Third-Wave/Post Feminism

[Bernard]

I just joined this forum, i've been reading the articles on this site for about a year now.

I was wondering what were your thoughts on this topic, or pretty much the globality of "feminist" activities and thoughts (but mostly discourse) over the last 20 years. Bare in mind that this "movement" has no encompassing idea or ideal and that feminists are at the point where they've begun fighting each other instead of "the enemy".

I'm a 21 year old Canadian, and my mom and sister (who also pegs herself as an "anarchist" and a "radical feminist") have been self-described as feminists since as long as I can remember. However, as much as they'd hate to hear it, they fall in the trap that so many other so-called feminists fall into. She's read tons of books (and obviously, has a bunch of feminist friends so they can spread the same dumb anti-men discourse within each other), but her vision still feels so narrow-minded that her entire discourse can be summed up to "all men are and have always been the problem, while women are perfect, innocent and pure". I've always felt like she's had an idea and selected certain bits of her feminist litterature to support her basic thoughts.

However as the years go by (she has probably been a feminist for a good 10 years now), it's clear that her discourse has become reflective of her insecure, fearful and weak personnality. Obviously, there is no room for constructive criticism about her feminist beliefs. However, this isn't about my sister. I see that more and more women embody feminist thoughts as a shortcut for life's complex questions (such as gender relations), as a self-justifying moral tool (I'm better than everyone, especially men, so I don't owe anything to anyone, especially men) and as a reflexion of inner pain, weakness and fear. I see this in more and more women, and to think that these women are considered intelligent, conscious and brave when in fact they are just as lost as any other minority or "oppressed" groups.

My question to you is, what do you think of such women? Are they as common elsewhere in North America? What are your thoughts on mass feminism as we know it today?

[indjaseemun]

The beliefs you described are in my opinion twisted. But there is some truth to the oppression of women (specially in the past) and there is still misoginy today. I just don't think radical feminism is any good either, nor any form of misoginy

Ask your sister and mother if:

On a sinking ship, would they want women to have priority in the life boats? If not, then she's honest about equalit

[Cargést]

I'd want women to have priority on life boats, and I'm not a feminist.  I'm simply a pragmatist.

Feminism often boils down to "Female Superiority".  It's as base as "White Superiority", "Black Superiority", "Gay Superiority", or any other kind of intrinsic idea that every single member of a group is intrinsically "better" than every non-member.  Things are far less absolute than that: Whites have been better than other races; women are generally weaker than men; the lower classes are generally unintelligent.  When I explain these things to people, I am often given a list of individuals who, by their merits, somehow disprove my statements.  Obviously, this is a failure of an argument.

[Bernard]

When I explain these things to people, I am often given a list of individuals who, by their merits, somehow disprove my statements.  Obviously, this is a failure of an argument.

Totally agree. A lot of these people are actually really stubborn and insist that they are "bettering" the world as a tool of self-justification. I would imagine these reactions can be triggered by a lifetime of deep insecurity and fear.

Baalzebuth: I agree...which is in part where my frustration comes from. How generally speaking, most people who describe themselves as selfless "heros" concretely making the world a better place are just as ignorant as the people they denounce.

[Cargést]

I should think that they're more ignorant, given that they willfully choose to ignore realities which the bad boogie-men fascist racists etc. are quite happy to accept.

[Bernard]

I should think that they're more ignorant, given that they willfully choose to ignore realities which the bad boogie-men fascist racists etc. are quite happy to accept.

Good point, so in turn that makes their situations even more ironic. Hah.

[indjaseemun]

The point of the life boat question is to know if they truly want equality. If they want to be equal, they shouldn't want priority in the life boats. If they want the priority, then accept gender roles.

Anyway, they will say they deserve priority because women have been oppressed in the past, and still are to some degree, so they should have priority.

As for myself, I don't know. I agree with women and children first, but this was in another time. Would you let any worthless woman get the life boat and you die? I wouldn't. Nor one whose only quality is great looks.

[Caffeine]

I'd want women to have priority on life boats, and I'm not a feminist.  I'm simply a pragmatist.

How is it pragmatic?

@ OP:  Perhaps your sister is simply fired up.  Some people are highly emotional about their views, but at times they can speak logically about their position.  Her being an anarchist (if she's into the actual anarchist school of thought) may be a reflection of her positive views of equality (not the same as liberalists' "equality").  Since you said she and her friends bash men, this may not be the case at all.  I'd discuss it with her logically and specifically, so that you can dissect her social and political ideals.  Sometimes women get butthurt about some guys they've dated, and then they tag all other guys that way.  Most people have prejudging habits when it comes to viewing others, so she might only need one small misconception to clean up (rather than de-zombifying her like several feminists need).

[Cargést]

From an instinctual point of view - women make babies, men make women make babies.  We could have one man left on this planet, amidst a multitude of women, and the species would survive.  Reverse the numbers, and survival is less likely, though still possible.

As far as feminism goes in general, I've never met a feminist.  I've met plenty of anti-feminist women, who certainly aren't weak-willed man-followers.

[Caffeine]

From an instinctual point of view - women make babies, men make women make babies.  We could have one man left on this planet, amidst a multitude of women, and the species would survive.  Reverse the numbers, and survival is less likely, though still possible.

I didn't think you were going that far with connections, since in a tragedy such as that they wouldn't be the only women alive elsewhere.  However, I get your point. 

I agree about the anti-feminists, because I've met a couple and they aren't bowing to men any more than men bow to women.  I don't see the point in joining a certain "pro-minority" group (for the lack of a better term) for the sake of defending one group, when you could just enforce equality on all. 

[Nimbostratus]

To be fair, feminism is not about women over men, actually, it follows the Marxist logic that only the resurgence of the oppressed can bring equality. The masculinity studies made by feminists, keep a structural vision where men are enslaved by their own role as providers and as  tough guys (and this makes some sense taking in count a lot of events of domestic violence) the arise of females would relief men from the burden. The same goes from homosexuals, women being free to express strength and bravery in a way only granted to men, and men being being sweet and sentimental, in a way only granted for women. Nice, but not that simple.

Again, this is based in the blank slate, and the terrible failure of this wave of feminists is to ignore the neurological differences between men and women. Hormones are excepted as long as they affect a blank slate, but I've seen such idiocies as denying maternal love at all in favor of women being less dependent of their role as mothers. If it where purely normative, that is, acknowledging psychological differences, but trying to equate rights, would make more sense.

[Dinaric Leather]

Her being an anarchist (if she's into the actual anarchist school of thought) may be a reflection of her positive views of equality (not the same as liberalists' "equality").

What makes you believe that the anarchist flavor of egalitarianism is any different than the liberal kind? If anything it would appear that anarchism is egalitarianism is the fullest possible expression of liberal egalitarianism as it's the only system truly free of oppression.

[wacked666]

anarchy is a temporary state, it cannot really be a form of government, eventually someone would make a bid for power a hierarchy is natural to human beings. a true democracy is much more viable, but nobody takes enough interest in politics to be able to vote on every passing matter themselves.. there should be no ruler ideally or congress but a system of voting on each decision up to the individuals, on the other hand this style of government would be hugely susceptible to corruption and misinformation of the general mass. That being said, i feel if a feminist supports anarchy in the end it would just bring a greater oppression rather than a freedom.. almost certainly a dictatorship would arise from an anarchy state in my eyes, i can't see people just living in an anarchy happily living their lives.. it is against the nature of man.. i see anarchy as more of a transition stage rather than an actual sustainable idea. as far as feminism goes with me, why did we give them the right to vote? get back in the kitchen you lol jk jk jk jk jk lol lol no, women deserve the equal right to money and jobs as anyone else as long as they are qualified and can actually do the job, ultimately it shouldn't matter what race you are or gender but the actual effectiveness you have at what you are doing. I hope they make it so priests can be women, i saw on the news they are pulling for that right now and honestly that is one of the last greatest oppressions. How can a man say a woman is unfit to lead others in the spiritual faith.. what are they afraid of? maybe if there was more women priests the male priests would spend more time banging them and less time molesting all the young boys.. then again.. maybe not..