need-to-prove-they-can-do-anything-a-man does. THAT notion has been being criticized since it appeared, by women who call themselves feminists. It is expressly the mal-formed notion that men and women experience the same things and/or have equal capacities and reactions to the world that they are arguing against.

4. The way I have seen the word "equality" used these day in any feminist context is simply "equality of opportunity." Period. Any human being interested in the promotion of human excellence would be an idiot to deny based on sex-roles any human effort before it has a chance to succeed or fail.

5. I would seriously love to see some self-education here on this issue, because most person's framework when they discuss "feminism" is based on a definition from the dark ages and knows nothing about the fractal and conflicting notions that inhabit the rubric now. You might be surprised to find how a few of these notions are quite sympathetic to a number of the aims and grounds of this very forum.

[Pye]

6. to be fair, there is indeed a species of female-centered feminism that points to what they call "female values" and how promotion of these might offset the male-dominance model that has characterized a lot of history - up to and including our attitudes toward the 'use' and dispensation of the environment; colonization of peoples who are other-than industrialized society; and of course, the business of war. Some of it is done through taoist notions, like "Know the white; keep to the black"; passivity over aggression, etc. in everything from how we farm food (aggressively) to how we raise animals for consumption (aggressively) to how we misunderstand environmental interrelationship in favor of a top-down view of things, with man as the master of all.

7. I also know of people who call themselves feminist who have dedicated their time to unraveling god-belief and religion as artifacts of reified beliefs in man's notion of himself as at the 'top' of the chain.

8. Another species of feminists takes after economic structures exactly pointed out in Kelly's essay. I recall some of the blazing ["feminist"] critiques of the forces of capitalism that led women to believe that Marxism might be their opportunity to get across the commodification of women themselves.

9. And, yes, I heard-tell of a uni-teacher who has stood under the umbrella of "feminism" in order to support everything from high-heels to make-up to anything else a woman might fancy as defendable and necessary to her sense of the feminine.

10. And who can forget Beauvoir. 60 years ago she pointed out the victim-nature of many women and how the only excuse for their oppression is themselves. I believe Beauvoir is known as a "feminist," too. ;)

I'm not the author of this situation: that anything wandering onto the territory of sex/gender issues has stood under this most misunderstood term: feminism. If one means to address "feminism," one should at least make it clear which belief structure they mean to take after. Kelly made it relatively clear which type of feminism she is critiquing (phenomenal equality), but seriously, the only place I see that in evidence anymore is in popular culture. And we all know what kind of handle popular culture has on anything.