Is feminism sociologically unhelpfull? Or is it a true reflection of society?

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Bravo funkadeliaaaa, very well put. But I have to point out a point you made, don't make over generalizations not all us feminists are mind controlled, brainwashed agents of the elite!

a reply to: InfamousSiren

There is a difference, in my opinion, between an attack and discussion. A discussion adds ideas and furthers a conversation. An attack halts a topic and prevents new ideas from people to contribute to the thought process.

& this is exaclty what feminism now is, an attack, on the publics conscience, by propogating a negative percpetion of male leaders, or male only social groups... I will say again, not all male leaders are sexist or treat women unfairly. And not all male only social groups, are sexist and conspiring to segregate women for nefarious reasons. Thanks to feminism a group of men, becomes suspect. Having said that, if a woman wants to join my all male cricket team, she is welcome to so long as she can catch a cricketball.

a reply to: InfamousSiren

Fine I can live with the fact that i over generalising a bit by saying all feminists are agents of a brainwashing elite, conspiring to undermine and manipulate the conscience of society, and using us as gineue pigs to see how far they can go with it in a mind control experiment. However, as a radical male feminist (yes i would kick male members out of my all male cricket team if they refused to play with women able to catch a cricket ball) mad at feminists and mad at feminism, i have to say, i dont know how much i agree that i was over-generaliaing seeing as the given dictionary definition of patriarchy itself has now been changed to suit a simplistic academic perspective in the field of sociology, and how often parrotted it is by feminists. Perhaps the word i was looking for was clones. Femininazi clones.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Agreed. Thank you for admitting it was an over generalization. Feminazi is a much better in seperating the real feminists from the crazy man haters out there. I will admit though, most feminists I meet are the type that you refer to. I've only ever met one who was not, she was one of my ex teachers. She told our class something that I really didn't understand until I got older. She told us that we will not be able to live in a sexists free society until men can start respecting women as they respect their mothers and sisters, and until women start to view all men as they do their fathers and brothers.

Realistically not all men have respect for their moms and sisters, just as not all women see the men in their family positively. But the idea behind it is a good one.

a reply to: InfamousSiren

Feminazi is a much better in seperating the real feminists from the crazy man haters out there.

Actially i disagree with singling out feminism and feminist clones. The label femininazi is dangerously easy, and surely contributes nothing to the quality of the overall debate in society, except as a useless buzzword, something we have too many of in todays world. Clones are everywhere, mindlessly repeating and even defending the simplistic views they have been indoctrinated to accept without scrutiny. AKA people without a conscience of their own. Just saying the word femininazi when discussing these clones is the same and just as bad as when people speak out publically against female circumcision, but are not interested in campaigning to end male circumcision concurrently.



This goes back to the point i was making on page one, where i asked:

Hmmmm perhaps another thread is in order: "Are the majority of people experienced enough to judge the validity of views and perspectives they are confronted or indoctrinated with?"

But then, experienced at what? Using ones conscience?

Oh harold.

Your teacher sounds great

She told us that we will not be able to live in a sexists free society until men can start respecting women as they respect their mothers and sisters, and until women start to view all men as they do their fathers and brothers.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Hm I see what you mean when you say that using the term 'feminazi' without thinking about the deeper meaning of it is not helpful to an intelligent conversation. I had used the word oringinally to depict a woman who hatefully bashes men and believes women are superior. It does convey a certain idea that I wanted to make clear. But that meaning is different that then clone concept you are trying to explain.

And what are your reasons for disagreeing with seperating feminist from 'feminazis'? Is it because, in your view, they both follow the pattern/construct society set out for them based on the term they use for themselves? Or another reason entirely?

Now if someone is sprouting something that is actually original and authentic then are they still one of these clones you refer to? And how do you deferentiate between someone you believe is a 'clone' and someone who actually does listen to their conscious and still has an intelligent, original, or authentic thought or idea?

To explain my point a bit better, on reflection i have began to suspect that the whole of sociology is a means of indoctrinating society into simplistic understandings of itself, evidence for which i am clealry lacking at this moment in time, other than what has been displayed in this thread, however having studied it at A level for two years, i can say with confidence that there is a lot in there that is lacking scrutiny and serves the mainstream agenda very well with its programming of thought processes around particular debates. And relies heavily on its own assumptions, that are mostly flawed. It even goes as far as influencing government policy, so it is a very influential subject, which add to my suspicion of it being a means of indoctrination.

a reply to: InfamousSiren

Forget what edited in below my quote. I edited it in thinking i had not explained myself. Then i re read, realised i had explained myself, and anything else confuses what was written before it. So i took it out again. You may need to re read, to comprehend what i was saying. And with the additional post i made to clarify those points it should become clear what i was trying to say. Forget what you read it was a foolish rantnthat detracted frkm what had been said before it.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Its not that its foolish to just call out feminist academic perspectives when they are wrong, its valuable to deconstruct each topic individually when flaws are identified, but for me to say there is a conspiracy in feminist sociology alone would be a mistake as i have began to suspect sociology as a whole is being used as part of a conspiracy.

This whole topic deserves a thread of its own, as there is a lot to research and deconstruct. A hell of a lot.

originally posted by: InfamousSiren
a reply to: FyreByrd

Really? You don't believe men can be raped? I can show you links to at least five cases if you'd like.

And yet you choose not to.

5 compared to countless rapes of women and other men by men over the years. I don't deny it can happen, a group of monkeys with typewriters given enough time will write the bible, but it is an aberration and it no way excuses the abuse of women, children and other men by men.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Is it necessarily about men being horrible leaders, or more about the notion that (some of the) women want representation and a voice as well?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Lol I didn't because, well to be honest, I was being lazy, and secondly I wasn't sure if I completely understood what you meant by 'open rape' is that different from regular rape? Rape is rape. Is bad no matter if it's woman on man, man on man or man on women. But my point it that there is cases of woman on man rape.

And those were five I could find in 5 minutes. The ones where men came out and said something. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where they won't say something, because really, I'm sure a lot people don't understand how a woman can rape a man.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Haha fair enough, but do you think this is how our societies become or always has been? Look at the way we've treated various people who are different from us for the last thousand years. Britain invaded India during the 18th cent. and Africa during the 19th cent. and before that. The people there were treated like cattle, inferior to whites and shipped off into slavery so that Britain could gain more power. The people living in Britain were brainwashed into believing slaverys ok, because people of colour are inferior to them, and it was just easier for them to not think about it.

There's the religious wars fought in Europe during the 16th and 17th cent. fought between various religious organizations. People were brainwashed into thinking that the various other religions other than their own were bad, unholy, wrong, they needed to be exterminated, when really the wars were about politics and power. They only used the excuse of religion to brainwash people to get on board.

Islams vs. Israelis, Christians vs Islams, Europeans vs. First Nations, Rome vs Greece, The Axis vs. Allies, etcetera. Look at the way those wars were fought at what the average citizen was told and had to go through in their daily lives. They were told lies about other races/cultures or the truth was hidden to convince them that everything was ok so they continued to give the wars their support and didn't rebel against what was happening. Plus it's so easy to listen to lies the govt has been feeding us rather than taking a stand. What I've said about racism, religious wars etc, can be applied to women vs men.

It's all about manipulating the people, and dividing and conquering the population. Those war tactics have always been around. The people focus on the small picture then rather than the big one.

a reply to: InfamousSiren

You are right no doubt there has been an indoctrination by a manipulative elite subjugate the role of women. There is little doubt in me about that. But the problem is saying patriarchy at all levels is bad. And changing the definitons to suit that narrative, that all patriarchy is bad. It would be like me as an anarchist changing the definition of leadereship to conform to a narrative i have invented about the evil nature of leadership against a backdrop of the natural order which i believe is anarchy.

a reply to: InfamousSiren

In reality i dont think they are mutually exclusive. I beleive leadership is as much a part of anarchy as patriarchy is of egalitarianism, or perhaps even feminism.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

patriarchy is as good as the hearts and souls of the men who claim it's power.
the problem comes in when that patriarchy commences to set up laws and customs that leaves women with no recourse when the hearts of the men they are under are not so good!
at least the women in those situations know that they are servants.
what is worse is all those pampered slaves who don't realize that they are who think that all is fine if only all women would just settle down and accept their lifestyle.
a pampered slave is still just a slave!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

patriarchy is as good as the hearts and souls of the men who claim it's power.
the problem comes in when that patriarchy commences to set up laws and customs that leaves women with no recourse

And even more problems come when that patriarchy used to redefine the very meaning of patriarchy.

originally posted by: InfamousSiren
a reply to: FyreByrd

Lol I didn't because, well to be honest, I was being lazy, and secondly I wasn't sure if I completely understood what you meant by 'open rape' is that different from regular rape? Rape is rape. Is bad no matter if it's woman on man, man on man or man on women. But my point it that there is cases of woman on man rape.

And those were five I could find in 5 minutes. The ones where men came out and said something. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where they won't say something, because really, I'm sure a lot people don't understand how a woman can rape a man.

Open rape was your term.

And still no concrete examples.

I read about one the other day, an actor (they can be trusted, right?).

When women express traits that are admired in men - they are called man-hating bitches. When men express more feminine attributes - they are called pussys. And such verbally abusive language usually comes from men (though I do hear women using similar language to curry favor).

Now - in reality - the problem will not be solved until women learn to work together, help and support each other in cooperative (yin) ways and not by emulating the competion of males (yang). We all need both - but we live in an extreme yang society - there do you feel better when I say it that way.

Clarity people.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Similar language to curry flavour? OMG what has this thread turned into?????

:rainbowpukingdonkeys: /psyche

When women express traits that are admired in men - they are called man-hating bitches. When men express more feminine attributes - they are called pussys. And such verbally abusive language usually comes from men (though I do hear women using similar language to curry favor).

If you ever make it out of high school, i genuinely hope you come to realise that people do not generally talk to each other in such demeaning ways.

Now - in reality - the problem will not be solved until women learn to work together, help and support each other in cooperative (yin) ways and not by emulating the competion of males (yang). We all need both - but we live in an extreme yang society - there do you feel better when I say it that way.

Again, if you ever make it out of the Womens Insitute i genuinely hope you find that not all men spend their time competing with each other.

Clairty people

Accuracy would be better, without over generalising any social group. Clearing up the mess happens once you recognise how much pap has been spewed in the name of education.