Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Feminist Test
Topic Started: Jun 8 2009, 10:00 PM (1,017 Views)
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
I believe the literal translation of "Utopia" (i.e. Utop in latin) sums up how More really felt about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
How it means nowhere? I know. My example was purposeful :lol: although the subtlety was lost...

horrid puns aside, my egalitarian idea does not come from a government, and does not come through the extreme use of coercion and force. It's so obvious why the Soviet model failed that I didn't even consider it. I'm talking about government that hardly gets into the lives of the people, and only oversees basic necessities. A society run by tradition, and the socialization of people when they are young is my ideal model. Since the current ideals widely stem from times when government did not have the role it does not now, a difference in socialization and a difference in tradition that has led to today's thinking could have created gender equality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Ulgania
Jun 14 2009, 10:18 AM
How it means nowhere? I know. My example was purposeful :lol: although the subtlety was lost...

horrid puns aside, my egalitarian idea does not come from a government, and does not come through the extreme use of coercion and force. It's so obvious why the Soviet model failed that I didn't even consider it. I'm talking about government that hardly gets into the lives of the people, and only oversees basic necessities. A society run by tradition, and the socialization of people when they are young is my ideal model. Since the current ideals widely stem from times when government did not have the role it does not now, a difference in socialization and a difference in tradition that has led to today's thinking could have created gender equality.
I think you place more of a burden on socialization then it has the strength to support, but I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Ulgania
Jun 14 2009, 10:18 AM
How it means nowhere? I know. My example was purposeful :lol: although the subtlety was lost...

horrid puns aside, my egalitarian idea does not come from a government, and does not come through the extreme use of coercion and force. It's so obvious why the Soviet model failed that I didn't even consider it. I'm talking about government that hardly gets into the lives of the people, and only oversees basic necessities. A society run by tradition, and the socialization of people when they are young is my ideal model. Since the current ideals widely stem from times when government did not have the role it does not now, a difference in socialization and a difference in tradition that has led to today's thinking could have created gender equality.
Hmm you and fellow feminists are actually making precisely the same argument that the Soviets made. You're making the argument that a difference in socialization and a difference in tradition is capable of overturning human nature. The Soviets made that same argument. "If we simply condition and teach our kids correctly, they'll share with each other and create the perfect harmonious communist society and sing kum-ba-ya all day."

The only difference between you and the Soviets is that you believe contravention of human nature can be attained peacefully, while the Soviets dared not go nearly so far theoretically, and therefore were perfectly willing to resort to force to achieve their goal of contravening human nature. (There also exist of course non-Soviet or even anti-Soviet communists who are analagous to you in that they believe communism can and should be achieved peacefully without government intervention or coercion)

The communist model (whether Soviet or non-Soviet) fails because communists' belief that the mass of men can be totally rid of its concupiscence and rendered altruistic is an unscientific and futile one. Whether force is applied or not, the communist model would predictably fail. Your model regarding feminism would likewise fail, because your belief that men and women are equal is also an unscientific and futile one. The realization that gender equality is useless is as obvious and predictable as the realization that the communists were useless. You disagree with me on this point and you may sincerely believe that gender equalization can be achieved, but imo your mindset is not so far removed from the supremely confident Bolsheviks in the heady days of 1917 or 1918 who believed that literally anything in the universe is now possible, and that the human will alone could triumph over anything or revise physical realities simply by wishing it so. Wishing that men and women are the same will not make them the same, just as wishing humanity were perfectly altruistic will not make humanity perfectly altruistic.

Furthermore and maybe even more importantly- do we even desire for men and women to be the same as the feminists wish, or do we even desire for mankind to be uniformly altruistic as the communists wish? In the context of the immediately material reality we're presented with I personally think the answer to both questions is "no." We find ourselves on the planet earth and we have no idea how the heck we got here, but while we're here we'll have to make do and survive with the resources we're given (including our gender-differentiated minds and bodies). Since we're not in the infinitely plentiful Garden of Eve anymore we're obligated to find ways to most efficiently utilize our resources. This entails things like theoretical capitalism (harnessing human concupiscence for productive ends), and other ways of maximizing our fluorishing and productivity such as division of labor including gender-based divisions of labor. In short the "natural" division of labor is the very bedrock of post-Fall civilization. I always like to use the word "natural" (syn.: peaceful, consensual, voluntary, maximally productive, maximally beneficial) by which I'm of course also noting natural gender roles.

However, fortunately for you, Ulgania, even though you personally believe gender equality can be attained peacefully, your fellow feminists are - like the Soviets - typically willing to resort to force to achieve their goals, so they've used the coercive levers of government to create a real-world simulacrum in the US of the ideal feminist society just as the Soviets used the levers of coercive force to create a simulacrum in Russia of the ideal communist society. Needless to say these two simulacra are unwieldy, unsustainable, economically unfavorable, and therefore whose inevitable demise and doom are written in the systems themselves.

That is all to say, using force to attempt to overturn human nature inevitably fails because it would create a widespread economically unfavorable system that collapses upon itself. We learned this lesson from the Soviets and we are continuing to learn this from the bureaucracy-feminists. Using peaceful methods to attempt to overturn human nature also inevitably fails because a process of economic evolution would naturally preclude and pare those theories that are futile and unsustainable. We've learned this lesson from the examples of countless crackpot theories that have ever appeared throughout history and then disappeared with merciful and evolutionarily dynamic rapidity.

There will always be stragglers and outliers like yourself Ulgania. However the number of stragglers and outliers decreases through economic necessity if the violent superstructure of modern feminist society is abolished and people are let alone to live their lives peacefully.

When all is said and done, even though I thoroughly disagree with your ideas, I do respect that you live according to your particular principles. Gandhi admonished all of us to "be the change we want to see in the world." But to clarify I wouldn't be able to say Gandhi was referring to you specifically and I do think that by living according to your particular principles you are actually harming the world :lol:

Romanus Dioegenes
 
I think you place more of a burden on socialization then it has the strength to support, but I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

As usual RD clearly states in one sentence what I labor to articulate in long ramblings :lol:

Eleytheria-Duo
 
TC, I am curious about one thing that I don't recall anyone asked you specifically...

Several times you have argued that egalitarianism could only be maintained through "massive, overwhelming force and coercion," and several times you mentioned women will always find their way to the kitchen. But there will always be exceptions, and people who want to "break free" of the usual or typical for their society. So do humor me this...

In your vision of the world, are you suggesting a woman should be blatantly denied what you view as a "mans job," or are you merely saying it shouldn't be encouraged?


E-D, I do think women should be denied certain "man's jobs" through the voluntary contractual process (i.e. woman wants the job, employer doesn't want her). There should be no laws to prevent this from happening imo. However I'm not at all against the concept of working women. Actively legislating against working women would actually be a type of fascistic class warfare since women (particularly in the lower socioeconomic classes) quite often need to get out of the house and work in order to support their families financially. In these cases it's completely desirable for women to work, since these working women would be supporting their "family economy" through their earnings. Once again we're reminded of the woman's natural family-centric role.

You're right that even in a natural (peaceful), patriarchal society there will be the stragglers and nonconformists. The women who downright refuse to settle down and start a family, and obstinately insist on "finding themselves" through work including "men's work". If they don't go to a nunnery first they may very well end up employed doing "men's work". Imo the economic, social, and "psychic" superstructure of life in a natural society spontaneously and consensually ensures that there would be so fleetingly few of these women that I can tolerate it :lol: In that society such a woman would naturally not be considered a role model by little girls. The chief reason they're considered role models today is because of extreme distortions of economic and behavioral incentives effected through force and coercive interventions. These distortions are intrinsically unsustainable and I think economic realities will soon make this fact more immediately obvious.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 14 2009, 12:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
My ideas would result in a complete cultural change that would never be able to be enforced by a single government anyway. The reason I refuse to consider the Soviet model is because I know it can't be done on a governmental level, but on a cultural level. That is, the culture itself would have to change. Do I think a government can do that? None in a thousand years. It could happen in a thousand years if a culture is able to mature for that long and is conducive and open to the idea of social, egalitarian change. TC, while I respect your opinions and analysis, and your comparison to precedent, you need to realize that my ideas would demand a lot more time than you seem to see. The Soviets existed an incredibly short period of time, as did fascism, as we label these ideas, but continued culture will last as long as humanity. Peaceful change will take much longer than feminists will allow for, than the Soviets ruled, and will have to mature completely differently.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
You refuse to consider the Soviet model, but what do you make of the parallels I draw between your theory and the non-Soviet models? That is to say, are you willing to consider the anti-Soviet communist model, which seeks to peacefully change the culture to a communist one (without government intervention)? Hmm in other words, do you think anarcho-communism (or something similar) is realistic?

To me, both anarcho-feminism (which seems to be what you're advocating) and anarcho-communism are difficult to imagine since they are not compatible with human nature.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 14 2009, 02:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
I haven't been considering political ideologies at all, but just the steady liberalization of traditions and values that are needed to place men and women on a completely equal pedestal. The only political circumstances that are needed have to allow for the open exchange of ideas outside of the government. And if I haven't made it clear, I'm doing this with my own thoughts, not through the filter of any philosopher/sociologist/political theorist. I'm not drawing any parallels with feminist ideologies on my own because feminists themselves are too political. I'm not calling for active political change, but cultural evolution that's bound to occur outside of any government.

However, it is extremely possible that in the next several centuries traditionalist thinking with resurface and this discussion will be completely moot
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Well anarcho-feminism and anarcho-communism aren't political at all though and indeed oppose politics by definition of being anarchistic. Your theory might be described as "anarcho-feminism" for better clarity, if it's based on socialization like the Thomas More utopia. The self-identifying anarcho-feminists believe that gender equality is "bound to occur" outside of government. Indeed anarcho-feminists (just like any anarchists) oppose politics. They think "steady liberalization" and "open exchange of ideas" are by themselves sufficient to "place men and women on a completely equal pedestal", even if it takes 1000 years. It's like the anarcho-communists who are willing wait 1,000 years to teach mankind to be communists. My opinion on the matter is already formed of course. :lol:
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 14 2009, 03:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Fair enough. Placing titles on things is far too much effort for me (and apparently looking up said titles). 'anarcho-feminism' brings to mind far too many Amazonian tribal images for me :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Konosha
Member Avatar
The Maui Boy
 *  *  *  *  *
Tristan da Cunha
Jun 14 2009, 02:37 PM
Well anarcho-feminism and anarcho-communism aren't political at all though and indeed oppose politics by definition of being anarchistic. Your theory might be described as "anarcho-feminism" for better clarity, if it's based on socialization like the Thomas More utopia. The self-identifying anarcho-feminists believe that gender equality is "bound to occur" outside of government. Indeed anarcho-feminists (just like any anarchists) oppose politics. They think "steady liberalization" and "open exchange of ideas" are by themselves sufficient to "place men and women on a completely equal pedestal", even if it takes 1000 years. It's like the anarcho-communists who are willing wait 1,000 years to teach mankind to be communists. My opinion on the matter is already formed of course. :lol:
I think you should move to Russia already man... There the women know they're place because the government says this (albeit it about the military):

"Russian women tend to be much more family-oriented than their American counterparts. While many successful American women seem to put their jobs first, Russian women consider their jobs only as a means to support the family. Their husbands and children come first... Russian women do not think it is wrong to believe that women and men are different... Surely, it would be also a great insult for Russian women to be treated like men... For the last thousand years of Russian history we have had a tradition that it is a men's job, privilege and duty to rip the enemy's guts out in the final fierce bayonet fighting."

Finally, I also found this on the website which I personally thought was just cool
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Results: 72% - Basic Feminist

Whatever, I thought the test was kinda lame. The thread is far more interesting, and once I have time to digest it a little more I intend to give some of the points made here a proper reply.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
I feel like posting this here is appropriate

As a Vermonter I'm a little ashamed I missed this for 8 months, but New Hampshire's state Senate is mostly women. I think it's kinda nifty, but the more I read about it the more iffy I'm feeling about it. The women there are -trying- to make their presence known to men, in that they're bringing in 'their views' and using that to legislate.

I'm not saying this in a sexist way, but by going out of their way to make men uncomfortable/sidelined, they're dismantling progress.

And I'm hearing this on the radio (BBC World News, ironically) so I can't exactly supply a link
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply