Feminist priorities
06 Oct 2013, 3:32 pm
LKL wrote:
AP, I think that this might be an aspie thing. In the NT world, any time a man asks a woman to go somewhere private, he is subtly asking for sex. Aspie women know this better than aspie men because we're forced to learn it the hard way. It took a couple of times for me to figure it out, and luckily for me the men in question were honorable and didn't force anything on me, but if a man asks a woman into his private domicile for any reason whatsoever - for coffee, to see the view, whatever - he's expecting sex if she says yes.
One time a guy asked me over to watch a movie. I actually though all he wanted to do was watch a movie. I was surprised when he started coming on to me. Several years before I was interested in him but he wasn't interested in me. I turned him down because at that point I had already quit having sex.
06 Oct 2013, 7:40 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
I hear from many men and women that modern feminism of all types focuses on the wrong topics. I would partially agree with this. What, then, are the most pressing issues for people who advocate for gender and sexual equality in our times? Try to make actual suggestions, rather than ranting about how dumb you think current feminists are for focusing on the wrong things.
My priorities are:
1. Religion and the patriarchal customs that come from it (religious law courts, limits to birth control, the actual sexism/homophobia in the holy texts themselves, etc.)
2. Genital mutilation - with FGM this is a cultural issue rather than a strictly religious one, but with male circumcision, this links closely with the point above.
3. Sexual abuse of both men and women. This is an issue linked to the patriarchy, imho, even when men are victims.
4. Violence against both men and women. See above.
5. Gender essentialism whether it comes from tradition, religion or evo-psych. People should have the freedom to define themselves and make communities and relationships after their own desires.
I think critiquing porn, prostitution and the media have their place, but they are not as important as the issues I outlined above and they can devolve into endless argumentation. Women's employment and pay is important, but again, not an immediately pressing issue. Abortion is extremely important, but I relate that to item number 1. on my list. The third wave focus on sexual liberation and women's right to enjoy sex is misplaced, imo, because a more sex-positive culture will only flourish when we get rid of the worst excesses of patriarchy and misogyny (violence, abuse, cultural and religious attitudes that say women are inferior - these all need to be addressed first.)
The transwomen vs. natal women issue is a stupid red herring and I'm annoyed with modern radical feminism for wasting so much time on it. I also disagree with their critique of penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex, but they seem to have focused more on being paranoid about transwomen in recent years.
I'm all about going to the absolute origin of gender inequality, which I think is basically religion (and capitalism when taken to the extreme - which is like a modern religion)
My priorities are:
1. Religion and the patriarchal customs that come from it (religious law courts, limits to birth control, the actual sexism/homophobia in the holy texts themselves, etc.)
2. Genital mutilation - with FGM this is a cultural issue rather than a strictly religious one, but with male circumcision, this links closely with the point above.
3. Sexual abuse of both men and women. This is an issue linked to the patriarchy, imho, even when men are victims.
4. Violence against both men and women. See above.
5. Gender essentialism whether it comes from tradition, religion or evo-psych. People should have the freedom to define themselves and make communities and relationships after their own desires.
I think critiquing porn, prostitution and the media have their place, but they are not as important as the issues I outlined above and they can devolve into endless argumentation. Women's employment and pay is important, but again, not an immediately pressing issue. Abortion is extremely important, but I relate that to item number 1. on my list. The third wave focus on sexual liberation and women's right to enjoy sex is misplaced, imo, because a more sex-positive culture will only flourish when we get rid of the worst excesses of patriarchy and misogyny (violence, abuse, cultural and religious attitudes that say women are inferior - these all need to be addressed first.)
The transwomen vs. natal women issue is a stupid red herring and I'm annoyed with modern radical feminism for wasting so much time on it. I also disagree with their critique of penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex, but they seem to have focused more on being paranoid about transwomen in recent years.
I'm all about going to the absolute origin of gender inequality, which I think is basically religion (and capitalism when taken to the extreme - which is like a modern religion)
I disagree with abortion personally, but I think that should be a locality based issue. I think if we can bridge both sides of the issue, in good faith, I think we may be able to make progress. I am just throwing this out there, since it was a novel thought, but Stefan Molyneux in a post advocated trying to get technology to the point where a baby could exist outside the mother's womb, via technology. I was wondering what your thoughts would be on this. Now as far as contraception, that ought to be interesting. I have nothing against it, I am just saying the Catholic Church would not be pleased with that stance. Then again, they got rid of purgatory, so I guess anything is possible. I think the issue of violence is huge. I think that both male and female rape need addressed. I also think that the overreporting and underreporting of rape by both sexes is huge, and the criteria for that needs refined. I think shifting priorities from the war on drugs and similar stupidity to the 59 percent of all rapes that are never solved, and the nearly 40 percent of murders that are never solved.
As far as homophobia, I am mixed. I have nothing against people of that persuasion, and as long as you respect my rights, and vice versa, I think we will be good. The doma repeal was good, but I think government butting into marriage was not a good thing. I think all you should need for marriage is a ceremony, and maybe a written record, and that is it. The actual marriage license was originally meant to stop interracial marriage. Why are we still practicing this? To me, if you want to enter into a voluntary association, I say go for it.
As for circumcision, I am not sure about this. It is something I don't always think about, but it is something that I need to think more about.
As far as prostitution is concerned, I think many of the issue with that could be ironed out with open borders. If an individual could easily come across our border, why would they need special assistance from shifty characters, if they could just do it themselves.
Now as far as capitalism, what do you define capitalism as? I believe you said you were a libertarian Marxist if I am not mistaken? I think the language of things is different for different people. My main criticism of what we have is that copyrights and patents create fiat empires that can control the flow of information and the change in society, as well as create fiat gods. Take Apple. They do make a good product, albeit through questionable means. But they have IP, that being patents, but the most influential being i-products and Apple. I think that alone set people apart. Or take clothing like Abercrombie and Fitch. Many times kids say unless you wear "that brand", you are not cool, or what not. Thus IP, especially copyrights and trademarks entrench this division between peoples, as well as create monopolies. I think freedom of exchange, without any legal fictions, would be where we need to go, whether that be a barter economy (which gold was), or what not, I think IP may be a big thing. State and crony capitalism is the second major things. I know we may disagree about things, but I do think you have some excellent points, and make a good case for you positions.
16 Oct 2013, 6:18 pm
http://sci2morrow.com/2013/10/16/mixed-up/
If you have a problem 'getting' this list, imagine the behaviors in question occurring between two men in a business or educational setting.
16 Oct 2013, 6:44 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://sci2morrow.com/2013/10/16/mixed-up/
If you have a problem 'getting' this list, imagine the behaviors in question occurring between two men in a business or educational setting.
If you have a problem 'getting' this list, imagine the behaviors in question occurring between two men in a business or educational setting.
Two homosexual men? It is plausible.
Would it be socially more or less acceptable than it is when one of the people is a man, and the other is a woman?
16 Oct 2013, 8:12 pm
LKL wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://sci2morrow.com/2013/10/16/mixed-up/
If you have a problem 'getting' this list, imagine the behaviors in question occurring between two men in a business or educational setting.
If you have a problem 'getting' this list, imagine the behaviors in question occurring between two men in a business or educational setting.
Two homosexual men? It is plausible.
Would it be socially more or less acceptable than it is when one of the people is a man, and the other is a woman?
If both men are gay, then it should be fine.
16 Oct 2013, 8:42 pm
Some of you might enjoy reading this:
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index ... z2hwFznokU
An American Feminist in an Afghan harem.
17 Oct 2013, 2:34 am
ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://sci2morrow.com/2013/10/16/mixed-up/
If you have a problem 'getting' this list, imagine the behaviors in question occurring between two men in a business or educational setting.
If you have a problem 'getting' this list, imagine the behaviors in question occurring between two men in a business or educational setting.
Two homosexual men? It is plausible.
Would it be socially more or less acceptable than it is when one of the people is a man, and the other is a woman?
If both men are gay, then it should be fine.
I don't think that it would be - not in a business or educational environment. For one thing, just because they're gay doesn't mean that the attraction is mutual; for another, it's completely unprofessional.
17 Oct 2013, 2:43 am
ArrantPariah wrote:
Some of you might enjoy reading this:
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index ... z2hwFznokU
An American Feminist in an Afghan harem.
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index ... z2hwFznokU
An American Feminist in an Afghan harem.
Interesting. I read a similar account of a woman who married into an offshoot branch of the Saudi royal family: similar isolation, control, boredom. She wasn't physically abused, and she was Muslim before she married (a liberal European Muslim) but it wasn't a life fit for a thinking human being.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Research Priorities of autistics studied |
10 Feb 2024, 4:20 pm |
| Is the movie Grease feminist? |
Yesterday, 11:53 am |
