Feminist preoccupation with power

Post Reply New Topic

I might be being thick here but I don't understand that question. It seems self-evident to me. If he believed it to be subordinate than he would be subordinate and would not have a problem with it since it coincides with his belief system.

I'd also like to say that I think the biblical method does have a point. In general women are less likely to be ambitious and "take charge" types than men. This is not insulting or demeaning but a statement of common fact. It is hormonally based since testosterone tends to make one agressive and agression is linked to dominance. There isn't anything wrong with a submissive-type woman being in a subordinate role to a dominant-type man nor is there anything wrong with the inverse as long as both parties agree to the roles. Just that no one should feel forced into those roles if they are not comfortable with it. It makes sense to have a "leader" in a relationship. Some couples struggle for power and both are miserable. I doubt pure equality even exists. There is almost always one slightly more dominant partner.

Unless they're making their own clothes, that's not going to work. SOMEONE is going to make a certain style of clothing popular and people are going to want to buy it. As a result, the designers and producers making that kind of clothing will make a lot of money.

Why are you so against the fashion industry? Sounds to me like you equate feminism with marxism. Clearly fashion follows trends, many of them social and cultural trends started in the entertainment industry. Most people are conformist and you're not going to do away with this tendency by taking down those big bad fashion moguls. A lot of people wear things that aren't comfortable. And it isn't because they're being brainwashed into doing it. Goth girls wore corsets back in the late 90s when most women weren't doing so and you can't tell me those are comfortable to wear ALL the time.

And what makes a clothing style popular? Obviously, the fashion mogul saying so. Feminism will never come to be unless people of all genders (and especially women) cease behaving like sheep.


I think that some of the greatest strides towards gender equality have been accomplished in Marxist countries.

Clearly fashion follows trends, many of them social and cultural trends started in the entertainment industry. Most people are conformist and you're not going to do away with this tendency by taking down those big bad fashion moguls. A lot of people wear things that aren't comfortable. And it isn't because they're being brainwashed into doing it. Goth girls wore corsets back in the late 90s when most women weren't doing so and you can't tell me those are comfortable to wear ALL the time.[/quote]
And you're telling me that these Goth Girls weren't brainwashed, and that there was no fashion mogul making a mint off of selling them uncomfortable corsets, while laughing all the way to the bank?

I'd like as much as the next guy for people to stop being sheep. But I doubt it will happen so strongly that I'll probably go out on a limb here and say that it will never happen. I dislike dealing absolutes but I really don't think it ever will. Humans are pack animals.

It isn't brainwashing. It is human nature.

It's actually more complex then that. One of the ways clothing styles become popular is when entertainers wear them on MTV and in the Movies.



If that truly is the case, then feminism is a lost cause. Because people not behaving like sheep is not gonna happen. People are social animals and thus they tend to follow the herd as they always have and always will.






Yes I am. Back in their heyday, Goths tended to make their own clothes. And most corsets are custom still custom made, and the market for them was never large enough for mainstream fashion moguls to make big money selling them.

^^ Haven't you heard of Hot Topic?

The fact of someone using the Bible or any thing they believe in and upholding it as something morally right as reason to dismiss equal rights of humans based on group categories they're in, e.g. gender, is a problem. There may be trends among groups but individuals vary widely and there are many people in any given group that conform more to the stereotypical characterization of another group. Me for example! It's fine if something works for Ragtime and his wife but why is he asserting that it is morally wrong (which he equates with "Unchristian," as if Christianty is something that must be recognized, accepted and followed - and by literal interpretation of everything in its millenia-old holy book at that) for women to assert equal rights? He has a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism as a movement that seeks to privilege women with power over men. This seems like nothing more to me than a symptom of his fearful projection of the idea of the tables being turned and men's privilege over women as held in place by centuries of oppression and its continuing effects, being reversed. He does not seem to be able to comprehend or appreciate the idea of equality, instead preferring and enjoying the convenience of a text from an era when women were not equal by law to men telling him that he's superior to his wife and women in general, as a man, or else catastrophizing about a highly hypothetical fantasy scenario in which the power is completely traded. Feminism is about equality, period, and by failing to address this he continues to attack straw targets and avoid dealing with the problem that is the imbalance of power. I'm fairly sure he won't respond to this as he's been avoiding my questions to him but I'm stating here what seems to be the dynamic of this argument.

As for whether he would be happy with his role if he believed himself to be subordinate: I can't conceive of him ever believing something that takes away the privilege society gives him as a male. His rationale of a Christian concept of male dominance in marriage is convenient to a sexist society and therefore used in a sexist society. (Thankfully the sexism of a society varies by subsection and these ideas of "morality" are nowhere near as prevalent in other places, but they are there.)

In a relationship where one person always has the final say, any power the non-dominant member has is an illusion. All the cooperation in the world won't take away the fact that if cooperation is not reached the final say goes with the dominant member anyway. There's absolutely nothing checking the dominant member's power. Any appearance of equality is a sham to preserve the appearance of niceness. The wife in such a situation basically has to align her opinions with what she imagines her husband's will be in order to have her "choices" recognized on any basis.

Wow! I wasn't expecting this thread to generate so much interest.

Women are not subordinate to men unless they choose to be. Although men had their own part in the oppression of women through much of history, women never really fought back until recently in history. I think it is wonderful that they have, though! I think that we have largely benefited from women growing enough cooter to stand up for themselves and demand being treated as human beings. However, some of the strongest opponents to women's liberation were actually women, such as Helen Kendrick Johnson for example. In Iran, the strongest supporters of forcing women to wear the veil are women.

I know it seems to be counter-intuitive that women would want to have "lower" social status and less political influence, but that's the conceptual problem that everyone seems to have trouble with. To women in pre-modern times, politics between men were a disgusting and dirty affair that they wanted nothing to do with. They were content enough to let them bash each other in the heads all day long as long as they kept the women out of it. A woman in politics would have been crass, and a women who wanted to get involved in politics would have been seen as a low-bred hussy with poor moral values, certainly not the kind of image that well-bred women would want to be associated with.

But things are different now, which is great. It's really awesome. I think it is groovy that women can run for political office now and not be looked down on for it. I think it's awesome that a normal, heterosexual woman can play in a competitive sport without people assuming she is a lesbian. I am avidly pro-feminist, and I think it's one of the best things that have happened lately in human society.

However, the obsession over power is annoying. The male psyche is not programmed from birth to try to disempower and oppress women. Most mentally sound men, if they have any long-term preoccupation concerning women, tend to dwell more on figuring out how to convince women they have taken a fancy to that having hot, wild sex would be a peachy thing to do for a while. Mentally sound men don't care who is supposedly "in power" in a household. As long as something in the arrangement might lead to them being screwed, they don't care. Men are really that simple, where women are concerned. Putting man in power was woman's dumbass idea.

Anyway, what leads to oppression is not being forced into submission by superior strength out of an animal craving for dominance. What leads to oppression is the belief that people are obligated to live a certain way of life, no matter whether they individually are suited to it or happy with it. Diversity is the norm. A society where everyone who is visible lives in the same exact mode of existence is a dysfunctional freak. A normal society has a place for powerful women, and it has a place for men who prefer to be homemakers. It has a place for female weightlifters and men who like decorating cakes. A society that only manages to make life bearable for a "chosen lucky few" who are suited to it has failed.

The true bane of women's liberation is the general oppression of narrow-mindedness and bigotry, and that's everybody's problem.

I agree that a society where everyone has the freedom to seek happiness in a way that does not violate the rights of others would be excellent. Men making cakes, women running for office, all that.

The examples you cite of some women being reinforcers of sexism that upholds male privilege do not prove that men are not programmed from birth to try to disempower and oppress women. Both men and women are programmed from birth in most (if not all) cultures) to do this. It's a cultural problem. Just because women themselves do something that disables equality does not mean the thing is benefiting them.

Just because someone dwells a lot on sex doesn't mean they aren't at the same time privileged with cultural power.

Huh?! It wasn't my idea. What women are you talking about?



Why would it have been seen as crass and low-bred for women to do what men of the same class could do without being seen as any less civilized?

Because negative attributes were attached to women who aspired to power, although they weren't to men. Why did this double standard exist? Because culture privileged men with power and disprivileged women. Not wanting to be seen in a negative light by the strong standards of the time and shunned does not equate to not wanting to become involved in politics.

they are no more easily manipulated than men. men are manipulated to buy things as well, just not high-heeled shoes in our culture because it isn't the current fashion (it has been at some points in history though).

we don't have a choice to buy things except what is offered to us. same as with men.

What is it that men are manipulated to buy, that women aren't?

products for men. men's clothing, men's toiletries, etc.

also, many types of alcohol are specifically marketed to men, and magazines, and some electronics, etc.

Well, here is a refreshingly conservative take on the issue.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1059872

At least we aren't manipulated into disfiguring our feet with ridiculous-looking shoes.

there is no point to what you just said.

Lots of men are manipulated into damaging their bodies with steroids