Leaving Reddit for trying erase women.

submitted by hylia from self.Introductions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

So not from feminists because women should aspire to be men then?

Also sorry where are feminists calling white mother's toxic. Haven't seen that one either I'm afraid.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

So not from feminists because women should aspire to be men then?

Sorry, not following.

Also sorry where are feminists calling white mother's toxic. Haven't that one either I'm afraid.

There are a bunch, here is one.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/white-kids-racism-way-privileged-parenting-props-unjust-system-ncna953951

This is the author: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/05/12/noah-berlatsky-perseveres-in-his-quest-to-become-americas-next-top-feminist/

Still want the "broader societal trends". When you said it, it sounded so easy to quantify that it wouldn't be difficult to evidence. If you can't locate evidence what was your thought?

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

That was what you said...

Do you need me to directly quote you, do you not remember your own arguments a few hours later.

Meanwhile that article is about generational racism and how racist people have racist children... so I guess it might in a round about way be about white people not having kids if you think all white people are racist. Also not from a feminist.

You're really striking out here.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

feminists because women should aspire to be men then

The sentence was and still is bad. I think you're referring to my claim that feminists pushed women to behave as men. They did. Feminists have always pushed women towards careers and "independence" instead of families - which many in their own words describe as slavery. Do you want me to start linking you books? Wage slavery is not "independence", and lacking the support of a family isn't safety.

Meanwhile that article is about generational racism and how racist people have racist children... so I guess it might in a round about way be about white people not having kids if you think all white people are racist.

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/yes-all-white-people-are-racist-eefa97cc5605

https://www.alternet.org/2015/01/yes-all-white-people-are-racists-now-lets-do-something-about-it/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/jul/03/raceintheuk.comment

In order to know your position I need to understand which parts of Critical Theory you reject, and which you accept. I thought you all only rejected the bits about Gender Identity - but apparently that's not true.

Also not from a feminist.

The problem with ideological identity groups, is that anyone can self-identify with that group. Who credentials valid membership in an ideology, within which not even it's adherents can agree upon the goals?

/edit: Still waiting on your core argument to be supported: "broader societal trends". We've gone off on tangent related to side topics. My core argument was and still is that Feminism isn't a biologically viable ideology if it's adherents don't produce replacement rates of children. Your argument was that it's needed to combat broader societal trends forcing women towards marriage and motherhood - to afford women that don't want those things the opportunity to pursue careers.

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I'm a radical feminist buddy, it's in my name. We reject male "feminists" because they don't meet the basic criteria to be feminists. The same way you'd never take the word of an African american person who claimed to speak for the KKK.

Meanwhile women of the past weren't slaves in the home? Women of today aren't slaves to domestically abusive partners who keep them imprisoned in the home? Workers have legal protections, it was legal for husbands to rape wives less than 30 years ago. And feminists are the ones who made it illegal.

Feminism has never pushed women towards anything, it's pushed them away from dependence upon men who treated/treat them like possessions and abused them.

Feminism was and still is reactionary, so looking at what feminism has promoted without looking at why is pretty duplicitous.

Ps. You're right about that sentence though, and self identifying which is why I judge based on criteria.

Pps. Again not feminist sources and not telling white people to literally stop breeding.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'll reiterate that I'm still waiting for a justification of your core argument. What societal pressures exist today in the West forcing women into marriage and motherhood?

I'm a radical feminist buddy, it's in my name. We reject male "feminists" because they don't meet the basic criteria to be feminists. The same way you'd never take the word of an African american person who claimed to speak for the KKK.

This is all nice and well, I don't even disagree.

Meanwhile women of the past weren't slaves in the home? Women of today aren't slaves to domestically abusive partners who keep them imprisoned in the home?

In general, no to both. Exceptions are not the rule.

Workers have legal protections, it was legal for husbands to rape wives less than 30 years ago. And feminists are the one who made it illegal.

It is more fair to state that it wasn't criminalized, because it's very difficult to prove rape where there is implied and prior consent.

Feminism has never pushed women towards anything,

This statement is contradicted by all available evidence, and even your next sentence.

it's pushed them away from dependence upon men who treated/treat them like possessions and abused them.

This could be more accurately stated as, "it's pushed them away from men". The relationship between men and women is symbiotic - not parasitic.

Feminism was and still is reactionary, so looking at what feminism had promoted without looking at why is pretty duplicitous.

Feminism was and is still is a subset of Critical Theory whose stated goals including deconstructing and tearing down the concept of gender roles, race, sex, religion, the traditional family, and capitalism. Which parts of that deconstruction do you accept and which don't you? It's obvious you don't accept all of them.

It's clear you are getting frustrated, don't. I'm trying to understand your rationale - not attack you.

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I said feminism had never pushed women toward anything. I stand by that, pushing toward means your end point is known and the goal, pushing away means you are only trying to remove yourself from where you are, that is your goal.

Feminism was reactionary, if women weren't being abused then what were they reacting too?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Feminism was reactionary, if women weren't being abused then what were they reacting too?

Originally it was just to enfranchise women with their own vote on a federal level. Many states already had it.

Side rant: The original constitution limited voting to White male property owners and tax payers of good moral character (no criminal history). Then men got Universal Suffrage (a terrible idea), so women wanted it too (only fair, but building on a terrible idea). Universal Suffrage has been a disaster - but that's a whole nother topic.

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So in your mind only white men should hold any legal rights.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, everyone should hold the same legal rights and protections under the law - the exception being voting rights.

Only net contributors to state coffers should be allowed to vote. If you are sucking up more resources than you contribute, you don't get to decide how resources are allocated.

To make an analogy, there is a difference between offering someone down on their luck a meal and a room for the night, and someone being able to commandeer a room in your house and demand you cook them one because "food and shelter are human rights". Beggars can't be choosers.

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ppps. I didn't have an argument about societal trends pushing women into gender roles. They do. I asked if you disliked feminists for pushing independence on women who don't want it, then are you also as critical of society for doing the opposite pushing motherhood on women who don't want it.

If you'd like to argue about feminism's biological sustainability from a population perspective we can do that too though.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So if you dislike feminism just for discouraging women from being wives and mothers... How do you feel about broader societal trends that funnel and pressure them directly into it?

That was your original question - to me. I challenged that there were broader societal trends that pressure them directly into it. I asked for evidence of those trends and made a bunch of side commentary. That's how we got here. About the only pressure I've ever known women to receive to be wives and mothers are from parents that want grand-kids. It's a relatable desire, but it's not like I can name any people that were ever disowned for being spinsters.

If you'd like to argue about feminism's biological sustainability from a population perspective we can do that too though.

I certainly would - but in a more open discussion. I think we're so deep down the rabbit hole of "show more comments" that we're basically PM'ing back and forth at this point. Once the debate sub gets stood up (if that happens) I really want to determine the answer to this question:

Feminism was and is still is a subset of Critical Theory whose stated goals including deconstructing and tearing down the concept of gender roles, race, sex, religion, the traditional family, and capitalism. Which parts of that deconstruction do you accept and which don't you? It's obvious you don't accept all of them.

While you can answer that for yourself, I don't think you can answer it for your loosely aligned group.

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Who says I even agree that feminism is subset of critical theory?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It doesn't matter if you disagree, it objectively is. Your opinions don't have the power to define areas of sociology. I can't call myself a communist and preach privatization of everything. My opinion doesn't change what the term means.

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Tell that to all the walking bundles of sticks out there.