Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[Alceste]

I'm listening to Mary Kassian on Youtube right now. It's rather disturbing that this professor of Women's Studies and the individual basically defining what feminism means for this movement can give such a horrible lecture. Part 1 is the whole Virginia Slims campaign, June Cleaver, Mary Tyler Moore, Murphy Brown.......are we talking about feminism or pop culture and marketing. Part 2 is filled with much of the same. Part 3 she discusses a generalized form of the history of feminist thought glossing over particular points. Part 4 immediately starts by comparing "consciousness raising" to Mao Tse Tung and communism. What's funny is that isn't staging a conference for a specific group of people and then asking them to sign a manifesto......"consciousness raising".

Yeah, that sounds like the video version of the text thing I read.

The people behind this movement are poorly educated, build a strawman out of feminism when their real disdain is for secularism

Exactly. One thing that struck me when I was trying to read some of their articles and lectures is that their personal neuroses and hangups really shine through from time to time. I feel I got a sense of what they're really "against'. The woman who wrote "my liberation from feminism" appears to have spent her entire adult life desperately hoping for a husband, but never attracting one. From her POV, it's not because SHE'S unattractive in some way, it's because the angry feminists of the 70s have ruined the whole world.

I read another lecture by a woman who was on her third marriage, husbands one and two having been kicked to the curb on account of "vile, sexual sins". And another that discussed the difference between a spiritual physical union between man and wife and "the mere exchange of bodily fluids, YUCK."

There were some other clues in there, but I can't read any more of it either. The general impression I got was that these women have not had much luck with men thus far (perhaps on account of being intolerable prudes), and blame feminism for making things more difficult than they seemed on Leave it to Beaver.

They do not even appear to be aware that it is feminism that won them the right to refuse to submit to the "mere exchange of bodily fluids" with their husbands, the right to divorce them when they go elsewhere to "exchange bodily fluids" and the right to work to support themselves through their divorces and spinsterly husband-chasing activities.

 

[Willamena]

It's not out of context, it's quoted direct response to your incorrect assertion that their manifesto is "all about them".

Even quoted directly, it's clear that you've taken it out of context: the context of "them". It's their manifesto.

 

[Willamena]

What part is that? The article I quoted launches right in with "Angry feminists are responsible for pornography, murder, deadbeat dads and STDs", then moves on to "they advocate nothing but perpetual victimhood and unfocused anger". Then it goes on to talk at great length about how superior Christian fundamentalist women are in every way.

I read another lengthy lecture explaining their objection to feminism which hinged on the fact that Philip Morris used the feminist movement of the 60s to sell cigarettes. (So, obviously, feminism is EVIL!) Granted, it then moved on to discuss the worrying ideological distance between June Cleaver and Mary Tyler Moore, which is a step up, intellectually speaking, but not far enough up to bring them out of the putrescent swamp of ignorance that forms the foundation of their ideology.

I've honestly searched for what you're seeing in this movement. It's just not there. Not in anything they've said or written, anyway. Maybe you can see through what people say they think and feel to how they really think and feel when all you have to go by is disembodied text. I can't. I have to assume that people mean what they write.

Okay, I'm guessing that you're not that 3rd wave thingie.

 

[Alceste]

Even quoted directly, it's clear that you've taken it out of context: the context of "them". It's their manifesto.

Yes, but their manifesto isn't "only about them", as you seem to want to believe. It's also about making a commitment to engage in lobbying and political activism to promote their dream of a patriarchal theocracy where all women, everywhere in the world, must pretend to be June Cleaver.

 

[Alceste]

Okay, I'm guessing that you're not that 3rd wave thingie.

What do you mean?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but their manifesto isn't "only about them", as you seem to want to believe.

I see nothing in it that isn't about them. And considering it's a manifesto, it could only be about them.

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean?

The supporting causes that are not about them thing that Nanda mentioned.

 

[Willamena]

The people behind this movement are poorly educated, build a strawman out of feminism when their real disdain is for secularism, maintain a homophobic attitude that will unfortunately be taught to their children, lack a perspective of the various cultures, the women's movement.......

People tend to do that, a lot (and not just them).

 

[Alceste]

I see nothing in it that isn't about them

That much is obvious.

And considering it's a manifesto, it could only be about them.

S: (n) manifesto, a public declaration of intentions (as issued by a political party or government)

A couple of notable illustrative examples:

• Mein Kampf (My Struggle) (1925), by Adolf Hitler
• The Communist Manifesto (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
• Industrial Society and Its Future a.k.a. The Unabomber's Manifesto (1995) by Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski

 

[Willamena]

manifesto, a public declaration of intentions (as issued by a political party or government)

A couple of notable illustrative examples:

• Mein Kampf (My Struggle) (1925), by Adolf Hitler
• The Communist Manifesto (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
• Industrial Society and Its Future a.k.a. The Unabomber's Manifesto (1995) by Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski

Um, yes? It's a public declaration of the intentions, beliefs, goals, etc. of a group. Their intentions, their beliefs, their goals.

 

[Alceste]

The supporting causes that are not about them thing that Nanda mentioned.

Are you asking whether I support causes that are not about me? If so, then yes. If you've ever seen any of my posts in other threads, this should be fairly obvious.

Also, years ago, I suppose I would have been considered a Riot Grrrl, or at least a sympathizer. Even had a punk band (well, duo) - Acme Inflatable *****.

 

[Willamena]

Are you asking whether I support causes that are not about me? If so, then yes. If you've ever seen any of my posts in other threads, this should be fairly obvious.

No, I wasn't asking that.

 

[Alceste]

No, I wasn't asking that.

So, you're asking if I'm a third wave feminist? Yeah, I am. I had to look it up, but I suppose certain parts of the wikipedia article on it describe certain aspects of my opinions fairly well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I see nothing in it that isn't about them. And considering it's a manifesto, it could only be about them.

Indeed. It's all about them - including their desire to change the behavior of other people.

 

[Enoch07]

Kudos to the brave women who are standing up for what they believe in. :clap

I find it disturbing that so called feminist want to deny the rights of women who follow their convictions. Part of having equal rights gained from feminism is the ability to choose how they want to live their life. If they want to be head of household they can, if they want to be a more of a traditional role they can choose that as well.

Anyone who tries to deny these women of either right is anti-equal rights period (this goes for race,sexual pref,religion, etc). They are not going to force anyone to live any particular lifestyle (we all know it is futile and silly to try and force anyone to do anything), but they are leading by example showing that the traditional role can work in the modern world.

 

[blackout]

Kudos to the brave women who are standing up for what they believe in. :clap

I find it disturbing that so called feminist want to deny the rights of women who follow their convictions. Part of having equal rights gained from feminism is the ability to choose how they want to live their life. If they want to be head of household they can, if they want to be a more of a traditional role they can choose that as well.

Anyone who tries to deny these women of either right is anti-equal rights period (this goes for race,sexual pref,religion, etc). They are not going to force anyone to live any particular lifestyle (we all know it is futile and silly to try and force anyone to do anything), but they are leading by example showing that the traditional role can work in the modern world.

Oh no no.... I don't think anyone here is against these women living as they choose and please.
We just don't want them attempting to vote OUR hard won rights away.
This is my concern anyway.
Don't try and legislate against MY equal rights,
just because YOU prefer to live "subject" to men.

I really do HATE the way christians work to legislate against the freedoms of others.
IF YOU don't want to participate in certain freedoms
(like lesbian marriage, or working outside the home- no glass ceiling) FINE.
Just don't try and enFORCE your life choices on me/everyone else.

 

[Nanda]

Kudos to the brave women who are standing up for what they believe in. :clap

I find it disturbing that so called feminist want to deny the rights of women who follow their convictions. Part of having equal rights gained from feminism is the ability to choose how they want to live their life. If they want to be head of household they can, if they want to be a more of a traditional role they can choose that as well.

Anyone who tries to deny these women of either right is anti-equal rights period (this goes for race,sexual pref,religion, etc). They are not going to force anyone to live any particular lifestyle (we all know it is futile and silly to try and force anyone to do anything), but they are leading by example showing that the traditional role can work in the modern world.

Nobody's trying to deny them their rights to live as they choose. We'd just prefer it if they'd stop trying to impose it on others.

 

[gnomon]

Kudos to the brave women who are standing up for what they believe in. :clap

I find it disturbing that so called feminist want to deny the rights of women who follow their convictions. Part of having equal rights gained from feminism is the ability to choose how they want to live their life. If they want to be head of household they can, if they want to be a more of a traditional role they can choose that as well.

Anyone who tries to deny these women of either right is anti-equal rights period (this goes for race,sexual pref,religion, etc). They are not going to force anyone to live any particular lifestyle (we all know it is futile and silly to try and force anyone to do anything), but they are leading by example showing that the traditional role can work in the modern world.

Another RF member who doesn't actually read anything.

No one has denied them a right to anything. Do you understand that.

Second, this group doesn't even understand feminism. And apparently very few people on this forum do as well.

I find it disturbing the number of fools on this forum who can't read and then wish to post something that is nothing more than a lie.

But feel free to actually read anyone's posts.

 

[Enoch07]

Nobody's trying to deny them their rights to live as they choose. We'd just prefer it if they'd stop trying to impose it on others.

Nobody is imposing it on anyone. Neither will women rights ever be revoked or "voted out". You are all being paranoid. Yeah I am sure you do not want to deny them the right to live as they choose as long as it is a lifestyle you approve of? Sound familiar? Your no better than anyone who wants to deny equal rights to homosexuals.

 

[idea]

I love the beautiful role of women as mothers and wives, as nurturers, listeners, caregivers, sensitive feeling loving giving beloved people. I think we as women should embrace our femininity - to see it as a beautiful thing, not something to break free of. IMO nothing/no-one is more beloved than a woman who has fully embraced her God-given femininity. Yes, women can do anything they want to, but is there anything that trumps being a mother / beloved wife? (natural or adoptive mother). There are billions of people in the world – all of the paying jobs can be done by anyone, no one so prideful to think if their solution to a prob was not published, another would not come along. How many times have we heard someone say the most influential person in their life was their mother? She who understands the beauty of the feminine is one with great influence. What could be a more noble calling than to guide/teach/influence others for good? The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

Is it submissive to be loving, nurturing, caring, supportive, councilor? In her true role, women do not “submit” to others, they empower others, they bring out the best in others, they wipe away the tears of others, they befriend others, they love others, they rejoice with others. Their success is Her success. May all women embrace and cherish their femininity!