• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

anti-feminists are not right-wing twits

A

Annapurna1

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
832
Location
Innsmouth, MA
i would like to dismiss a word like "feminazi" as the ravings of a drunken baseball comentator who bears the name of an oderiferous cheese...unfortunately..this is not the case..and such animals are very real..but of course their not what the said baseball comentator tells us...so then..what is a feminazi/feminaziism??...

we may begin with the hate-filled rantings of earlier feminist authours such as andrea dworkin..robin morgan..and everyones' favourite..the SCUM manifesto...unfortunately for the political left..they often inserted elements of marxism-leninism amidst the rest of their drivel...but if one substitutes <the ethnic minority of your choice> wherever they use the word "men"..then it becomes clear that this is a hate movement and not a civil-rights movement.. and most women at the time immediately dismissed it for what it was...

a more recent example of a feminazi authour is helen fisher...like her predecessors..fisher aryanizes a *segment* of women..and then lumps women that dont agree with her bullshit together with men..and calls both "biologically inferior"...thats not interesting by itself.. nor is the utterly preposterous pseudo-science she uses to back it up...but what does make fisher more interesting is the role that she assigns to her new aryans in a presumed ultra-right world order...in a stunning display of calvinist braggadocio..she is in effect challenging women to prove that they belong to her "master race" by attaining a power position in an oppressive structure...this challenge is actually the crux of feminaziism..which leads us to our next paragraph...

since the early 1970s..the success of the feminist movement has grown in virtual lockstep with that of the corporatist far right..and this is no accident...the two are highly synergistic..if not one-in-the-same...an excellent example of this synergism is to be found in iraq...and helen fisher partly explains how it works above ..with their employees being additionally motivated by feminazi bigotry and revenge..corporations such as haliburton quickly become much more dynamic and profitable..and in some cases..the entire power of the organization may be harnessed towards that revenge (case in point)...

that admittedly sounds far-flung.. but it explains why the male-dominated corporate media is so happy to publish feminazi hate books.. and why they produce so much anti-male advertising... and that in turn explains why feminaziism is so rampant.. even after it had been written off in the beginning ..it was the big lie..and it worked like a charm...we became unhappy with our marriages because the TV..the books..and the movies told us that this was so...and this is why...

if there is still any doubt in your mind..one need only look at the products of feminaziism..which have been the likes of margaret thatcher..carly fiorina..ann coulter..and condoleeza rice...none of those are feminists in an academic sense.. but they embody its success more than anyone that is...that gaggle of maggie thatcher clones sitting on the fascist power circles alongside their male counterparts doesnt make women like me any more "equal"...and the premise that equality..gender or otherwise..is to be attained by embracing an oppressive power structure such as corporate capitalism is at its best flawed...

but the more i look at the womens' movement..the more it looks like the womens' auxilliary of a movement loosely known as "neoconservatism"...and it makes me wonder why the baseball comentator has a problem with it...

we made the neocons what they are today...fortunately..we can unmake them just as easily...the key is "gender equality" as equal respect for our different roles..as opposed to the neocon concept of "gender equality" as destructive competition in the same roles...all of a sudden..the corporate police state hardly seems a lesser evil to what we traded it for...and we may find ourselves more empowered without the corporate suit on...
 
Last edited:
words, some true.

feminazism...ok, i've taken classes about women and had teachers with an admitedly biased "women's issues/literature" sylabus. WHO CARES!?!...i mean, WHY CARE?!?...i mean blahh.

women have been shit on for thousands of years. THOUSANDS OF YEARS! so they write a couple reactionary books...like men have never done that... in fact, i feel preatty fuckin privlaged to live in a time and place where i'm exposed to so many female authors and "feminist ideas". i mean, if these women talk about "women are better than men, pifpuffpif", i'll call them on being sexist then distance my self from the noise. on a really low level...i can see why some women may have this 'bulliesq' reaction...compensation...cause blow for blow, i'll kick just about any chicks ass...unless she has special training and i don't...

moving on..now that women are equal in the eyes of the law, they are integrating into politics. and, holy shit alert the papers, they're using a cause to forward their power hungry politcal ambitons!!! who could have thunk it??

the point of my sarcasm is thus. you sound like some kind of conspiricy nut ranting on about the jewish zog. what exactly are these neocon feminazis going to do anyways? assasinate their male fat cat counterparts and destroy all men? no, they're just another element of the neocon, dip ship war mongers trying to gain global power by any means necessary. drop the femi and refer to them all as ass holes. its less sexist that way :)

peace
 
the one truth amidst the sarcasm..is that the feminazis are an element of the neocons...a conspiracy theorist would have it the other way around...

women are equal in the eyes of the law
Click to expand...
but some are more equal than others...and BTW..what is a "zog" anyway??...
 
there's a huge difference between the feminist who cares about women in history and fights for equality and the feminazi who wishes to self segregate themselves and be treated as special at all times.

There's all kinds of feminists out there, it's sad the nut jobs are the ones people remember when the word flashes in front of their eyes/ears.

Same thing with environmentalists. I didn't read the post, that's just my initial 2cents. I'll read it later tonight and reply..
 
The far right capitalizing on feminists who use their social platform as nothing but a means to get money..will normally take it to extremes. Being oppurtunistic is to be expected out of human beings. Hence why people welfare.

And most feminists i meet.. laugh at the vitriolic high school rantings of the SCUM manifesto. I have it and have read it several times, the bitch is a nut job.

I still contend there is nothing wrong with feminism that fights for equality.
 
Anna -

You're right... but those with the least defensible argument are the most likely to resort to these tactics...
 
For myself it depends...feminazism (???) or shall we say Radical Feminism...OR
....there's too much academic mumbo jumbo involved in Feminism (because you can attach all the isms you want to Feminism, like Anarchistic Fem., Post-Structuralist, Holisitic Fem. blah blah.

Any sort of severe socio-political thought is generally conservative, in that it is exclusionary by its nature (It does not allow for other views). I have been cat called (? I'm wondering about the term use, I suppose intellectually excluded on the provision that I had a penis is probably a better phrase) on numerous occasions and
have seen women debase other women on the basis on an unfamiliarity with feminism (light feminists, and just others).

Which is really helpful you know?

I don't mean to jack the thread or anything, just stating my views. I think it would be interesting to hear a response from various Radical Feminists (not all Radical Feminists think alike so to generalize on this is pretty sh*tty) on
how they are different ideologically from say other strong minded politcal groups, Aryan White Supremacists, Jihadists, NEo-Cons, Anti-Abortion Christian groups. Whoever.

I think a society that tolerates hate is a very healthy society (you cant repress thought). But restricts it into becoming anything more, like criminal stuff is necessary. Any sort of political thought that breeds hateful action is pretty dumb, imho (in a basic humanistic sense) but necessary for revolution or quick and dirty change. There are other ways to get your message across. But you do what you have to do. And hope to God your enemy doesn't come back harder and stronger (good ole' fight or flight).
 
Hmmm...
I have been at times called a feminist, although I have personal reservations about applying the label to myself, and probably am most sympathetic with radical feminism, anarcha-feminism, and perhaps socialist feminism.

Now, as far as I can tell, the SCUM manifesto and its ilk is a bizzare fringe element, and not at all representative of the core of radical feminism. The impetus behind radical feminism is simply the radical transformation of social relations so as to topple oppressive structures. It is to gain women a just degree of autonomy in society. This also involves the elevation of feminine ideals in contrast to their traditional devaluation in comparison to the masculine. To say, however, that many feminists simply want a reversed pattern of domination or extermination of males is a distortion of the feminist philosophy. The impetus here is to topple oppression, not just transform oppressive relations.

The term "feminazi", in contrast to this SCUM manifesto, is a rhetorical device of social conservatives. The idea here is to discredit a movement towards autonomy by implicitly associating it with the worst of human authoritarianism. Furthermore, it seems to have first been coined by Rush Limbaugh. The fucked up thing is that it is working. :)

jpgrdnr is right in that there are a few problems with the feminist movement as it is. There has been an academic turn in feminism, post-structuralist feminism in particular, that has focused on issues such as language-use above and beyond other avenues of change which stand to offer greater benefits and offer more possibility for directed change. It also seems that a lot of feminist thought stands as somewhat intimidating to those who are not initiated, with particular jargon and whatnot. This poses the danger of destructive elitism and stands to make feminist groups more insular. On the other hand, this is a problem with many if not most human groups. :)

....
Oh, and I have a penis and balls.

ebola
 
ebola! said:
It also seems that a lot of feminist thought stands as somewhat intimidating to those who are not initiated, with particular jargon and whatnot. This poses the danger of destructive elitism and stands to make feminist groups more insular.
Click to expand...
What, excessive use of jargon? Elitism and insularity? In the academy? Say it ain't so! ;)
 
Look at the knockers on that avatar!
*cat call

Now, now females don't have it that bad. Men still bear equal if not greater burdens. At least you do if you are a "man" about your life and self sacrifice.

I have to say Rush got me into that whole feminazi thing. He has his points, not many of the things that he says are frivolous.
I suppose this whole femanist situation and philosophy doesn't bother me at the moment, but it might piss me off when I go to college and meet some women who think they are special. Then I might have to drop them down a peg, Not in a mean sexist way though, of course!
 
this is a bit off topic...but rush supposedly made up the word femenazi...
rush fans willingly call themselves ditto heads....
i mean, seriously....
 
Now, as far as I can tell, the SCUM manifesto and its ilk is a bizzare fringe element
Click to expand...

SCUM is definitely a fringe element...unfortunately..the other authours arent..but they stop ever so short of SCUM...

The impetus behind radical feminism is simply the radical transformation of social relations so as to topple oppressive structures. It is to gain women a just degree of autonomy in society. This also involves the elevation of feminine ideals in contrast to their traditional devaluation in comparison to the masculine.
Click to expand...

first of all..most ppl understand the word "(radical) feminism" very differently from how you have defined it above...second of all..this feminism has failed miserably in all of the goals you listed above ..it has played no minor role in the growth of the corporate police state..which necessarily destroys autonomy.. it has directed women to embrace that oppressive structure..which has in turn made it stronger.. and if one defines "masculine ideals" as the brutal use of force (as did many of those earlier writers)..then it has undoubtedly elevated the masculine and devalued the feminine...

To say, however, that many feminists simply want a reversed pattern of domination or extermination of males is a distortion of the feminist philosophy. The impetus here is to topple oppression, not just transform oppressive relations.
Click to expand...

i would define a "radical feminist" as someone who wants to reverse gender roles or exterminate males...a "feminist" OTOH..is someone who defines gender equality as equal numbers of both genders at different levels of the hierarchy..which is totally unacceptable since it still recognizes the moral authority of a fascist institution...

The term "feminazi", in contrast to this SCUM manifesto, is a rhetorical device of social conservatives. The idea here is to discredit a movement towards autonomy by implicitly associating it with the worst of human authoritarianism. Furthermore, it seems to have first been coined by Rush Limbaugh. The fucked up thing is that it is working.
Click to expand...

it works because there really are such things as feminazis ..mainstream feminism in general works to the advantage of the far right...but of course limburgers' concept of a feminazi is completely wrong...
 
>>What, excessive use of jargon? Elitism and insularity? In the academy? Say it ain't so!>>

heh...there is something to be said for stating the obvious. :)

>>first of all..most ppl understand the word "(radical) feminism" very differently from how you have defined it above...>>

I haven't done a wide enough survey to confirm or deny this. I will also conceed that different people will use terms in different ways. However, the majority of radical feminists with which I have spoken embrace something more like my definition rather than something akin to the SCUM manifesto.

>>..it has played no minor role in the growth of the corporate police state..which necessarily destroys autonomy.. it has directed women to embrace that oppressive structure..>>

I would like you to further flesh out how this has occurred. What you describe here sounds more like an unfortunate consequence of 2nd wave, integrational feminism where women have lead themselves to participatie in existing power-structures without challenging the general root of power.

>>i would define a "radical feminist" as someone who wants to reverse gender roles or exterminate males...>>

I reject this.

>>a "feminist" OTOH..is someone who defines gender equality as equal numbers of both genders at different levels of the hierarchy..which is totally unacceptable since it still recognizes the moral authority of a fascist institution... >>

I would call what you describe here a "liberal feminist". What about those who challenge the very existence of hierarchy?

ebola
np: venetian snares
 
I call them liberal mainly to place them in relief with radical feminists. Also, integration of women into the hierarchical structure of capital and wage labor did count for liberal change, especially in the social context of the 50s and 60s. Also, I have to admit that I have to visit and more thoroughly digest some of your links to get a firmer idea of exactly how these feminists you argue against are interlocked with conservatives (and determine if I buy your line of reasoning).

ebola
 
originally sung by NOFX

Catherine McKinnon does exist
She likes to call herself a feminist
A crusader who fights the patriarch
But what she really hates is sex
Erotic images opresss
debases women as a whole

Simple solutions created by black+white thinking
Too bad the world not work that way
Catherine should get busy porkin
That dolt Andrea Dworkin
I think they need a good hard fuck
Cause she may be off her back
Now she needs to get off ours
Click to expand...

;)
 
she knows how to look mean, but I think it takes a bit more then that, like not ignoring someone as wise and as experienced as richard clarck, as she did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top