Feminism redux - please read first post of thread

[jarl the climber]

Good gravy. Despite the OP, this thread has turned possibly even shitter than usual feminism threads. Next time, maybe we should try disguising it as a thread about scrapbooking or something?

Yeah, I'd rather hear people talking about how feminist theory works in their everyday life, raising their kids and whatnot as opposed to debating the validity of the theory itself, its not really about whether I agree with it or not, some of you guys think it valid and I'm curious to know how that works out for you as a practical matter.

[KiDisaster]

So this has been making the rounds on my Facebook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQLlZoyphsc&feature=youtu.be (Warning, shows domestic violence. It's actors, but I figured I'd say that nonetheless. Also don't read the comments unless you want your daily dose of rage).

Of course people are jumping all over it and using to argue against feminism, saying this is why we need MRAs and all the other typical bullshit. Ignoring the fact that issues like this are ones that feminism aim to solve.

Why are people so fucking stupid?

[The Drunkard]

There are some gems in those comments.

"Womans are more stupid, so murder by woman is more possible than murder by man"

"Jesus does not care about men."

"When we got home I would strangler her"

- the role of feminism in different arena of human endeavors (job, religions, sports, dating, entertainment, etc.)

General question: are video games getting better, do you think?

Specific question: is something like The Last of Us an ideal or close to it game when it comes to representing women?

Had a conversation with my brother about it, and he's more in line with the first article. Made me curious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/arts/video-games/in-the-video-game-the-last-of-us-survival-favors-the-man.html?_r=1&

The Last of Us aspires to be an interactive, mixed-company version of “The Road,” in this case the story of the relationship between an older man and a 14-year-old girl as they try to survive in an oppressive and deadly wasteland. Almost throughout, however, it is actually the story of Joel, the older man. This is another video game by men, for men and about men.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/gender-balance-in-the-last-of-us

The writers at Naughty Dog set out to make a survival action game, but they also managed to create a world in which the male and female characters are portrayed realistically. I wasn't playing a game where I was Joel, the hero, and everyone owes their life to my bravery, strength, and capability in a world where humanity has gone to hell. Even though the post-apocalypse storyline has been done to death, The Last of Us is a human story of survival, wherein both men and women shown to be up to the task.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-05-the-last-of-us-isnt-the-solution-to-sexism-in-games-but-its-a-start

It's true that Ellie's role in the game is secondary, but I don't think it's subordinate. She argues with Joel. She has the power to challenge his decisions and change his mind. At numerous points in the game, she is the one in charge. She is the protector. At the end, it's Joel who is revealed to be the weaker character. He needs Ellie more than she needs him. Because of this, he makes a selfish decision that will have catastrophic consequences. Then lies to her about it. What a wanker.

[karaddin]

I think we are at the first upward slope of games and games developers improving, there will be a lot of awful for some time still but there is an awful lot of talk about it in the industry and some of it is really hitting home.

The gaming community is a different story, I think it needs to admit there is a problem before it will start to fix it and it's still a ways off that.

[Lyanna Stark]

Instead of the MRA stuff, I thought this post by mouse brings up an interesting point for discussion:

As a feminist and mostly lurker on this thread, I think that it is a fair discussion topic - and, more importantly, not in violation of the first post warning/spirit of the thread - regarding whether a cultural shift where fathers can be and are criticized for working too much means that mothers can be fairly criticized for working too much. I think most of us would answer that question similarly for a lot of reasons,* but I don't necessarily agree that asking the question (even in the way the poster did) warrants the reaction. For me, at least, the post didn't come across as the all-too-typical thread-derailing nonsense. Just my two cents.

*I think many of us would say that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison; that criticism of man-as-negligent-parent comes across as, "It's sad that he wasted his life on unimportant things," whereas woman-as-negligent parent comes laden with vitriol and anger. (I also think there are others here that would articulate that way better than I have.) Still - is it progress that men are starting to get criticized for caring too much about their jobs and too little about their families? Or is it not?

The view of "women as parents" and "men as parents" is a really interesting topic which seems to have changed somewhat the last twenty years or so. It's no longer "strange" with working mothers as it perhaps used to be, on the other hand, I wonder if the subconscious view of working mothers is hugely different? I read an article today regarding voting patterns for feminist leaning parties, and the main denominator was level of education. The higher the average education level, the more inclined people became to supporting parties adhering to feminist ideas.

My feeling is that this is also true for how people view mothers vs fathers, that in more highly educated areas, it is more acceptable for men to be involved parents and it's more ok for women to work more and leave a larger chunk of the child care to her partner. It also seems to me that it is within these groups where the "negligent fathers" may get more flak for working too much and not taking enough part in their children's lives. There's definitely a sense that a man who dumps all the childcare on his wife in order to cater to his high flying career may not be regarded all that kindly anymore. It probably depends on the career as well. A politician may be treated differently than a banker on this topic, I think.

If it is development? I think it is, but the underlying "woman as mother and main care taker" seems to be hard to shake. Case in point: when my husband was on parental leave, my colleagues where aghast when they learnt I let him choose our daughter's clothes for the day. Apparently this was Just Not Something Men Could Manage. :lol:

[Sparrowyn]

Instead of the MRA stuff, I thought this post by mouse brings up an interesting point for discussion:

The view of "women as parents" and "men as parents" is a really interesting topic which seems to have changed somewhat the last twenty years or so. It's no longer "strange" with working mothers as it perhaps used to be, on the other hand, I wonder if the subconscious view of working mothers is hugely different? I read an article today regarding voting patterns for feminist leaning parties, and the main denominator was level of education. The higher the average education level, the more inclined people became to supporting parties adhering to feminist ideas.

My feeling is that this is also true for how people view mothers vs fathers, that in more highly educated areas, it is more acceptable for men to be involved parents and it's more ok for women to work more and leave a larger chunk of the child care to her partner. It also seems to me that it is within these groups where the "negligent fathers" may get more flak for working too much and not taking enough part in their children's lives. There's definitely a sense that a man who dumps all the childcare on his wife in order to cater to his high flying career may not be regarded all that kindly anymore. It probably depends on the career as well. A politician may be treated differently than a banker on this topic, I think.

If it is development? I think it is, but the underlying "woman as mother and main care taker" seems to be hard to shake. Case in point: when my husband was on parental leave, my colleagues where aghast when they learnt I let him choose our daughter's clothes for the day. Apparently this was Just Not Something Men Could Manage. :lol:

I think this might be a generational thing, and why it's been a long slow grind in the way attitudes have changed over the last two decades.

Guys from my generation (now in their 40s), especially those of us growing up in blue-collar neighborhoods and who are first generation American, tend to box up much of our identity in our job/profession. As a boy I was taught and prepared for my eventual place in the world... as provider and protector. That was to be my role within the family structure, no questions asked.

I've certainly heard an earful over the years about putting job first and family second!

I think some feminists don't understand or fully appreciate how difficult it can be to break from that mold. Gender roles are a two-way street, they trap men and women alike. To give you an idea just how engrained these things are... when my dad was battling cancer for the second time and was told by his doctors that his cancer was terminal, and to get his life in order as he would not be around for much longer; he asked me to drive him to where he worked so he could say goodbye to his mates and pickup his toolbox. It was the only time in my life I ever saw my dad cry. From then on, and even until today, my mother has been in the workplace as her role in the family changed. She's now in her late 70s and still working full time, and has helped each of her kids financially with university costs and buying first homes.

I would fall short of calling my mother a 'feminist', but she seems to have lived up to some feminist ideals.

[MerenthaClone]

You're literally describing things that feminism is aware of, that feminism enabled a discussion of, and that feminism is working to do. They absolutely do understand and appreciate how difficult it can be to break from that mold. It is because of feminism that doing so is even possible or desirable.

[Athias]

As I pointed out before, and which Simone de Beauvoir pointed out already in 1949, to deny that 1. there is a group referred to as women 2. this group suffers a lack of privilige compared to their male counterpart.

It is meaningless and a flight from reality to deny that women as a group exist. It is meaningless and a flight from reality to pretend that this group is not experiencing a lack of privilige.

The mere acknowledgement of women as a "group," other than a characteristic assertion of biology, is not individualistic. I'm not "flying from reality." You're projecting a definable feminine essence--which includes a lacking of political privilege--onto select people who happen to share particular biological markers. Half of the population consist of females -- how can we be a "group" of identical experience? You're only informing my point for which your feminism analyzes the condition of women--not the individual--with reference to an externality. You and Simone de Beauvoir may have shared a belief that feminism wants women to function as individuals. However, that belief is predicated on a notion of women belonging to a primordial "totality," for the lack of a better term, of mutual experience. Sorry, that's not individualism.

This is meaningless drivel that has nothing to do with a rebuttal of feminism. As pointed out in my quote above and which I have pointed out before, in my own words: there is no inherent contradiction between feminism and the individual. In fact, the opposite is true.

So can we please stop this "but feminism is against the individual", because I have now, several times, proven that this is not so and that in fact, whether essentialist or constructivist, whether liberal or radical or socialist feminist, at least that much they all have in common: to be free as individuals and not constantly be judged and measured as "a woman" first, but as a person first.

It's not meant to be a rebuttal to feminism. I was asked why I considered feminism to be collectivist. "We" did not suggest that feminism is against the individual. You've proven nothing, Lyanna, because there's nothing to prove. You can't support your case empirically. You can rationalize to the best of your ability, but said rationalizations have served my points much more than they have served yours. You're atempting to argue an individualist premise while simultaneously employing contradictory collectivist notions. Here you say, "to be free as individuals and not constantly be judged and measured as 'a woman' first, but as a person first." First, you're presuming a perception by an external collective. Secondly, you, again, are putting forth a defined condition of "a woman." Neither your use of an indefinite article nor the presumption of judgement and measurement manifested in peripheral thought changes that your premise is based on the existence of a group identity.

I just proved to you before that feminism is needed *because* women need to be liberated frAom being oppressed as a group. the group think you don't want *is already there*. You cannot remove it by sticking your head in the sand and pretending it does not exist. Women as a group is lacking privilige. To enable women to act as free individuals with all the possibilities our individual selves have, women need to have the same privilige as men. Hence why, to reach this level of freedom, the identification of the group "women" is needed, and its oppression eradicated.

I know, and that's why feminism is a collectivist ideology. You may want to believe that feminism advocates individual liberation, but it does not. It advocates the emancipation of "women" as a sociopolitical group. And the mere fact that you'd base the individualization of women on mirroring a condition of a collective male status of "privilege" contradicts every attempt that you've made at describing a feminist alignment with individualism.

So I suggest that unless you think women should not have the right to vote, that women should have to suffer sexual harrassment, that women should be denied abortion, that women should not be allowed to divorce, that women should not be allowed to inherit, or that women should have to suffer marital rape, you need to rethink your position on political feminism.

Because this is what political feminism is, and these are some of the things that feminists of the past and present have given us. If you are indeed a woman as you claim, I really hope you look at the list and ponder, seriously, how it would feel to be the receiving end of the negative side of those things. Not that great? In that case, you sympathise with feminism and what it has achieved in the past and what feminists are still struggling to achieve in many countries today.

To me this is really simple. If I read that list and I'm really happy I am not born 100 years ago, then I should be extremely appreciative of feminists and feminism. It really baffles me how somebody who self identifies as a woman would both deny that the group "women" exist, and then go on to deny that this group is and has been oppressed only to go on and claim that political action in the name of feminism is violence.

You know what the best thing is? Even if you and others have these opinions and find political feminism = violence, myself and a lot of other feminists will still go on and fight for your rights as a member in the group "women", whether you believe in it or not. The gains we manage to achieve will be to everyone's gain, not just our own.

You can thank us later.

*There is just so much wrong with what you've said here*

If I am indeed a woman? Do you believe my apathy to feminism is a result of biology? If so, I would love to see how you rationalize that assertion.

And if someone or something allows one's actions, it isn't a right. A right is a symbolic index of propriety based on a moral rationalization of existence. While true that rights are protected through social arrangement--or at least that's the gossip--social contract does not define them. There is no right to an abortion -- there's a right to one's body. There's no right to be free from rape or sexual harrassment -- there's a right to one's body. There's no right to inherit -- there's a right to property. There's no right to vote -- there's agency. If it is not of oneself, it isn't a right. A person is only entitled to oneself and that which is produced from oneself. One is not entitled to the behavior of another because that behavior is produced externally.

And for what should I be thanking you and political feminism? Should I thank you for negotiating a set of privileges in a political paradigm that seeks to dicate behavior? How is that in any way an attempt to "liberate?" I don't identify as "a woman," I only identify as me. And the fact that you think feminism has acted in my interests because I have a "giny" just goes to show that your arguments have perpetuated the notion that inidivudal interests are absorbed by group imperative. Once again, your attempts to align feminism with individualism have fallen short.

I understand you think that feminism is inconsistent with individualism, and while I understand the reasons you've provided, that does leave me with a pretty big question: In your opinion, could any kind of movement/ideology/philosophy/platform exist that functions similarly to feminism (e.g. is concerned with both social and legal gender equality), and fits with your ideal of individualism? Could the problems discussed in this thread be combated by ignoring all group behavior, and instead looking at how individuals interact on such a microscopic level?

In a functional sense, collective action is possible while acknowledging individual primacy. However any platform/movement/ideology/philosophy that defines a group identity by internalizing a sense of homogenity is not individualism. The problems alluded to in this thread, in my opinion, can be combatted by abandoning reductionist notions of a sociopolitical gendered dichotomy. Yes, look at how individuals interact on a microscopic level. Maybe then, one would understand that it's much more complex.

Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, but it sounds like you want to avoid any notion of group behavior, any allusion to the fact that some selection of people who share common attributes, who are affected by the way their culture reacts to those attributes, cannot be described under a single umbrella term. If this is your stance, why not? Surely, you're not in error by saying something like "women, on average, are paid less than men." There are absolute truths, which define the current problems that feminists are, by-and-large, trying to erase, which can only be described with reference to women, men, girls, boys, lawyers, scientists, construction workers, or what have you, as they exist as groups.

To the contrary, I have not avoided any notions of group behavior. One can make the argument that most, if not all, human beings share similar attributes. However, you want me to section off a particular subset based on a perceived cultural universalism. Not just that, but you want me to acknowledge an indentity--social and/or political--based on this cultural universalism. The problem I find with this notion is that it presumes women to be of a single self. How does that not erode individuality?

When you state, "women, on average, are paid less than men," I'd ask, why does it matter that women "on average" are paid less than men? Janitors "on average" are paid less than doctors. Do you perceive it to be a deviance from group interest? What if I as an individual agree to work for less money? Why are the interests of individuals being absorbed by the interests of a "group?" And how can you call that individualistic?

ETA: Was going to respond to your last paragraph, but I think Robin sums up my thoughts there quite nicely. I think your understanding of politics and mine very quite significantly, to say the least.

Legislation and public policy measures are enforced. How?

'pure' individualism is, as should be obvious from this thread, not apolitical.

how is support for 'big business' not collectivist, incidentally?

Unless argued in the context of self-government, 'pure' individualism is apolitical. And you're grasping. My support for big business is not collectivist in any way. It is within my interests to see business flourish in a free market economy. Whether that interest is mimicked by others has no bearing on me.

[MinDonner]

Sometimes I wonder if Libertarians are actually androids or Martians, so bizarre is their concept of human behaviour. Yay for you that you have no concept of group identity and always judge all other humans as individuals? But how can you be so blind to the fact that most other people DO make blanket assumptions and that that is what feminism (as well as other social justice movements) is trying to fight against? "Woman" (plus associated stereotypes) is a category we're put into by society, it's not some special gang invented by Germaine Greer. Not even gonna touch on the weirdo property rights shit, but you should at least try to bear in mind that you're using ... unorthodox definitions of words here.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I think this sums it up.

It is within my interests

There's no point in arguing with them, because that is their sole perspective.

[sologdin]

athias--

how in the world can hypothetical (and incidentally impossible) 'pure' individualism be apolitical? you can't be isolated in any way; you partake of the polis; your language is a the product of communal non-profit labor, which means your thoughts are inheritances of similar communal non-profit labor--there is no separateness. the attempt to sever the fruits of your alleged labor is based on fictions with political antecedents and political consequences.

and it is of course not reaching in the slightest to suggest that corporate power is collectivist power--the aggregation of many alleged 'individuals' through shareholding into one fictive collective will of the corporation as expressed in the fascistic orders of the board of directors, all protected by equally fictive limitation of liability and no natural person who can imprisoned for criminal acts.

[Lyanna Stark]

The mere acknowledgement of women as a "group," other than a characteristic assertion of biology, is not individualistic. I'm not "flying from reality." You're projecting a definable feminine essence--which includes a lacking of political privilege--onto select people who happen to share particular biological markers. Half of the population consist of females -- how can we be a "group" of identical experience? You're only informing my point for which your feminism analyzes the condition of women--not the individual--with reference to an externality. You and Simone de Beauvoir may have shared a belief that feminism wants women to function as individuals. However, that belief is predicated on a notion of women belonging to a primordial "totality," for the lack of a better term, of mutual experience. Sorry, that's not individualism.

Firstly, I think you need to look up the difference between "sex" and "gender"/"gender identity" becuase you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Sex does not equal gender identification. Nor is biological sex absolute. When I am speaking of "women" I am speaking primarly of people who identify as women, and who are perceived as women by their surroundings and will therefor be affected by stereotypes regarding women. Basically: if your surrounding classifies you as a woman, they will treat you as if you are a woman and you will reap the benefits and suffer the consequences of having this classification.

(If you have ever played an online game, for instance, you will be very much aware of the consequences and potential benefits of gender identity, as it will often completely dictate people's attitudes and behaviour towards you. Covered in depth in the geeks, gaming, racism, equality etc. threads.)

Secondly, I have never argued, and never will, that we are a group of "identical experiences", so you can stop hammering that strawman right now. What I did state, if you had looked was that the group commonly known as women (including cis & trans women, plus those individuals on the queer spectrul that idenfify as women) then that group suffers diminished priviliges compared to the group men. Do you deny that women experience oppression? If you do, I posit you are denying reality.

As for "primordial", I am uncertain what you put into this terminology. Do you mean to imply that I consider women to be beings from the pre-cambrian era? :lol: I can reassure you that the grouping of "women" is based purely on how we are reacted to in society.

Is it the fact that a grouping is attempted at all that angers you? In that case, is it also unacceptable to say, group people in straight, gay, bi and queer or say trans and cis?

Besides, if you yourself use "men" and "women" as categories, you are yourself using that grouping. If you use the pronouns "she" and "he" you are using the same grouping.

It's not meant to be a rebuttal to feminism. I was asked why I considered feminism to be collectivist. "We" did not suggest that feminism is against the individual. You've proven nothing, Lyanna, because there's nothing to prove. You can't support your case empirically. You can rationalize to the best of your ability, but said rationalizations have served my points much more than they have served yours. You're atempting to argue an individualist premise while simultaneously employing contradictory collectivist notions. Here you say, "to be free as individuals and not constantly be judged and measured as 'a woman' first, but as a person first." First, you're presuming a perception by an external collective. Secondly, you, again, are putting forth a defined condition of "a woman." Neither your use of an indefinite article nor the presumption of judgement and measurement manifested in peripheral thought changes that your premise is based on the existence of a group identity.

You mean I cannot put forth that women, as a group, are very often treated with pre-concieved notions regarding what it means to be a woman? Like for example that we prefer alphas :cool4: , or that we are better suited at being parents than men, or that we can wear dresses where men can't? Or that we're not as suited to be car mechanics? Or that we should not run around alone late at night? You know, these kind of tidbits. If so again, I pointed out to you that your views are a flight from reality. You refuse to accept that women, as a group, suffer diminished priviliges and as such, are oppressed?

So yes, you are goddamn right I am "presuming a perception by the external collective" if by that you mean "any other person interacting with me who will perceive my gender". I am honestly baffled how you think that people interacting with you would *not* react to your gender. If you think this, then you would not think it unusual when you meet a man in a skirt. If you think it is unusual, then you have preconceived notions about gender. Everyone does. It is one of the basic tenets of feminism that we do not live in a cultural vacuum and that to think we do is ludicrous. We are all products of our upbringing, our surroundings, our family etc.

Take us two, for instance. I am betting you are younger than I am, from a more solid middle-class background and that you have never really spent a lot of time outside the US. Our backgrounds are completely different, hence why we look at the world differently. We are both products of our respective backgrounds and none of us are unique special butterflies who can exist outside culture, space and time.

Yet all the same, we both live in cultures were women as a group are oppressed. Hence we will have different experiences, but within those experiences there will be similarities which relate to the fact that we are both women. For instance, we can both pick wearing high-heels, lipstick, a dress or a skirt and nobody will look twice. We may however think twice before going out alone for a midnight run in a pair of very short shorts since this could potentially attract men who will consider us sexually available. Not to mention that every day, people meet us, greet us and perceive us as women with everyone's individual knapsack of internalised sexism. In this way, we will share some experiences unique to being perceived as women, while some experiences will be vastly different.

If your surroundings perceive you as a woman, if your dress code classifies you as woman, and if you are referred to as "she" when people use pronouns, then you are already in the group "women" wether you want to or not. Your wishes/philosophical leanings in this are actually irrelevant, unless you want to introduce gender neutral pronouns for yourself and insist people use it about not just you, but everyone (these pronouns exist in other languages) and refuse to interact with people who refer to you as your identified gender. Plus of course, often forms etc. will require we fill out whether we idenfity as men or women. If you refuse to be grouped as a woman, that process will be problematic.

I know, and that's why feminism is a collectivist ideology. You may want to believe that feminism advocates individual liberation, but it does not. It advocates the emancipation of "women" as a sociopolitical group. And the mere fact that you'd base the individualization of women on mirroring a condition of a collective male status of "privilege" contradicts every attempt that you've made at describing a feminist alignment with individualism.

And then we come back again that if women are oppressed, then who is doing the oppression if not men? Santa Claus? :lol: Why is it so hard to accept that men as a group have more priviliges than women as a group? I have encountered before women who have mental blocks in place because they claim "it makes me feel like a victim". Is that what it is? It doesn't hurt to realise you are a part of a less priviliged group.

Further, as I explained previously, in order for women to reach any state of true individualism, we must first be on equal footing with men. Pretty simple. To get there, we need to do the following:

1. identify problem (group "women" is oppressed)

2. fix problem (apply measure to remove oppression)

3. gain individual freedom (at which point we can truly be free of gender contraints and go on our merry way in life)

*There is just so much wrong with what you've said here*

Yep, only if one fails at logic and reading.

If I am indeed a woman? Do you believe my apathy to feminism is a result of biology? If so, I would love to see how you rationalize that assertion.

Hah, no I am simply baffled that someone who identifies as a woman has so much self-loathing. It makes me sad. I know it should not, but it often happens when I see women so...caught up in defending a system that means to keep us in line, to be quiet in church, to cook the dinner and appeal to the man, as it were.

And if someone or something allows one's actions, it isn't a right. A right is a symbolic index of propriety based on a moral rationalization of existence. While true that rights are protected through social arrangement--or at least that's the gossip--social contract does not define them. There is no right to an abortion -- there's a right to one's body. There's no right to be free from rape or sexual harrassment -- there's a right to one's body. There's no right to inherit -- there's a right to property. There's no right to vote -- there's agency. If it is not of oneself, it isn't a right. A person is only entitled to oneself and that which is produced from oneself. One is not entitled to the behavior of another because that behavior is produced externally.

OK, if you want to debate libertarianism and your huge love for Ayn Rand et al, the politicial thread is the correct thread for that, because if you bring that shit in here, we're gonna have to close shop.

And for what should I be thanking you and political feminism? Should I thank you for negotiating a set of privileges in a political paradigm that seeks to dicate behavior? How is that in any way an attempt to "liberate?" I don't identify as "a woman," I only identify as me. And the fact that you think feminism has acted in my interests because I have a "giny" just goes to show that your arguments have perpetuated the notion that inidivudal interests are absorbed by group imperative. Once again, your attempts to align feminism with individualism have fallen short.

Well, as most feminists today are some variety of constructivism, your vagina powers or lack thereof have nothing to do with it, but your gender identification has. You may want to look up Julia Serano if this confuses you. Or Judith Butler.

As for whether feminism has acted in your interests, of course it has. Unless you think you would enjoy a life without the right to vote, where marital rape was totally ok etc etc all on the list I made. You may of course think whatever you want of it being a right or not, but the fact is, 100 years ago, women couldn't vote. Women had very limited access to education. Women couldn't freely wear trousers. Women could not inherit.

So whether you philosophically think this is a right or not is totally and utterly irrelevant. If you want to go back to how it was being a woman 100 years ago, then yeah, you should probably not thank feminism, but if you enjoy some of those perks feminism got you, like your vote, your trousers, that you are actually considered a person, legally. Then yes, you should thank feminism. And even if you don't, yeppers, feminists will still be there and fight your corner, in complete solidarity.

So, to conclude:

1. Gender identity, not sex, determines whether or not you will be grouped as a woman. If you identify as a woman, and if you are perceived as such by people around you, then you will suffer the consequences of this as well as enjoy the priviliges that grouping brings.

2. You cannot pretend that you are immune to this grouping, as if you identify as a woman and are perceived as a woman, you are automatically grouped. In fact, as you came out as a woman, you grouped yourself as such completely without my help.

3. Whether or not you think political feminism is good or bad, or whether you "believe" in rights or not, feminism has helped women's situation in many areas, as exemplified above. It will continue to do so.

[Lyanna Stark]

athias--

how in the world can hypothetical (and incidentally impossible) 'pure' individualism be apolitical? you can't be isolated in any way; you partake of the polis; your language is a the product of communal non-profit labor, which means your thoughts are inheritances of similar communal non-profit labor--there is no separateness. the attempt to sever the fruits of your alleged labor is based on fictions with political antecedents and political consequences.

and it is of course not reaching in the slightest to suggest that corporate power is collectivist power--the aggregation of many alleged 'individuals' through shareholding into one fictive collective will of the corporation as expressed in the fascistic orders of the board of directors, all protected by equally fictive limitation of liability and no natural person who can imprisoned for criminal acts.

But what if we are debating with a SPACE ALIEN from OUTER SPACE who has never met people before?? Such a pure being***, like newly fallen snow. :p

***unless Space alien = inchoroi

[1918me]

But what if we are debating with a SPACE ALIEN from OUTER SPACE who has never met people before?? Such a pure being***, like newly fallen snow. :P

***unless Space alien = inchoroi

It makes on one wonder whether libertarian theories are just one big contingency plan for the arrival of extra terrestrial. It would explain so much...

[sologdin]

I'm not arguing on behalf of isolation which is a purposeful effort to separate oneself physically. I'm arguing on behalf of individualilty -- a recognition of a distinct self.

an example of something that disputes the existence of distinct selves?

Politics is a system that dictates behavior through the use of force and/or the infusion of cultural homogenization. It subverts individuals into extensions of collective imperatives.

cultural homogenization can be, and most often is, market mechanism, as opposed to law. the point is abstract, and not necessarily disagreeable--but if there is no meaningful individuality in the presence of law and the market (or state &civil society, to be german about this), which convert alleged 'individuals' into EoCI (nice turn of phrase), what is the alternative other than the physical isolation that you have disclaimed? this is all very nebulous, to be honest. (i don't really accept the definition of politics, supra, but that's trivial.)

on that point: why assume the existence of discrete individuals anterior to a legal/market conversion into EoCI. by EoCI, it is meant that human persons are made to believe or perform actions on behalf of some group of two or more other persons? certainly it does not mean that the entire world is a single will with a single imperative against which the lone promethean/luciferian protagonist might struggle? i take all of this abstraction to be merely nacreous cover for a potentially puerile politics of 'i don't wanna do what they yell me.'

Now, while true that language is the product of communal labor--there was a profit motive--it does not define the self. Maybe the manner in which I rationalize my arguments is an inheritance, but the the way I understand myself is not. Be careful, though, you may not want to imply that I'm inseparable from past collective efforts--which can be extended to anyone. That does not help the argument that feminism is not collectivist.

why would i be cautious there? it's not a personal criticism of you, but a statement of default characteristics of the world. of course those statements are self-reflexive. it aids the argument that feminism is not 'collectivist' in any meaningful way whatsoever because it implodes the binaries upon which the argument that feminism is collectivist relies.

As for corporations, collective action does not undermine individual identity. People can form agreements and arrangements out of self-interest. People can also exit the arrangements freely.

yeah, but what does undermine individual identity in a manner that you recognize? corporations are economic aggregations that separate ownership from control. decision-making is placed in the hands of the board, which exercises that authority on behalf of lay shareholders, whose votes are not particularly meaningful in controlling the board. i doubt that all of the whining by objectivists and other teenage ultracappies regarding socialism has anything to do with beliefs and identity, but rather everything to do with property ownership and economic decisin-making.

so: what is particularly 'collectivist'--and why should anyone care about that--if feminism takes the hand it was dealt and agitates on behalf of women, as i'd previously mentioned?

[Lyanna Stark]

@Lyanna Stark:

I respectfully forego any future exchanges with you. It's like I said, I'm not a fan of "character" debates. I'm also not going to indulge a debate where you presume to know what's in my best interests. Thank you, but I decline.

Some friendly advice:

* I made absolutely 0 ad hominem attacks on you so I am unsure why you feel it's a "character" debate. If you get in to these debates, be prepared to argue your case. I wish you luck in the US Politics threads.

* Julia Serano explains in "Whipping Girl" what you need to know about sex vs gender identity vs brain sex. This may be of interest to you as the latter particularly describes that which pertains to our individual selves and has nothing to do with biology or society/groups. (Serano also explains brilliantly how cis-privilige works.)

* I also suggest you read up on the history of feminism and the achievements of feminism. For instance, women such as Susan B Anthony, Lucy Stone and Mary Wollstonecraft, to name a few. Perhaps then, you would not feel so negative about the achievements of our forebears.

* Lastly, if you jump into a thread like this one with no knowledge of previous discussions (which you can find by using the Search function), a complete lack of understanding of basic terminology (like gender vs sex) and debate from a point of view that feminism is not necessary, then you should be prepared for pretty harsh opposition.

[emberling]

That does not help the argument that feminism is not collectivist.

Did I miss something? Is someone here arguing the thesis feminism is not collectivist? I'm pretty sure the thesis is feminism is compatible with individualism, in response to your original rejection of feminism as undermining individual identity.

As we are not Objectivists*, we do not necessarily see collectivism and individualism as opposed. But the goalposts of collectivism have shifted several times here already and it's just providing a derailment from the actual question - you have not demonstrated why the consideration of women as a group that broadly shares certain experiences is incompatible with your self-determination.

You brought up your freedom to work for lesser pay, for instance - but nobody challenges your agency to voluntarily price your labor below the market**. What if you did want to negotiate a fair price for your labor? Nearly impossible without fair pay practices like transparency and accountability. Don't care? Well nobody expects you to be an equal pay activist. It's bizarre to see such a movement as a sinister collective rather than a group formed of individuals pissed off that they/their loved ones aren't able to make that choice but have it chosen for them. The power is collective, but the motivation is individual.

*Yes, I can confidently assert that everyone in this thread who is a regular - i.e. everyone but Stannisaurus, Athias, maybe one or two others - is not an Objectivist.

**Excepting minimum wage, which I concede may not be compatible with extreme individualism but isn't part of feminism either.

[Galactus]

If rights are human constructs that exist only in human interaction then it's fair to say that the dispensing of privileges is no less a human construct, either.

Correct.

Who are these people that presume to act authoratatively over that to which they are subjected?

All sorts of people, some jerks, some not. Religious leaders, philosophers, lawayers, politicians, businessmen, philanthropists.. Anyone who feels they have an idea of how things should be.

While I don't deny that rights exist as human constructs--a bit of a moot point--they are not defined by social arrangements

Wrong. Rights are precisely defined by social arrangements. Otherwise the are meaningless hot air. Even if they are not enforced, in order to have meaning they need to exist as ideas: IE: Socially shared constructs. A right that is only recognized inside your head has no basis whatsoever.

.

Rights are expressions of propriety over oneself.

Tautology: Property is a right. Rights are property in oneself. Therefore property only exists because property which are rights because they are rights.

You cannot argue for the concept of rights from the concept of property rights. (even in your own body) the latter already assumes the existence of rights.

Rights precede violation.

If a right is violated, it does not exist. If a woman is raped that mean she did not enjoy the right to her body (manifested in the fact that y'know, she was raped) the question becomes "Should she have enjoyed that right?" (any right-thinking person would answer "Yes") but that is a different question altogether. One of desireability, and not of legality.

It isn't because one may put forward that people shouldn't rape others that the right to one's body is validated.

Sure it is, without concepts of autonomy, the body, violation, self, rights, etc. There can be no rights. Again, the universe does not care. We do. (or at least we should)

The body is the physical manifestation of oneself. It is of oneself.

Tentatively I'd agree, insofar as the brain is a part of the body and the brain is the centre of the self.

That's what informs the right.

Again, you jump from "is" to "ought" like the rabbit of Caer'Bannog on crack.

One's right can be violated but never invalidated.

Wrong. Rights are ideas. They are contingent upon historical processes. They can be invented, discarded, and violated all day long, it happens all the time. The rights of man are literally meaningless without men to make them into reality.

To use your example about the right to life, if I were to ask someone to kill me, have I or the person I asked invalidated my right to life? No. My right to my life is a proprietary claim. My life is of me. And that's true within or outside a social arrangement.

But if neither you, nor the person you were talking to had ever heard ofthe concept of a "right to life" as far as you would be concerned, it would not exist.

Privileges extended by whom? Who is this legal and moral authority?

Any legal or moral authority that you (or others) acknowledge, can be yourself, although that's kind of pointless unless you're really charismatic.

[Galactus]

In this thread, the validity of feminism is not a subject for discussion - accept it, or don't post here.

Should be enough, no?

[Theda Baratheon]

Should be enough, no?

It should be but apparently not.