Both feminism and anarchism are silly

[forward]

I think that both feminism and anarchism are silly. This is just my opinion though. Feminists want MORE rights for women than men, whereas anarchists think that morality should not exist, which I am not okay with.But I do agree with you that feminism only focuses on a specfic issue and will use certain things only for their agenda. However the government is not the problem either. Interesting thread though.

[Module]

I think that both feminism and anarchism are silly. This is just my opinion though. Feminists want MORE rights for women than men, whereas anarchists think that morality should not exist, which I am not okay with.But I do agree with you that feminism only focuses on a specfic issue and will use certain things only for their agenda. However the government is not the problem either. Interesting thread though.
What are you on about?
Feminists want equal rights for women and men. Seriously, at least wiki what you attempt to criticise.
As for anarchists and morality, it depends on how you're using the term 'morality'.
Anarchists don't think that anybody should conform to some external code of conduct, rather should rationalise what they think is right or wrong as individuals.
For example, anarchists are opposed to ... the 10 commandments. Anarchists think that individuals should use their own sense of rationality rather than abide by some external moral code.

[Module]

EDIT: It got split. Frustrating!

[Sentinel]

EDIT: It got split. Frustrating!

Yeah, forward has been restricted and cannot reply in Discrim anymore. Only fair to split his ramblings into OI.

[Kami]

I think that both feminism and anarchism are silly. This is just my opinion though.
You're right, it is just your opinion. Try grounding it in a little fact next time

Feminists want MORE rights for women than men,
No, they don't. Try again.

whereas anarchists think that morality should not exist
Actually, a lot of us are humanists of varying types, we hardly think "morality" shouldn't exist- it's more we just disagree with yours

But I do agree with you that feminism only focuses on a specfic issue and will use certain things only for their agenda
Feminism only focuses on specific issues? What, like the rights of women by any chance?

However the government is not the problem either
Asserting something does not make it true. Try rationalising it in some way, perhaps?

[Dean]

Some feminists want power over men. But that hasn't been a large tendency since the 70s, as far as I know. Plus I haven't yet met a feminist who genuinely wanted rights above men.

[Sir Comradical]

Dude are you kidding me?

[freakazoid]

For example, anarchists are opposed to ... the 10 commandments.

I wouldn't be so quick to say all are, :P

[Dros]

So forward, which feminist authors have you read? What branch of feminism are you most familiar with?

Or have you read absolutely nothing? So basically, your opinion is based on... what exactly?

I think you have no idea what you're talking about. It's pretty obvious really.

[RedAnarchist]

For example, anarchists are opposed to ... the 10 commandments.

Not necessarily, we're opposed to having laws forced on people and the creation and enforcement of hierarchy. Rather than being opposed to the commandments, we're just opposed to all laws in general.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think that both feminism and anarchism are silly. This is just my opinion though.

Indeed it is your opinion, an opinion with which I disagree.


Feminists want MORE rights for women than men,

As many of our educated members have pointed out, this is not the case. Here is the first sentence for wikipedia's entry on "feminism":
"Feminism is a discourse that involves various movements, theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) and philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophies) which are concerned with the issue of gender difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_difference), that advocate equality for women, and that campaign for women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) and interests."

So you see that feminism is concerned with equality for women, not 'more rights than men.'

In many cases (if not most), equality involves removing male privilege, which may be viewed by men as women wanting "more" rights than them. This naturally is a false view to hold, but it is none-the-less a great issue for many men when dealing with feminism.


whereas anarchists think that morality should not exist, which I am not okay with.

Once again, our educated members here have already mentioned that this too is incorrect. What you are speaking of is called "moral nihilism" or the belief that morals do not and should not exist. Anarchists are not moral nihilists, rather, they disagree with conventional forms of morality. Many of these forms, as have been mentioned, are justified through the use of external authority. Anarchists oppose this form of authority, as it is totally unjustified (try rationally justifying God's word).


But I do agree with you that feminism only focuses on a specfic issue and will use certain things only for their agenda. However the government is not the problem either. Interesting thread though.

Feminism does focus on 'specific issues' such as gender inequality, gender roles, cultural and social male superiority, etc... But all theories focus on 'specific issues.' Furthermore, what do you mean "use certain things only for their agenda"? This is unclear.

And your claim that "government is not the problem" could use some justification if it is to be taken seriously by anyone.

- August

[Trystan]

forward - you really need read about these ideologies that you despise so much and what their followers stand for, instead of arguing in favor of popular assumptions and misconceptions. That is, if you are not a troll.

[forward]

Yes I know that feminism is an ideology that advocates equality, but, from the femnists that I know, it seems more and more like a women's dominance theory. Many hate men and think women are superior, and that they have never done anything wrong, and such shouldn't take any responsibility for their actions. I have no problem with equality for men and women (which is, for the most part, already alive in many developed countries), but when they depend superiority, that is my problem.As for anarchy, the ideal society will have no moral guidelines. Morality is universally accepted (ie, do not kill). So, as for those who advocate it, they are okay with murderers and such killing people. That is not a safe place to raise my children, where murderers are running around and same with rapists and other evil people.

[Comrade Rage]

You do realize that feminism and the theory that you are talking about are two different things, right?

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes I know that feminism is an ideology that advocates equality, but, from the femnists that I know, it seems more and more like a women's dominance theory. Many hate men and think women are superior, and that they have never done anything wrong, and such shouldn't take any responsibility for their actions. I have no problem with equality for men and women (which is, for the most part, already alive in many developed countries), but when they depend superiority, that is my problem.

I assume that you are a male. I further assume that you are white. If I am correct in my assumptions, you must confront the following:
you are in a position of superiority, simply because you are a white male.

This position of superiority has made you (and all white males), the norm. It is unjust. Therefore feminists may appear to you to want superiority, but that it purely because you are losing privilege. They want to take away your privilege, and rightly so. It creates an underlying inequality which puts women and non-whites at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, equality between men and women exists in no developed countries - none. In all countries there is inequality of the sexes. Don't believe me? Ask some women!


As for anarchy, the ideal society will have no moral guidelines. Morality is universally accepted (ie, do not kill). So, as for those who advocate it, they are okay with murderers and such killing people. That is not a safe place to raise my children, where murderers are running around and same with rapists and other evil people.

This is incorrect.

Firstly, morality is not "universally accepted." That killing is wrong may be a common moral principle, but it is not universal. It was invented by human beings as all morals are. This isn't to say that morality is bad, or that I do not advocate certain moral responsibility, but it to say that you do not understand morality.

Secondly, the ideal anarchist society will have moral guidelines, but they will not emerge from 'above.' They will emerge from the communities which create the moral principles with which they choose to live. Anarchists are not 'okay with murder,' in fact, many oppose violence on numerous different levels. And your over-simplification of anarchist society ('rapists running around with murderers') is childish and inappropriate. I am happy to discuss these issues with you, but if you are unclear on what an ideal society would look like, just ask!

- August

[Bud Struggle]

I assume that you are a male. I further assume that you are white. If I am correct in my assumptions, you must confront the following:
you are in a position of superiority, simply because you are a white male. So what if that is the case?



This position of superiority has made you (and all white males), the norm. What is wrong with that?



It is unjust. Why would that be--who said? God, Marx, you. Why would that be morally unjust?


Furthermore, equality between men and women exists in no developed countries - none. In all countries there is inequality of the sexes.

Doesn't that show that the natural state of man is to have males superior to women? Wouldn't it be best--to follow nature's lead on the subjuct? Should natural relationships be subverted inder Anarchism? Should relationships be arbitrary? If so then who is to make the "rules?"


Firstly, morality is not "universally accepted." That killing is wrong may be a common moral principle, but it is not universal. It was invented by human beings as all morals are. EXACTLY--just as your ex cathedra; that women not being equal to women is unjust. It's an arbitrary pronouncement--shouldn't it be acked up by something more than the idea that some people don't like it. Inequality of the sexes is rooted in nature.


Secondly, the ideal anarchist society will have moral guidelines, but they will not emerge from 'above.' They will emerge from the communities which create the moral principles with which they choose to live. Anarchists are not 'okay with murder,' in fact, many oppose violence on numerous different levels. And your over-simplification of anarchist society ('rapists running around with murderers') is childish and inappropriate. I am happy to discuss these issues with you, but if you are unclear on what an ideal society would look like, just ask!


Hi, August--I'm as you can see intruding, (I beg your forgivness,) but I am asking: what is the premier moral concern in Anarchism--personal responsibility and FREEDOM, or the benefit of the entire community?

Tom

[Decolonize The Left]

What is wrong with that?

It is entirely unjustified.


Why would that be--who said? God, Marx, you. Why would that be morally unjust?

The social inequality perpetuated by white male superiority is unjust for the following reason:
1) It has no rational basis.


Doesn't that show that the natural state of man is to have males superior to women? Wouldn't it be best--to follow nature's lead on the subjuct? Should natural relationships be subverted inder Anarchism? Should relationships be arbitrary? If so then who is to make the "rules?"

Does the fact that most men shave their beards show that the natural state of men is to have no facial hair? No. :lol:

Nature has provided no lead. You are making a grave confusion here. You are confusing the biological difference in sexes with the social construction of gender roles.

Yes, people are different. Yes, males and females are different - biologically. No arguments from anyone on this forum over this point. But when we, as a people, institute and perpetuate unequal gender roles, whereby white males occupy a position of superiority, this is unjust.


EXACTLY--just as your ex cathedra; that women not being equal to women is unjust. It's an arbitrary pronouncement--shouldn't it be acked up by something more than the idea that some people don't like it. Inequality of the sexes is rooted in nature.

But my argument that women and men not being treated equally is backed by reason. Your counter-arguments are backed by incoherent appeals to 'nature' which result from a profound confusion over the issue at hand.


Hi, August--I'm as you can see intruding, (I beg your forgivness,) but I am asking: what is the premier moral concern in Anarchism--personal responsibility and FREEDOM, or the benefit of the entire community?

I don't know what the first part was all about, but I shall answer your queries. "Personal responsibility and freedom" are synonymous with "the benefit of the entire community." Would not the entire community be better if individuals were free and responsible?

- August

[Bud Struggle]

It is entirely unjustified.

You just SAY those things.

The social inequality perpetuated by white male superiority is unjust for the following reason:
1) It has no rational basis.

As Hume says man's rationality is the slave of his passions. We have no direct KNOWLEDGE of what is rational. Social conventions, religious and nationalistic bias all was quite "rational" at one time. How can we say that we are nany different in our prejudices than our ancestors? We don' have a measuring stick to guide us on what is rational or not, do we?


Does the fact that most men shave their beards show that the natural state of men is to have no facial hair? No. :lol:

It's just as worthy of a guideline as when it was "rational" to kill Jews in ovens.


Nature has provided no lead. You are making a grave confusion here. You are confusing the biological difference in sexes with the social construction of gender roles. I have no problem with socially constructed gender roles--but you have to admit they are arbitrary--today women are EQUALS, tomorrows fashion--our chattel property!


Yes, people are different. Yes, males and females are different - biologically. No arguments from anyone on this forum over this point. But when we, as a people, institute and perpetuate unequal gender roles, whereby white males occupy a position of superiority, this is unjust. You keep saying words like "unjust". There is no such thing as unjust--it is only, "on a whim, we don't want to do things this way at this time." Nothing more.


But my argument that women and men not being treated equally is backed by reason. Your counter-arguments are backed by incoherent appeals to 'nature' which result from a profound confusion over the issue at hand. As I have stated: reason is a chimera, an excuse for letting us do what ever we want to do for the present--in the future as our desires change--so will our "reason."


I don't know what the first part was all about, but I shall answer your queries. "Personal responsibility and freedom" are synonymous with "the benefit of the entire community." Would not the entire community be better if individuals were free and responsible?

- August

I see nothing to agree with there. If there is no God, there are no laws, if there are no laws I am "free" and can do whatever I want in the universe. There is nothing more.

You make Anarchy sound like an afternoon tea. :)

Tom

[forward]

Well, we must realize that women and men are indeed treated equally. Tell me how they are. Women can get jobs just like men. But also we should value specific gender roles. The mother takes care of the kids and has no job. If she chooses to have no children, then she can have a job. This is not what feminists want. They want women to have equal status, and thius equal roles. Instead of staying home with the children, they want her to work. Then the children are provided by daycare. If you are to have children, you must take care of them, and the woman is better at that than the man. In what respects do you think males occupy a position of superiority? In today's world, I see men and women as leaders of organizations, world leaders, scientists, etc. How is that not equality?To answer the question of "Would not the entire community be better if individuals were free and responsible?", I say no it would not be, because, since people are free to do whatever they want, there wants may restrict my needs. For example, if someone likes hurting people, that is not fair to the victum. It is not fair to let people do wahtever they want because they would be more empowered to do what they couldn't have with laws in tact.

[contemptpunk]

My girlfriend loves cooking, I try to tell her I'm an anarchist and I need to do exactly half, but she doesn't let me. So I decided to not let her not let me, then I realised I was being an oppressive male. Bugger. And you know what? She wants kids as well! How more gender specific a role can you get than a mother? Do you think I should leave her? Or let her be free to do as she wants? She does seem happy being a woman. Mind you, I'm happy being a man. My point is some people are very happy with specific gender roles, such as my partner and I, we have a very balanced relationship, not an equal one though. But if we do have children, it will be me kicking a football around the garden with them (as soon as they're big enough to stand up!) while she's baking a cake. I'm not saying that fighting prejudice against women is wrong, far from it, but I do think many gender roles are there simply as a result of nature. Look at the animals. You may consider yourself superior to the animals, but how much? And in what way? We all have the same basic needs, and two sexes that complement each other in order to be able to achieve those basic needs. Nothing wrong with celebrating that.

[Bud Struggle]

My girlfriend loves cooking, I try to tell her I'm an anarchist and I need to do exactly half, but she doesn't let me. So I decided to not let her not let me, then I realised I was being an oppressive male. Bugger. And you know what? She wants kids as well! How more gender specific a role can you get than a mother? Do you think I should leave her? Or let her be free to do as she wants? She does seem happy being a woman. Mind you, I'm happy being a man. My point is some people are very happy with specific gender roles, such as my partner and I, we have a very balanced relationship, not an equal one though. But if we do have children, it will be me kicking a football around the garden with them (as soon as they're big enough to stand up!) while she's baking a cake. I'm not saying that fighting prejudice against women is wrong, far from it, but I do think many gender roles are there simply as a result of nature. Look at the animals. You may consider yourself superior to the animals, but how much? And in what way? We all have the same basic needs, and two sexes that complement each other in order to be able to achieve those basic needs. Nothing wrong with celebrating that.

You shouldn't be posting this kind of stuff in OI--this belongs in Philosophy. :)

[Jazzratt]

Well, we must realize that women and men are indeed treated equally.

I take it your declaring that as the proud owner of a [tiny] cock and balls, right? Refusing to acknowledge your privilege as a man doesn't mean you don't have any.


Women can get jobs just like men.

And get paid less than men for doing them. They are also unfairly pushed away from certain jobs (for example construction or engineering) and are often afforded far less respect in their workplace than their male colleagues.


But also we should value specific gender roles.

Why?


The mother takes care of the kids and has no job. If she chooses to have no children, then she can have a job. This is not what feminists want.

What exactly is the advantage to the woman if she takes on a financial burden (children) and then deliberately slashes her income?


They want women to have equal status, and thius equal roles. Instead of staying home with the children, they want her to work.

She can stay home with the kids if she wants and she can work if she wants, but it must be her decision. However societal pressures must stop fetishising the "stay at home mother" model, because it's fucking stupid and it keeps a large percentage of the adult population out of productive work.


If you are to have children, you must take care of them, and the woman is better at that than the man.

We've left the caves so we don't need this kind of mentality any more, children can be raised by just about anyone and we now have a myriad of ways of raising children beyond shackling the mother to her broodlings.


In what respects do you think males occupy a position of superiority? In today's world, I see men and women as leaders of organizations, world leaders, scientists, etc.

Yeah, and I've seen a few nonwhites in positions of power in the west. We've come a long way from our horrendously bigoted past but if you think that a power structure that is unreasonably biased to white males is "equality" then you're sadly mistaken.


How is that not equality?

Sorry but a handful of women who weild some influence in society doesn't make up for the entire society being a heteronormative phallocracy.


To answer the question of "Would not the entire community be better if individuals were free and responsible?", I say no it would not be, because, since people are free to do whatever they want, there wants may restrict my needs. For example, if someone likes hurting people, that is not fair to the victum. It is not fair to let people do wahtever they want because they would be more empowered to do what they couldn't have with laws in tact.

Do you think before you construct stupid strawmen or do you just bash away at the keyboard with your head and hope?

[nuisance]

My girlfriend loves cooking, I try to tell her I'm an anarchist and I need to do exactly half, but she doesn't let me.
What's anarchist about not letting someone do something that enjoy? So this has nothing to do with anarchism. I know you aren't being serious but it is still a miss point.


And you know what? She wants kids as well! How more gender specific a role can you get than a mother? My point is some people are very happy with specific gender roles, such as my partner and I, we have a very balanced relationship, not an equal one though.
The thing is, being a mother is a biological role, not a gender role.

Are you from the band Contempt, I take it?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think that both feminism and anarchism are silly. This is just my opinion though. Feminists want MORE rights for women than men, whereas anarchists think that morality should not exist, which I am not okay with.

Are all your posts this irrelevant and full of nonsense?

[politics student]

The thing is, being a mother is a biological role, not a gender role.



Being able to give birth is biological the roles on women are culturally decided.

Forcing women to stay home and take care of the home is cultural where you have discriminated them on gender alone.

[nuisance]

Being able to give birth is biological the roles on women are culturally decided.

Forcing women to stay home and take care of the home is cultural where you have discriminated them on gender alone.
Giving birth makes you a mother, nothing was spoke of about the cultural aspects of motherhood.

[gla22]

Does the word "social contract" hold any significance to you?