Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[Nanda]

Incidently:

However, like all superheroes Wonder Woman has her Achilles’ heel; if her bracelets are bound together by a man, she loses her powers. In countless stories, she is chained and bound by male villains, only to break free and triumph. The ropes and chains are symbols of patriarchy and the drama is her ability to break the shackles of male domination they symbolize. Unfortunately, most comic historians have ignored the feminist elements of the series, and focused on these elements of bondage, reducing the complexity of Marston’s Wonder Woman mythos to little more than a thinly disguised sadomasochistic sexual fantasy.

From: The Legacy of Wonder Woman - 3/1/2007 - School Library Journal

 

[Humanistheart]

No, you named one that no longer applies ("up until recently") and another that is much, much more complex than the simple terms in which you've listed it. Do you have anything else, or is that it?

Several more yes, care to address the one already listed, rather than just saying it's complex and ignoring it? Or should I provide more examples for you to simply ignore? It's a legal right women have with no legal equivalent for men. You have every legal right men have but men do not have every legal right you do. Just as I said, women have more legal rights. Yet I see no attempt by feminists claiming to believe in equality to rectify this issue.

 

[Nanda]

Several more yes, care to address the one already listed, rather than just saying it's complex and ignoring it? Or should I provide more examples for you to simply ignore? It's a legal right women have with no legal equivalent for men. You have every legal right men have but men do not have every legal right you do. Just as I said, women have more legal rights. Yet I see no attempt by feminists claiming to believe in equality to rectify this issue.

A woman can't kill a child, either. They can terminate a fetus. Men can't, because they're incapable of carrying a fetus. When they get that figured out, they can get abortions, too.

 

[Nanda]

Also, there are plenty of pro-life feminists.

 

[Papersock]

Maybe you guys have moved on from this part of the discussion, but what is wrong with feminists advocating causes that will benefit them?

Calling a man a feminist would be rather emasculating, given the title. I can't see a man with any real dignity being okay with that title.

Why does supporting women's rights make a man emasculated or lose dignity?

 

[Alceste]

The creator of wonder woman? Ha ha ha. Are you unaware of his inspiration for the character? The polyamory and bondage. Did you know if you bind wonder woman she becomes weak and submissive? Have you seen the covers of older commic with WW bent over the knee getting a spanking? lol, I love the man's kink but this hardly seems to be condusive to feminism.

And of course that couldn't possibly be a metaphor. An artist would never do such a thing.

Edit: I see Nanda beat me to it.

 

[Alceste]

Several more yes, care to address the one (abortion) already listed, rather than just saying it's complex and ignoring it? Or should I provide more examples for you to simply ignore? It's a legal right women have with no legal equivalent for men. You have every legal right men have but men do not have every legal right you do. Just as I said, women have more legal rights. Yet I see no attempt by feminists claiming to believe in equality to rectify this issue.

Men have the right to wear a condom or have a vasectomy, and I believe there is some male version of the pill coming out. In fact, you have all the same reproductive rights women have: you can decide for yourself whether or not to have kids. You simply need to make your decision in advance because once you've made your "contribution" - which might take all of five minutes - the ball is in her court.

 

[blackout]

The only real problem with this movement is these women VOTE. :no:

This is MOST DEFINATELY the FIRST liberation they should personally give up,
in order to fight a battlefront for god that is, of course.
Then they can go encourage other christian women to abandon their rights
with no sin or stain of hypocracy in them.

 

[Willamena]

The only real problem with this movement is these women VOTE. :no:

This is MOST DEFINATELY the FIRST liberation they should personally give up,
in order to fight a battlefront for god that is, of course.
Then they can go encourage other christian women to abandon their rights
with no sin of hypocracy in them.

Et tu, Vi? Feminism is not a right.

 

[blackout]

Et tu, Vi? Feminism is not a right.

These are women out to give up their personal liberties
based on their gender as christians.

Neither am I a christian or a woman out to give up her liberties.
Not sure where you got that I implied "feminism" as a "right".

I'm just saying... if you're going to give up your rights and liberties,
start with the vote.

 

[Alceste]

These are women out to give up their personal liberties
based on their gender as christians.

Neither am I a christian or a woman out to give up her liberties.
Not sure where you got that I implied "feminism" as a "right".

I'm just saying... if you're going to give up your rights and liberties,
start with the vote.

I second that. Imagine if all the "true women" accepted the traditional role of disenfranchisement! It would be brilliant!

 

[Ukonkivi]

Why does supporting women's rights make a man emasculated or lose dignity?

For that matter, what's wrong with a guy being a degree less masculine?

One of the more common ideas within feminism is that gender roles are not especially necessary or even helpful.

 

[Willamena]

Not sure where you got that I implied "feminism" as a "right".

Feminism is kind of the topic. It promotes, supports, encourages, teaches, allows for, and demonstrates self-defined gender roles. And that's a good thing, for most. It's just not for these women, whose philosophy dictates gender roles defined apart from them.

They are not giving up any rights, nor demanding others do that. They are raising an outcry for awareness: feminism, so allowed in our society, so taught, encouraged, and supported in all walks, promotes and demonstrates a philosophy for gender roles that they cannot adopt (i.e. self-defined). You can call it "their choice" (or right) to give their gender roles over to the religion --but in doing so you undermine what they are crying out against. In doing so, you undermine them with self-defined gender roles.

What are these women to do?

 

[Papersock]

For that matter, what's wrong with a guy being a degree less masculine?

One of the more common ideas within feminism is that gender roles are not especially necessary or even helpful.

I agree with this.

I seem to be some kind of feminist. The male kind, I guess.

Et tu, Vi? Feminism is not a right.

But we have a right to be feminist, right?

 

[Alceste]

Feminism is kind of the topic. It promotes, supports, encourages, teaches, allows for, and demonstrates self-defined gender roles. And that's a good thing, for most. It's just not for these women, whose philosophy dictates gender roles defined apart from them.

They are not giving up any rights, nor demanding others do that. They are raising an outcry for awareness: feminism, so allowed in our society, so taught, encouraged, and supported in all walks, promotes and demonstrates a philosophy for gender roles that they cannot adopt (i.e. self-defined). You can call it "their choice" (or right) to give their gender roles over to the religion --but in doing so you undermine what they are crying out against. In doing so, you undermine them with self-defined gender roles.

What are these women to do?

IMO, they ought to acknowledge the fact that they are defining their own roles, and be thankful that feminism has given them opportunities and civil rights their more "traditional" ancestors could not have imagined. Rights they apparently take for granted even as they rail against the contribution of all the women who fought so they could have them. The right to own property, the right to divorce, the right to vote, the right to work for a living wage, the right to choose your own husband at such a time as you're ready to marry rather than have one chosen for you by family or necessity the minute you're old enough to bear children. Any woman who is not supportive of the achievements of our feminist ancestors who have struggled for so many generations to improve our lives is simply an idiot.

 

[Willamena]

IMO, they ought to acknowledge the fact that they are defining their own roles, and be thankful that feminism has given them opportunities and civil rights their more "traditional" ancestors could not have imagined. Rights they apparently take for granted even as they rail against the contribution of all the women who fought so they could have them. The right to own property, the right to divorce, the right to vote, the right to work for a living wage, the right to choose your own husband at such a time as you're ready to marry rather than have one chosen for you by family or necessity the minute you're old enough to bear children. Any woman who is not supportive of the achievements of our feminist ancestors who have struggled for so many generations to improve our lives is simply an idiot.

Hence the need for a counter-movement: they talk and people listen, but they don't hear what is being said.

 

[Nanda]

They are not giving up any rights, nor demanding others do that. They are raising an outcry for awareness: feminism, so allowed in our society, so taught, encouraged, and supported in all walks, promotes and demonstrates a philosophy for gender roles that they cannot adopt (i.e. self-defined). You can call it "their choice" (or right) to give their gender roles over to the religion --but in doing so you undermine what they are crying out against. In doing so, you undermine them with self-defined gender roles.

What are these women to do?

What's a feminist to do? If I accept what they're doing, it is because I believe that every woman should have the choice to live as they choose, and in doing so, you say I undermine them. But if I oppose them, I'm not only a hypocrite, but I'm also going against my own principles.

 

[Alceste]

Hence the need for a counter-movement: they talk and people listen, but they don't hear what is being said.

Perhaps what you think is being said is not what they're actually saying. I hear what they're saying perfectly well: Feminism is bad because the proper roles of all women, everywhere in the world, are defined by their particular, narrow sect of Christianity (which they have chosen, out of a virtually infinite array of options) and not by individual women. To them, only women who live according to this arbitrary, historically inaccurate and limiting view are "true" women, and they are on a mission to spread this message throughout the world, starting with indoctrinating their own daughters. I can't see how you could read their manifesto and walk away with any other message.

 

[Willamena]

What's a feminist to do? If I accept what they're doing, it is because I believe that every woman should have the choice to live as they choose, and in doing so, you say I undermine them. But if I oppose them, I'm not only a hypocrite, but I'm also going against my own principles.

Right. You've a perspective and a philosophy, and they do. They are presenting theirs, yours opposes, and that's fine; but to present them as if from yours is what "undermines."

Let's look at it pseudo-historically: women were gender-role oppressed; they fought for personal freedom, to take control of their lives, to define their place in society; they won freedom, yay :hug:. That's one view. The other is that women occupy a defined place in the nature of things, defined by god/nature/the way the world is; their personal freedom isn't tied to that place in society --the gender role, like gender itself, is a part of the way the world is; they are free, always were; their personal freedom can/will never change, because the way the world is doesn't change; yet feminists turn a distasteful eye on them and tell them they are gender-role oppressed. They are living in the past, but we should recognize that in that phrase it is our past, not theirs, that we have them living in.

Feminism, as an ideology and philosophy, attempts to embrace all women. The message I heard in the OP is that not all women want to be embraced by self-defined gender roles. As feminists, I would simply hope for more figurative "wearing the other's shoes" in an attempt to understand.

Does that make sense?

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps what you think is being said is not what they're actually saying. I hear what they're saying perfectly well: Feminism is bad because the proper roles of all women, everywhere in the world, are defined by their particular, narrow sect of Christianity (which they have chosen, out of a virtually infinite array of options) and not by individual women. To them, only women who live according to this arbitrary, historically inaccurate and limiting view are "true" women, and they are on a mission to spread this message throughout the world, starting with indoctrinating their own daughters. I can't see how you could read their manifesto and walk away with any other message.

That could well be, that I've heard it wrong. But what I did hear is the issue that caught my eye (or ear, as the metaphor may be).