Feminists don't understand conservative women,

Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

05 Nov 2007, 3:59 pm

Ragtime wrote:
alex wrote:
Just wondering, what's your definition of feminism?


Well, I defined it earlier in this thread, but in general it's the belief that all gender roles are wrong, and that they are actually insulting, and an offense to all womankind.

Also, it's the belief that women should continually and aggressively challenge all male authority, simply because those males are men -- in other words, simply based on their gender.

So, feminism is actually a form of gender discrimination. It promotes the fallacy that men owe women some kind of universal apology, based on the fact that men are male. It's circular reasoning.


You defined your straw-man version of feminism, so you could knock it down. There are many different types of feminism, just as there are many different types of conservatism. Not all feminists are opposed to the idea of gender roles, although the roles where the woman does all the cooking and cleaning while the man drinks beer and watches TV is definitely targeted for being inequitable.

Feminism is not necessarily a form of gender discrimination - on the whole, it has been about erasing discrimination against women. Most women I know who consider themselves feminists are not looking for an apology - they are looking for equal opportunity, the right to be recognized for their contributions at work and at home.

There have been some marginal feminists that have (loudly) championed gender discrimination. But they are not the mainstream of feminism. The John Birch Society (and their paranoid ranting about fluoride in the water being a communist plot) are pathetic and hilarious. But as a liberal, I do not equate all conservatives with that noise. I recognize a wide variety of conservative ideologies and movements: from the economic theories of Milton Friedman to the 'country club Republicans' and various social conservatism to the big spending/big government 'conservatism' of the current administration. From Eisenhower to Nixon to Bushes, with Goldwater and McCain and other prominent voices- conservatism is not one thing. Neither is feminism.



Last edited by monty on 05 Nov 2007, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,862
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

05 Nov 2007, 4:06 pm

Ragtime wrote:
monty wrote:
Why not flip the question: do conservatives understand feminist women?

That's actually off-topic, and is also incorrect in itself, inasmuch as the determining issue is the majority of voters -- sometimes referred to as the "silent majority" -- the same people who unexpectedly landslided Bush into office by a 5% margin over Kerry in the Popular Vote.

Conservative women in this country outnumber feminist women by probably 10-to-1. Remember to count the rural areas -- America is more than its big cities, which are decidedly far more liberal than our farmland communities across the midwest. Even the Amish came out to vote in 2004 -- breaking their own precidents, because they felt so strongly about the need not to have a liberal as remarkably far-left as Kerry in office.


Actually, the majority of Amish live in Pennsylvania, a northeastern state which lies within the area known as the United States Megalopolis, an extremely densely populated area which spans from Boston to Washington, DC.


_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank

Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Nov 2007, 4:08 pm

alex wrote:
That said, the supreme court is arguably influenced by popular opinion.


Ah, I would take issue with that. IMO, they're in their own little power-mongering world.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,862
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

05 Nov 2007, 4:14 pm

Ragtime wrote:
alex wrote:
That said, the supreme court is arguably influenced by popular opinion.


Ah, I would take issue with that. IMO, they're in their own little power-mongering world.


Actually it's widely regarded as being influenced by popular opinion. The extent to which is a contentious debate, however.

google book results for supreme court influenced by public opinion


_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank

Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1


Last edited by alex on 05 Nov 2007, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Nov 2007, 4:14 pm

alex wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
alex wrote:
Just wondering, what's your definition of feminism?


Well, I defined it earlier in this thread, but in general it's the belief that all gender roles are wrong, and that they are actually insulting -- an offense to all womankind.

Also, it's the belief that women should continually and aggressively challenge all male authority, simply because those males are men -- in other words, simply based on their gender.

So, feminism is actually a form of gender discrimination. It promotes the fallacy that men owe women some kind of universal apology, based on the fact that men are male. It's circular reasoning.


see, the problem I have with that definition is that is refers to the small subset of people who claim to be feminists who don't actually support gender equality. Instead of demonizing "feminism" and thus allowing the fake feminists to own the term "feminism," (which traditionally refers to a movement that gave women the right to vote), I think it may be more appropriate to specifically refer to the people you're talking about using a more accurate label. Otherwise people may assume you're referring to anyone who supports equal rights which may cause them to incorrectly conclude you're misogynistic, a possibility I admittedly entertained before I decided to ask you what you meant and found out otherwise.


I think men and women should focus more on loving each other, than on exactly defining where each person's responsibility ends and the next person's begins. We should have an abundance of love for each other, not some exactly-dictated amount from which no one dares vary.

I believe in elastic order. Not anarchy, and not legalism. It's the kind of system where it's okay to step "out of line" once in a while, because we're all human, but where we also still have a guiding moral principle which we all steer toward.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Nov 2007, 4:24 pm

monty wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
alex wrote:
Just wondering, what's your definition of feminism?


Well, I defined it earlier in this thread, but in general it's the belief that all gender roles are wrong, and that they are actually insulting, and an offense to all womankind.

Also, it's the belief that women should continually and aggressively challenge all male authority, simply because those males are men -- in other words, simply based on their gender.

So, feminism is actually a form of gender discrimination. It promotes the fallacy that men owe women some kind of universal apology, based on the fact that men are male. It's circular reasoning.


You defined your straw-man version of feminism, so you could knock it down. There are many different types of feminism, just as there are many different types of conservatism. Not all feminists are opposed to the idea of gender roles, although the roles where the woman does all the cooking and cleaning while the man drinks beer and watches TV is definitely targeted for being inequitable.

That would be straw-manning my beliefs.

I don't believe in any kind of oppression. I believe that the man and woman who plan on marrying should work out the basic principles they wish to live by in that marriage, and then both enter into that as a voluntary agreement. If either member doesn't like it, then they change it before entering into it.

To me, the term "feminism" is divisive, as much as a term like "white-ism" would inevitably be.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 05 Nov 2007, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

05 Nov 2007, 4:25 pm

Ragtime wrote:
I think men and women should focus more on loving each other, than on exactly defining where each person's responsibility ends and the next person's begins. We should have an abundance of love for each other, not some exactly-dictated amount from which no one dares vary. I believe in elastic order. Not anarchy, and not legalism.


As a general theory, more love is fine. But what happens to that when someone wants to renegotiate a social contract that was dictated by men and is based on inequality? There was a lot of conservative opposition to giving the women the right to vote. Was that out of love, or on the other part of your statement: [avoiding] exactly defining where each person's responsibility ends and where the next's begins? At some level, society has to set laws and rules.

Would you say you are for parent's loving their children more, but against laws that define and punish child abuse, neglect, or abandonment? Obviously, the law cannot dictate every gesture in a complex relationship called parenthood. Yet there is a need for some regulation of conduct that is deemed excessive, which violates the innate rights of the individual.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

05 Nov 2007, 4:29 pm

alex wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
alex wrote:
That said, the supreme court is arguably influenced by popular opinion.


Ah, I would take issue with that. IMO, they're in their own little power-mongering world.


Actually it's widely regarded as being influenced by popular opinion. The extent to which is a contentious debate, however.


Define "widely regarded". It depends on which circle you're in. Most people I know, and most news reports I read, relay most Supreme Court rulings with disappointment, and a touch of incredulity.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

05 Nov 2007, 4:42 pm

Ragtime wrote:

To me, the term "feminism" is divisive, as much as a term like "white-ism" would inevitably be.


Maybe there would be no feminism if it weren't for the fact that anti-female sexism was so prevalent (although it usually goes unamed), and that sexism was used to set up the structures of society? Maybe the term "public health initiative" negatively implies that there are public health problems? Maybe the term "conservatism" is divisive?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Nov 2007, 10:30 pm

Sorry to drag the thread back towards the OP -

I believe that Clinton would be a decent president if she was allowed to be, but I think that conservatives in this country hate her so rabidly (what's up with that, by the way?) that she will never be left alone for a second, and will be forced to expend large ammounts of her energy defending herself rather than running the country. Because of that, she will be less effective than she is capable of, and because of that conservatives will point to her for the next century as an example of why women should not be president.

Is she unfeminine? She's a politician. Politics is cold, brutal, and selfish in its intrinsic nature, and if being like that is being 'unfeminine' then the feminine is ruled out of politics by definition.

That said, I'm voting for Obama in the primary.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

06 Nov 2007, 7:07 am

LKL wrote:
Sorry to drag the thread back towards the OP -

I believe that Clinton would be a decent president if she was allowed to be, but I think that conservatives in this country hate her so rabidly (what's up with that, by the way?) that she will never be left alone for a second, and will be forced to expend large ammounts of her energy defending herself rather than running the country. Because of that, she will be less effective than she is capable of, and because of that conservatives will point to her for the next century as an example of why women should not be president.

Is she unfeminine? She's a politician. Politics is cold, brutal, and selfish in its intrinsic nature, and if being like that is being 'unfeminine' then the feminine is ruled out of politics by definition.

That said, I'm voting for Obama in the primary.


She is not as unfeminine as Margaret Thatcher, a woman most conservatives love. I think conservative talk radio has been programming people to hate Hillary because they recognized her as a serious challenge to their power. They turn on the sexism (or swiftboating, or whatever) and keep repeating it. Doesn't matter if it is true or not.



Angelus-Mortis
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 438
Location: Canada, Toronto

06 Nov 2007, 12:11 pm

Even if I lived there, I wouldn't vote. It would be like voting for the lesser of two evils, since politicians are just dirty liars. Doesn't make much of a difference, even if it is an insult for her to think all women are likeminded. I know narrowminded people exist, and that some politicians are narrowminded comes as no surprise to me.


_________________
231st Anniversary Dedication to Carl Friedrich Gauss:
http://angelustenebrae.livejournal.com/15848.html

Arbitraris id veneficium quod te ludificat. Arbitror id formam quod intellego.

Ignorationi est non medicina.


midge
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 293
Location: The Great Plains

07 Nov 2007, 5:50 am

Quote:
I think men and women should focus more on loving each other, than on exactly defining where each person's responsibility ends and the next person's begins. We should have an abundance of love for each other, not some exactly-dictated amount from which no one dares vary.

I believe in elastic order. Not anarchy, and not legalism. It's the kind of system where it's okay to step "out of line" once in a while, because we're all human, but where we also still have a guiding moral principle which we all steer toward.


Wow, that describes my thinking exactly, Ragtime, but I've never been able to sum it up quite so well. Actually, that is one of the things I give credit to feminism for-in the past it was perhaps a bit too legalistic, a bit too rigid (though not as much as is commonly believed, I think); feminism has really made us think about what it really means to be male and female and the different roles that come with it rather than just doing what everyone else does because everyone else is doing it (though that's certainly not meant to be a knock against custom and tradition in general).

Of course, prior, oh, maybe the '40's, those roles were really quite necessary; most of the cooking had to be done from scratch, and canning and drying had to be done, clothes had to be mended (and in earlier times made, right down to spinning wool), the washing had to be done by hand-it took so long that a whole day was usually devoted to it-and the cleaning was very labor intensive. In the meantime, men were working long, hard days out in the fields, mines, and factories, or laying brick or constructing things or building railroads. Many died on the job, others died early because of the nature of the work. Some had nicer jobs, of course, but I doubt even those were easy (men had it no easier than women, and in some ways probably had it harder). It was only after modern conveniences were introduced and outside jobs became less dangerous and labor intensive that it stopped making immediate sense to people to divide work.

I think though, that a lot of those old ideas still make sense, if in less obvious ways. When we traded in homecooked meals and the ritual of family mealtimes for convenience food and eating out, when homemaking stopped becoming an art, when chivalry died and femininity gave way to girl power, when we traded in time for money and family/community life and the deeply entangled mixture of obligations and joys in entails for autonomy, we really lost something. And that, I think-I hope-is what those of us who never hopped on the feminism bandwagon (or in my case, hopped off of it) are all about, and I don't get the impression that many feminists truly understand this (or have a very complete picture of history for that matter). For us, gender and gender roles are something very concrete and organic and an inevitable outworking of human nature; to many of them (gender feminists in particular) it is more general, tending to focus more on abstract ideas like power and privilege and social constructs. Very, very different ideas; it's no wonder we usually talk past each other. And I think these differences get enlarged and distorted when translating them into public policy, which makes things even more intense.

It is important, as some have mentioned, to distinguish among the various strains of feminism. Equity feminism, a la Christina Hoff Sommers, which focuses on equal opportunities, does have appeal among conservative women; I see the sense in a lot of it though I wouldn't consider myself a feminist. (Mostly since I believe that rights are individually based rather than group based- though of course it would be very short-sighted of us not to acknowledge the fact that some of those rights were very hard-won. I don't like the labelling of certain issues as "women's issues"; to me they are issues simply because they affect my fellow human beings. ) It is gender feminism and its focus on equal outcomes and criticism of gender roles or ideas of masculinity and femininity that is more problematic. Whether it is true or not, I think a lot of people see Hillary as being more of a gender feminist, and I imagine that is a big reason why conservative women feel that she does not speak for them. I think many feel as though a lot has been lost, and fear losing more.


_________________
"The comedy of man survives the tragedy of man."

~G.K Chesterton


Othila
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 153

10 Nov 2007, 2:32 am

Quote:
In the meantime, men were working long, hard days out in the fields, mines, and factories, or laying brick or constructing things or building railroads. Many died on the job, others died early because of the nature of the work. Some had nicer jobs, of course, but I doubt even those were easy (men had it no easier than women, and in some ways probably had it harder). It was only after modern conveniences were introduced and outside jobs became less dangerous and labor intensive that it stopped making immediate sense to people to divide work.


It sounds more like your describing the lower/lower middle class lifestyles. Economic position had a lot more to do with the dangerousness/harshness of one's labor than a person's gender. It wasn't that long ago in history when children were forced to perform hard labor. Middle/Upper class women were actively discouraged not to have a career and to sacrifice their life to raise a family. This resistance (is what made it so much harder for women than men) to emerge in the the public sphere. Women had to fight hard for this priviledge of autonomy. It didn't happen by men suddenly having an "aha moment" (as Oprah would describe it) and coming to the sensible conclusion of including women in their sphere. Technology helped but it could be argued that the legal system enforced it. The potential of being sued really has an effect on peoples' ethics at work.

I
Quote:
think though, that a lot of those old ideas still make sense, if in less obvious ways. When we traded in homecooked meals and the ritual of family mealtimes for convenience food and eating out, when homemaking stopped becoming an art, when chivalry died and femininity gave way to girl power, when we traded in time for money and family/community life and the deeply entangled mixture of bligations and joys in entails for autonomy, we really lost something.


Everyone would love to have a house(wife/husband) to clean their home, prepare scrumptious meals, take active part in the kiddie's education, sew, exc. I can see why having a helpmate to cater to your needs could both help you immensibly but also hurt you incredinly by losing the ability to take care of yourself. Autonomy is precious and any human regardless of their gender is not going to give it up easily unless they are either forced to or they desire to.

Quote:
And that, I think-I hope-is what those of us who never hopped on the feminism bandwagon (or in my case, hopped off of it) are all about, and I don't get the impression that many feminists truly understand this (or have a very complete picture of history for that matter). For us, gender and gender roles are something very concrete and organic and an inevitable outworking of human nature; to many of them (gender feminists in particular) it is more general, tending to focus more on abstract ideas like power and privilege and social constructs. Very, very different ideas; it's no wonder we usually talk past each other. And I think these differences get enlarged and distorted when translating them into public policy, which makes things even more intense.


I think it is disingenuous ( and i mean that in the sense that you are being insincere) of you to say that the majority of feminists don't understand the costs of being the "got it all woman", perhaps due to your own disillusionment on the issue is why you decided not to define yourself as a feminist anymore. I also think it's inaccurate for you to define gender as something organic when you have a portion of the human population that cannot even be put in the biological box of man or woman. Biology has always been careless on which reproductive carriers are the women and which are the men and which are a combo. If hormones are responsible for secondary sex characteristics and hormones change throughout a person's life due to illness or age then it makes little sense to treat gender as a concrete category. As for gender roles those are created by humans. The only role animals have is to reproduce/nurture their offspring. There are species in which the male nutures the offspring and the female could care less if the young survive or not. It is a human luxury that we can define ourselves by more than just our reproductive capabilities and to be able to take our secondary sex differences to the next level by distinguishing male and female behaviors. Does biology influence this? Sure to an extent but it would be ludicrous to suggest that women innately prefer to act like women for if that was the case then there wouldn't be such apparent discrepencencies between the behaviors of different groups of women. (
Quote:
I don't like the labelling of certain issues as "women's issues"


But due to the division of gender by both biological and sociological means some issues are women's issue and some are men's issue. An example in point would be abortion. A male has to worry about many things in life but becoming pregnant isn't one of them. It is also weird that you would say that given your stance on gender roles. Not every human issue is a public one up for debate and gender issues tend to be the most senstitive and private.

Quote:
It is gender feminism and its focus on equal outcomes and criticism of gender roles or ideas of masculinity and femininity that is more problematic.


Gender issues are problematic regardless if they are discussed/studied or not. What do you mean by equal outcomes. I know gender research has shown the gap narrowing for much of the intellectual differences between men and women such as spatial ability but nobody is going to deny that males have 2/3 more muscle mass on average on their bodies then women or that women have less respiratory capacity. Of course with environmental pollution/diet wreaking havoc on our bodies who knows what can happen? I think all of human nature should be throughly critizied. Who are we to say that the path to further understanding of this area should be forever closed. There is an old saying that the more you think you know about the topic the more you realize how little you know about the topic. When I get back in school I can't wait to discuss and read up on the literature on all the male studies that have been conducted in recent years. It is not just a woman's issue, or a feminist's issue, to be interested in the similarities and differences of the sexes and of course the sexes ( ie intersex) that lack definition in our modern society.

Quote:
Quote:
Whether it is true or not, I think a lot of people see Hillary as being more of a gender feminist, and I imagine that is a big reason why conservative women feel that she does not speak for them. I think many feel as though a lot has been lost, and fear losing more.


If I had to define what type of feminist Hillary was I would say she was a democratic (aka traditional) one of her own era. From what I know of her background she is a lawyer not a researcher on gender issues. Also as far as I know she is more interested on her platform being universal healthcare not women's rights issues. I think radical conservatives like to bash on Hillary because she doesn't have a squeaky clean past (what politician does at least she is not solicitating sex in a public bathroom). I myself am pretty neutral when it comes to Hill and think it's absurd for anyone to vote for or against her based on her gender. Her gender is not running for election she is. FYI she only needs about 47% of women to vote which is why she is running her campaign on more mainstream issues then women centered ones. I think it is a little too early for everyone to call her out as the prez nominee for the democrats. It's politics anything can and will happen. Your up one day and down the next just ask Nixon.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

10 Nov 2007, 4:21 am

I'd like to point out that the "traditional" lifestyle that conservatives(i'm a fiscal conservative, but not a social one), like to bandy about wasnt really there very long. Its a bit of myth making. As you can see by my profile, I am not American; I live in the western Plains of Canada. But my ancestors on my paternal Grandfather and paternal grand mother came from Kansas(from german settlements in russia). Neither in Germany, nor later Russia, nor Kansas did they live the rockwellian life style, despite being middle class farmers.

Sitting down to breakfast happened, but rarely lunch, and often not supper. The men would eat later as they worked late, especially in spring and fall. And by men, i mean all males from age 12 and up. Younger for the first born. These are church going Lutherans and Catholics. Very much religious Conservatives. Packed lunches 6 days a week was the norm, and 12-18 hour days.

This is true of almost all farmers up until the end of WWII, when mechanization really took off. They still work long hours like that, still often pack lunches. Its just that modern transportation and more disposable income allows one to go home during the day.

Meanwhile, the women at home washed clothes by hand for 3 or 4 hours, cleaned for 3 or four hours, and cooked for 3 or four hours. Eldest daughters helped the mother, middle daughters watched the babies.

It got noticably better after WWII. Combine that with the lifestyle of upper middle class eastern states Americans from 1900 to 1950, and a myth was born.



Metal Rat
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 6 Sep 2019
Age: 47
Posts: 222

30 Dec 2019, 9:06 am

Ragtime wrote:
and that's why Hillary won't win the election.

Feminists think all women side with each other on all issues -- that there aren't women who have minds of their own, and who think through the issues, and who pick a presidential candidate based on the most important of those issues. Rather, Hillary thinks she's automatically going to induct all American women into her voting camp because of their shared gender.
It is an insult to all thinking women, and she's going to pay dearly for that. They tried it in France, with Ségolène Royal. She was supposedly going to win, and she didn't even get 50% of the female vote, and the liberals couldn't figure it out.

Anyone see the Democratic debates? Pretty sad. Obama and Edwards "piled on poor Hillary" -- ya right. They asked her to clarify a flip-flopped answer she gave, and that's "piling on"... Now, she's hiding behind the "Don't hit the girl!" mantra... Puh-lease! :roll:

So, ya, don't worry about Hillary. She's got no chance.

Not only Trump, but also Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton remind me of Adolf Hitler. You see, each is a Fuhrer of their respective Volks: Trump, obviously, appeals to Rural White men, they are his Volk; Hilary Clinton appeals to women, feminist women in particular, they are her Volk; and Barack Hussein Obama appeals to Blacks, especially those of the Inner City, they are his Volk!