Why I am not a feminist and don't believe in 'equality'.

James Brown

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Also something my grandfather once said.

That if women worked ...men would use it as an excuse not to.

I think that has turned out to be true. For a certain section of society imo.

Now I don't have anything against women who work. But it does CHANGE women I think. Not always for the better. We are so aggressive.

And yes I do work.

I am just being honest.

You aren't very enlightened IMO. Your views are your own. I don't see why you feel you should have certain views because you're a woman. People are different and we all have different traits.
In my experience women always worked be it at home or outside. Mothers are the bedrock generally.
Your posts read like a wind up, if I'm honest.

ILoveYourVibes

Vincent van Gogh wrote: »

The majority of women don't recognise themselves as feminist so not a big deal.

True.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

If you believe that women's lives, rights, opinions, experiences etc are as important as men's then you're basically a feminist. With an ideology as long in the tooth as feminism is there will be fractures and diversity within it, and there's a lot to discuss about where modern feminism is headed and who it's serving. You don't have to believe that there are zero differences between men and women to be a feminist; the most ardent ones I know could probably talk for an uninterrupted hour (assuming there were no men there to talk over them :pac:) on the subject of those differences.


Capitalism has got its stinky little fingers all over everything, is the main thing. Using feminism to flog deodourant and diamonds and everything in between.

My work doesn't pay much but I would go insane stuck at home in unpaid work. Atm I'm working a lot (60 hr week this week) outside the home, my partner is working rather less and doing that from home. He's cooking, doing the housework, taking care of the garden, of course I'm chipping in but he's doing most of it. He's far better at it than I am, and he likes being at home. If we were living in some pre-feminist utopia where we weren't expected or allowed outside rigid gender roles we'd be living in an Arthur-Milleresque nightmare relationship.

ILoveYourVibes

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You aren't very enlightened IMO. Your views are your own. I don't see why you feel you should have certain views because you're a woman. People are different and we all have different traits.
In my experience women always worked be it at home or outside. Mothers are the bedrock generally.

I think realizing certain personal qualities are being sucked out of society and that the ONLY reason women went into the workforce was that capitalism NEEDED them is highly enlightened.

It was nothing to do with women. It was economic need that was all. It was not for our benefit. It was not because people thought women had something to offer either.

We were thought of as rather unfit for what was needed by capitalism if you look back.


Why has work dominated the conversation anyway?

Mothers are no longer the bedrock imo.

Vincent van Gogh

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

If you believe that women's lives, rights, opinions, experiences etc are as important as men's then you're basically a feminist.

Or an egalitarian.

ILoveYourVibes

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

If you believe that women's lives, rights, opinions, experiences etc are as important as men's then you're basically a feminist. With an ideology as long in the tooth as feminism is there will be fractures and diversity within it, and there's a lot to discuss about where modern feminism is headed and who it's serving. You don't have to believe that there are zero differences between men and women to be a feminist; the most ardent ones I know could probably talk for an uninterrupted hour (assuming there were no men there to talk over them :pac:) on the subject of those differences.


Capitalism has got its stinky little fingers all over everything, is the main thing. Using feminism to flog deodourant and diamonds and everything in between.

My work doesn't pay much but I would go insane stuck at home in unpaid work. Atm I'm working a lot (60 hr week this week) outside the home, my partner is working rather less and doing that from home. He's cooking, doing the housework, taking care of the garden, of course I'm chipping in but he's doing most of it. He's far better at it than I am, and he likes being at home. If we were living in some pre-feminist utopia where we weren't expected or allowed outside rigid gender roles we'd be living in an Arthur-Milleresque nightmare relationship.

I think women's lives are more important. As are children's. Women and children.
Biology.

I understand what you are saying.

But all this ..feminism is a fractured ideology this that ....feminism is NOTHING. It's an arts subject.


Asking for the vote ..that is a THING it's an action. It's not a fractured idea of the people's judean front etc.

ILoveYourVibes

Vincent van Gogh wrote: »

Or an egalitarian.

This is it ...

jimgoose

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No i said if I had one.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

...But if a guy grabbed my neck in that manner I would expect my husband to DECK HIM!...

You did not.

ILoveYourVibes

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

My work doesn't pay much but I would go insane stuck at home in unpaid work. Atm I'm working a lot (60 hr week this week) outside the home, my partner is working rather less and doing that from home. He's cooking, doing the housework, taking care of the garden, of course I'm chipping in but he's doing most of it. He's far better at it than I am, and he likes being at home. If we were living in some pre-feminist utopia where we weren't expected or allowed outside rigid gender roles we'd be living in an Arthur-Milleresque nightmare relationship.

Well i wouldn't have you living in a nightmare. Stay away from the cooker

jimgoose

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think women's lives are more important. As are children's. Women and children.
Biology...

I'm starting to think you're way too sweet to be wholesome, as the oul' wans would say. :pac::pac::pac:

ILoveYourVibes

jimgoose wrote: »

You did not.

I meant it that way.

I have also posted hot totty in the most beautiful girl in the world thread you can check.;)

jimgoose

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I meant it that way.

I have also posted hot totty in the most beautiful girl in the world thread you can check.;)

I won't bother my barney, no.

ILoveYourVibes

jimgoose wrote: »

I'm starting to think you're way too sweet to be wholesome, as the oul' wans would say. :pac::pac::pac:

I am a very strange unusual individual.

SusieBlue

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Well i wouldn't have you living in a nightmare. Stay away from the cooker

You lose any minor credibility your position has when you start making unwarranted patronising responses like that.

ILoveYourVibes

jimgoose wrote: »

I won't bother my barney, no.

Probably best it got a bit hot in there! I might be embarrassed!

I am actually bi. But fairly queer!

AustinLostin

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think women's lives are more important. As are children's. Women and children.
Biology.

I understand what you are saying.

But all this ..feminism is a fractured ideology this that ....feminism is NOTHING. It's an arts subject.


Asking for the vote ..that is a THING it's an action. It's not a fractured idea of the people's judean front etc.

I think grading lives in a league table of who's more important is pretty twisted. Granted yeah, children and the women should take priority in some kind of survival situation but in a general sense?? Alarming.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think women's lives are more important. As are children's. Women and children.
Biology.

I understand what you are saying.

But all this ..feminism is a fractured ideology this that ....feminism is NOTHING. It's an arts subject.


Asking for the vote ..that is a THING it's an action. It's not a fractured idea of the people's judean front etc.

Feminism is a fractured ideology. Just like socialism, liberalism, Marxism and the other critically important ideological frameworks of the previous two centuries or so and is no more "just an arts subject" than any of those. It has had, and continues to have, massive transformative impacts on people's lives

I can send you some reading materials if you would like to look into the history of it and what it actually generally means.

This is like me saying someone's not Irish because they don't like GAA. You can kind of see how someone's mind might have filtered and distorted and added to information from lots of different sources and arrived there but...it ain't right.

James Brown

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

If you believe that women's lives, rights, opinions, experiences etc are as important as men's then you're basically a feminist. With an ideology as long in the tooth as feminism is there will be fractures and diversity within it, and there's a lot to discuss about where modern feminism is headed and who it's serving. You don't have to believe that there are zero differences between men and women to be a feminist; the most ardent ones I know could probably talk for an uninterrupted hour (assuming there were no men there to talk over them :pac:) on the subject of those differences.


Capitalism has got its stinky little fingers all over everything, is the main thing. Using feminism to flog deodourant and diamonds and everything in between.

My work doesn't pay much but I would go insane stuck at home in unpaid work. Atm I'm working a lot (60 hr week this week) outside the home, my partner is working rather less and doing that from home. He's cooking, doing the housework, taking care of the garden, of course I'm chipping in but he's doing most of it. He's far better at it than I am, and he likes being at home. If we were living in some pre-feminist utopia where we weren't expected or allowed outside rigid gender roles we'd be living in an Arthur-Milleresque nightmare relationship.

You see Vibes, what Electro is saying is....

ILoveYourVibes

SusieBlue wrote: »

You lose any minor credibility your position has when you start making unwarranted patronising responses like that.

I do apologize. It was meant to be a 'nice' joke.

I don't think electro bitch would mind.

I think you are being overly sensitive on her behalf.


And why do I have to be credible to you or anyone??

That's silly.

I am not trying to convince people. But you are being overly hostile.

My opinion is mine I am not trying to start a movement!

I ain't changing the world!

jimgoose

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

Feminism is a fractured ideology...

Is that MEAT??!?

baaba maal

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I do apologize. It was meant to be a 'nice' joke.

I don't think electro bitch would mind.

I think you are being overly sensitive on her behalf.


And why do I have to be credible to you or anyone??

That's silly.

I am not trying to convince people. But you are being overly hostile.

My opinion is mine I am not trying to start a movement!

I ain't changing the world!

You don't necessarily need to be credible, but as an OP your position on the issue at hand should be.

ILoveYourVibes

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

Feminism is a fractured ideology. Just like socialism, liberalism, Marxism and the other critically important ideological frameworks of the previous two centuries or so and is no more "just an arts subject" than any of those. It has had, and continues to have, massive transformative impacts on people's lives

I can send you some reading materials if you would like to look into the history of it and what it actually generally means.

This is like me saying someone's not Irish because they don't like GAA. You can kind of see how someone's mind might have filtered and distorted and added to information from lots of different sources and arrived there but...it ain't right.

I did a degree in philosophy and law. I studied everything from feminist epistemology to socialist feminism.

It was actually an essay by janice moulton that helped me form my ideas.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-language/


Also BEING a philosophy student opens your eyes to the fact that for a lot of people ..this is just their topic. Its just what they chose. It could have been English etc. It gets written and other students study it. People react etc.


Not for all BUT FOR A LOT OF IT. It's true.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

jimgoose wrote: »

...no men around telling us what to do. IS THAT MEAT??!?

Tis worse Jim. It's WHITE meat.

Hate crime! Assault! Don't you wave that patriarchy at me!!!

James Brown

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think realizing certain personal qualities are being sucked out of society and that the ONLY reason women went into the workforce was that capitalism NEEDED them is highly enlightened.

It was nothing to do with women. It was economic need that was all. It was not for our benefit. It was not because people thought women had something to offer either.

We were thought of as rather unfit for what was needed by capitalism if you look back.


Why has work dominated the conversation anyway?

Mothers are no longer the bedrock imo.

Some people, (women included) want to work for various personal reasons.
You were second/third class citizens, that's a different matter. We're evolving.
Speaking on looking back, the woman's job being in the home would have been used to keep you out of the workplace.
Generally I've had as many if not more female bosses over the years. I can't say one gender was any better or worse.
I don't know what is being sucked out of society. We have many issues but as regards women it's a damn sight better than is was. Are you looking back with rose tinted glasses maybe?

jam_mac_jam

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What is wrong with relying on someone?

I think its dangerous to teach women they can't rely on their partners etc.

And i think it says a lot of negative things about men.

I know lots of men i could rely on.



I won't tell you what to be. But I will say i don't think men are at all geared up for it.

I can rely on him or else I wouldn't be with him, he is wonderful for support and companionship. Not for financial support though. I am an adult so I can work.


Why should I have to rely on him financially? That's what I am talking about. Why should he have to pay for me? Why should I have to stay at home when I am educated and able to work?


I don't want to mind kids. Is that hard to understand?

I don't know why I am having this argument, we have won, its not going back.

I live in a country where I have all the rights of a man so why am I even bothering to argue about long dead ideas of what women should be doing.

ILoveYourVibes

baaba maal wrote: »

You don't necessarily need to be credible, but as an OP your position on the issue at hand should be.

I feel that is a false paradigm.

It's called the adversary paradigm. It's actually part of what i am talking about.

It's influenced by ....how much the masculine trait of winning is valued.

I don't have to win the argument.

In fact why have an argument?

The adversary paradigm

4/11/2017 John Casey 3 Comments
In “The Adversary Paradigm,” (1983) Janice Moulton challenged the claim that the ideal way to examine a view is to subject it to adversarial challenges in the form of counterexamples. Roughly, I assert p, you assert ~p in an attempt to challenge p.
Among Moulton’s problems with this view are these. First, it’s epistemically limited. There are lots of ways a view can go wrong, not all of them, or even the most salient ones, are revealed by this method.
Second, it tends to institutionalize a kind of intellectual trolling culture. Since to challenge its view is to assert its opposite, we need to refresh the pool of people who will play this role, even if their criticisms have little plausibility. So, for instance, do we need to host Holocaust deniers in a history of the holocaust course? Does answering their charges do much to improve our knowledge of the Holocaust? What’s more likely, is that it obscures the many actually controversial elements to the study of the Holocaust and it gives greater plausibility to a fringe view (among other reasons).
This danger, I think, lurks behind the idea that we need to invite controversial people for the sole reason that they’re controversial. Here’s this from Inside Higher Ed:

As movements to protest and silence controversial campus speakers have become common, the president of a new Harvard University student group intends to “saturate” the campus with those types of talks — to challenge established ideologies that he said administrators there blatantly promote.
Open Campus Initiative was organized this year, its president, Harvard sophomore Conor Healy, said in an interview Friday.
Already, the group of roughly 25 students, Healy said, has secured commitments from two right-leaning, controversial figures to address the campus. One, writer Charles Murray, made headlines in March after his lecture at Middlebury College was drowned out by student chants, forcing him to stop. Murray is often accused of promoting racist ideals. Open Campus Initiative has not yet pegged a day for his talk.
The pick of Murray was deliberate, Healy said. He was horrified by the disruptions at Middlebury and said he wanted to prove Harvard could serve as a role model institution for free expression.
“Most of the community wants to hear from the people we’re inviting, they want to critique them, ask them hard questions, and they’re willing to be convinced,” Healy said. “If they’re not convinced, their perception of the truth can be reinforced by the opposing view.”

Free speech rights and all. But this is college, the challenge in college is to bring students (and others) up to speed with debates among academics. This naturally will not include everyone and every view. The challenge then, for controversial speakers, is to show that they’re part of a live controversy, and not instead just people who are very good at hanging on to discredited views.
Moulton herself was not categorical in her rejection of the adversary paradigm. The problem, she maintained, was considering it to be the ideal of intellectual engagement.

jimgoose

Ace Immense Starter wrote: »

Tis worse Jim. It's WHITE meat.

Hate crime! Assault! Don't you wave that patriarchy at me!!!

SusieBlue

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I do apologize. It was meant to be a 'nice' joke.

I don't think electro bitch would mind.

I think you are being overly sensitive on her behalf.


And why do I have to be credible to you or anyone??

That's silly.

I am not trying to convince people. But you are being overly hostile.

My opinion is mine I am not trying to start a movement!

I ain't changing the world!

Your views and opinions wildly contradict many concepts of modern and historic feminism.
It isn't reflective of them at all. And of course, it doesn't have to be reflective, your thoughts are your own.
But you can't proudly say you aren't a feminist when you are misrepresenting what it even stands for.
It has nothing to do with being kind and meek, for goodness sake.

I genuinely think you are confused and are actually talking about femininity/masculinity in terms of personality traits.

ILoveYourVibes

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Why should I have to rely on him financially? That's what I am talking about. Why should he have to pay for me? Why should I have to stay at home when I am educated and able to work?


I don't want to mind kids. Is that hard to understand?


.

You don't.

DaeryssaOne

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I did a degree in philosophy and law. I studied everything from feminist epistemology to socialist feminism.

And can you not see the irony here that without feminism you would not have been even able to go to college but would have (maybe) finished school then found a nice husband and been stuck rearing kids and cooking and cleaning for him for the rest of your life?