Feminism and the Reorganization of Society

reply to post by Pinke

I do not share your belief that these shows portray women acting reasonably. Often quite the opposite.

Which shows do you object to??

I agree, that there is silliness, or neuroticism in some female characters, but the distortion and exagerration of the male characters - mostly in their relationship with their wives - is whats pertinent. It's this which puts them at the disadvantage relative to the woman.

reply to post by dontreally

The refusal of the feminine, or the passions, to submit to the right guidance of the reason, or the masculine, is also reflected in Hebrew mythology; there is a Jewish midrash which describes Lilith who Adam was apparently made to live with. But lilith - meaning 'night', or darkness, or negation (i.e. the negative philosophy of Schopenhauer, or Hinduism, Buddhism, or Gnosticism, comes to mind) refuses to be under Adam in copulation. She wants to be "equal" with him; but this equality implies an inability for the two to come together, for the two to act in complementarity with one another. In other words, Lilith obfuscates her role as the feminine.

Equating women with the inability to reason is implying that they lack humanity. Personhood is defined by the ability to reason. Along with this, persons have dignity which is of infinite value. Essentially, you're arguing for women being treated as the other option- things. Things have relative value.

In all societies where the subjugation of women is deemed of paramount importance, there seems to be the presumption that women should be denied legal personhood and treated as children- who are generally considered to not be in possession of rational thought. Feminists aren't refusing the feminine at all, they are merely asserting their personhood.

Since you're so eager to bring religion into everything, I'll take what I know from my own: Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

ETA: Oh, and btw, I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I'm pretty much as centrist as they come.

reply to post by LeSigh

Equating women with the inability to reason is implying that they lack humanity.

Did I say that?? Where? In another post I said the exact opposite.

I'm merely pointing out an archetypal situation in which woman exist in; relative to men, they are more emotional, whereas men are more reasonable. Their menstrual cycle creates a hormonal i.e emotional instability. This makes them less objective then men, and so, less reasonable.

But saying that does not amount to what you've just accused me of: of a woman's inability to reason. Quite the opposite. A woman who reasons rightly can be a phenomenal source of insight and creativity.

Essentially, you're arguing for women being treated as the other option- things. Things have relative value.

Why are distorting what I'm saying?

In all societies where the subjugation of women is deemed of paramount importance, there seems to be the presumption that women should be denied legal personhood and treated as children-

Did I say that, or even imply that? This dynamic can be respected without women losing their political rights.

Just because I mentioned this metaphysical outlook doesn't mean I'm a die-hard adherent of it's psychology. But I do think there is truth and wisdom in it.

Feminists aren't refusing the feminine at all, they are merely asserting their personhood.

I made a good post a page back, in reply to my_reality Link

That is my official position. I am not for stripping women of their right to vote. This, after all is apart of the democratic process, and I'm for it. I oppose anyone who suggests that women should be denied the right because a woman should be 'submissive' to the decision-making of her husband, as it is in Muslim countries and as many Jews support.

However, I do think we should find a mixture, as opposed to one way which cancels out the other way.

3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

ah yes, i figure that someone with dostoyevsky in his signature would be Christian.

That little statement alludes to the gnostic undertone of Christian doctrine, of the evisceration of distinction, even though distinction to is a veritable reality deserving recognition.

reply to post by dontreally


but, in real life, there are just as many unreasonable men and rational women as there are the opposite....

and, isn't lust an emotion??? you are here saying that men should have the right to regulate how women dress because it messes with their biological functions enough for them to lust?? but it's us women who are emotional????

don't like women going topless??? well, why don't we just pass laws that require everyone to have shirts on??? of course, that baby would still have to be fed when it's hungry, wouldn't it?? you would just have to put up with it's crying till mom got it to a private place to be able to nurse it...right????

some of the best feminist writing in my opinion came from Elizabeth Stanton. I like her so much mainly because she came at the subject from kind of a religious perspective.

reply to post by dawnstar

but, in real life, there are just as many unreasonable men and rational women as there are the opposite....

Hard to say. All we can know for certain the individual. Woman, although emotionally stronger than men, tend to be more unreasonable.

and, isn't lust an emotion??? you are here saying that men should have the right to regulate how women dress because it messes with their biological functions enough for them to lust?? but it's us women who are emotional????

Yes, lust is an emotion with an immediate predicate.

And what do you mean "men"?? Why does everyone here think only men care for women to not walk around topless? It's the MORALITY - call it patriarchal if you will - that both men AND women - people who prefer a morality that places the reason in power over the emotions, which cares to prevent woman from walking around topless. It's a mere preventative measure. People are likely to be less lecherous in a society which places modesty - i.e. care for not inciting sexual thoughts in others by dressing provocatively (or not wearing a top) in other people - than a society which doesn't care.

It's a simple matter of consideration and respect.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and, isn't lust an emotion??? you are here saying that men should have the right to regulate how women dress because it messes with their biological functions enough for them to lust?? but it's us women who are emotional????

Yeah, evidently the kind of anger that leads men to punch walls and smash things up, isn't an emotion either...

Originally posted by dawnstar
don't like women going topless??? well, why don't we just pass laws that require everyone to have shirts on???

Simple solution to a simple problem and equality is honoured. I'd be happy with that.

Originally posted by dawnstar
of course, that baby would still have to be fed when it's hungry, wouldn't it?? you would just have to put up with it's crying till mom got it to a private place to be able to nurse it...right????

Luckily we are blessed with the inventions of wonderful mothers who realised that men found the whole business a little too 'natural' and a little bit icky, and therefore no need to remove any clothing, just a slight loosening of flaps and the baby's mouth covers the rest. And, yet, some still find it offensive. I don't think it is the exposure of the breasts in this case that is the problem, I think that some think that breasts are purely sexual and therefore consider it slightly unsettling when confronted with their true usage.

Originally posted by dontreally
Which shows do you object to??

I don't really think writing enough to explain in full would be productive.

In short your hypothesis is that these comedy shows predispose people to a pro-liberal-feminist agenda.

The fact that the majority of female characters in these shows either clean houses or (in the case of 2 and a half men) are sex objects disproves this hypothesis. There are other issues ... narrow sample size, I disagree with some interpretations, and women are not driving this content (majority of it is made by men) ...

I ultimately suspect it doesn't matter, however.

Edit: Aeons stepped on it a bit when saying that if men are portrayed as dumb in comedy it's nothing to do with women making that happen ...

reply to post by Pinke


We can ignore for the time being two and half men. I don't like how anyone is depicted in that show.

But in shows which involve a man-woman relationship, I cannot for the life of me understand how you don't see any emasculation in it.

I already acknowledged the presence of neuroticism in some female characters in shows. But it's specifically how the woman talks to the man, how the man generally submits to the direction of the woman, which I find issue with.

Is this not justified?

reply to post by dontreally


When you post a story about Lilith, which asserts that she refused to submit to reason, then there are some serious implications there. Granted, I was thinking in a Kantian framework, because I have Kant on the brain right now- but even so- drawing the conclusion I did from what you posted was (dare I say) reasonable.

However, I do think we should find a mixture, as opposed to one way which cancels out the other way.

It's called mutual submission in marriage, dontreally. Or, as my religion of Orthodox Christianity sees it, a mutual martyrdom of love and subjection to each other in Christ. We don't have vows, we have a crowning (symbolic of martyrdom).

ah yes, i figure that someone with dostoyevsky in his signature would be Christian.

That little statement alludes to the gnostic undertone of Christian doctrine, of the evisceration of distinction, even though distinction to is a veritable reality deserving recognition.

Orthodoxy and Gnosticism don't mesh. Really. How do you figure? We don't believe the material world is bad, nor do we believe that the fundamental problem with humanity is that we are material. We don't believe in Docetism. We don't believe that salvation is escaping the material world for the spiritual. We don't believe that we have special/secret knowledge that makes us superior. In fact, there is a very physical aspect to our faith. We don't simply adhere to symbolism.

reply to post by LeSigh

It's called mutual submission in marriage, dontreally.

What does that have to do with the statement you quoted?? I agree, mutual agreement is ideal. But who get's the final say? Should we ignore the furtive influence a women exerts over a mans thinking?

We don't believe the material world is bad

Then why do the devout - the monks - retire to some distant monastery?

There seems to be an implied idealism in Christianity that it is better not to be apart of the world - in a real sense - than to be apart of it; as if it were a concession to a necessary evil.

We don't believe that salvation is escaping the material world for the spiritual.

I of course was using the term gnosticism (from 'gnosis' knowledge) in its meta-historical sense, as referring to the attitude that puts a preponderance of thinking - contemplation - over action.

We don't simply adhere to symbolism

And that could explain the Christian overall hatred of the Jewish God, who the Jews believe created this world for a reason. It's in the particular - the determined state - that symbolism becomes meaning. Judaism looks beyond the mystery - which preoccupies Christendom, the Pagan philosphers of Greece, India and elsewhere, and finds meaning in the relative - in the world God created.

To not care about the symbolic, I dare say, is to profane Gods creation.

In anycase, as I said, I prefer a mixed system. I know that interminable conflict lies in either extreme. Thus, however great and meaningful I find the theology of Judaism, I must come to a compromise with the liberal. I only hope the liberal could overcome his/her egoism and do the same.

reply to post by dontreally


one women I know personally came home from work after cashing her paycheck. she was pregnant at the time. hubby wanted the money to buy beer, she wouldn't give it to him, she wanted to buy food with it and pay bills. . so, he pushed her down the stairs, took the money and left...she miscarried....

another women I knew had a son, who whenever she did something he didn't like, or refused to let him do something, well, he'd take the belt and beat her with it, he did the same with his little sister...why??/ cause that was how dad dealt with his mom!!!

throughout history, women have been put into a place in society where they have had to twist and contort themselves into whatever the man wanted. do whatever they want, deny themselves things because the man didn't want them to have it....they had to adapt to be pretty much easy going, passive, obedient, longsuffering. ect....

I was being kind to men when I said that it was a 50/50 thing.....

What does that have to do with the statement you quoted?? I agree, mutual agreement is ideal. But who get's the final say? Should we ignore the furtive influence a women exerts over a mans thinking?

reply to post by dontreally


I don't know, should we ignore the hungry child who doesn't have food because dad decides he should have the money for beer, or that mom shouldn't be working???
in my opinion, each is control of their own body, they are free to react with that body as they see fit.... if mom feels she should be working, well, it's him who should be sucking it jp and accepting the idea that he might have to tend to the kids while she does.
of course, the opposite is alway true....if dad feels he doesn't want to take out the trash, well, it's up to mom to suck it up and either take it out herself, or well...put up with the stinking crap polluting her house.

If the ever so reasonable and rational and educated men would like to prove their contentions, they could start showing some archeological forensic evidence showing that men's bodies were destroyed by work, or that all the female bodies they encounter show that they were cossetted and petted and they died without a mark on them.

While warrior bodies tend to be beaten up, one of the things you don't hear about are the women's bodies that show signs of abuse in the archeological record. Part of this would be that females from non-elite families are less likely to be found in places that might have their bodies preserved, while males could distinguish themselves in a way to allow for their bodies to end up preserved naturally or intentionally. But I assure you that there are some women's bodies and they don't show that their lives were unpunctuated by their submissive cultural state.

I'll also point out for those who hate female equality - socieites that have forms of protection for equality are more successful than their counterparts. Period. Even when they suck, if they have some inherent protections they always do better then their neighbours that do not.

So while there are problems with lack of protection for family states, your culture didn't take off and become wildly successful until protections for equality were introduced. Then it went off like wildfire.

As to the familial state - before the modern era women dying in childbirth would have significantly altered the numbers of "nuclear families" these anti-feminist guys like to imagine there was. Step and combined families would have been very normal. The work the women were doing was not easy work. Women need to find new work, since the onerous work they were doing prior isn't there anymore the cultures with feminism. Having women have few children, and no work so that you can feel like you've got a big.... place in the World ... is just ridiculous.

Now, states in which women dominated all are few and far between and have quite often ended up wiped out by their more aggressive or fertility aggressive neighbours - and Patriarchies are inherently fertility aggressive. This is the logical end point that isn't being considered by feminists, athiests, humanists, and should be. If you like your legal protections, then slowly killing off your culture that has them is deeply stupid and in the long run just gets yours replaced by the culture that breeds lots and doesn't care about such piddly matters as women being humans.

reply to post by dontreally

Then perhaps you could further explain what you meant by your 'compliment', as my emotions got in the way of understanding clearly

In a world full of the faithful in all forms (some with such rediculous beliefs as to beggar belief) but if you have never grown up with any of it, there doesn't seem to be a shoe that fits at all, so you have to 'make' your own.

There are enough rules, far far too many in some areas. You are not allowed to walk around topless in general here at all, let alone full starkers either.
We do have nude beaches but those seem to be utilised by couples and triples of men, ah....enjoying the sun :/ so not a place for children at all.

You did come off as quite frustrated in your original posts to be sure, but perhaps you should speak more plainly then and not try to over intellectualise nor paint everything with such a religious brush.
Religions for the most part and wanting to control is a lot of the why we are here as it is today, and it's not just women who are sick of it.

Women are not inferior of thought because they have stronger emotions

So what op, really is your issue?

reply to post by AussieAmandaC

Then perhaps you could further explain what you meant by your 'compliment', as my emotions got in the way of understanding clearly

Well, I thought you would understand.

I've mentioned it several times already so I'm not in the mood to go on explaining.

Read the long middle portion of this post

As for women and their emotions. Its a general statement. Woman, possess reason. They are humans.

Nonetheless, they have a monthly cycle which causes them to become unstable i.e. unreasonable, highly subjective and irritable, which makes it difficult for them to argue that they are more 'reasonable' than men.

There are enough rules, far far too many in some areas. You are not allowed to walk around topless in general here at all, let alone full starkers either.

Australia is fair. Here in Canada, that unfortunately is not the case. But, nevertheless, women are still too biologically preoccupied with their physical image - and thus, highly insecure - to walk around topless, so it's rarely seen.

Even then, for political reasons it's unjustified and unfair. It gives priority to the natural impulse and so the liberal position.

We do have nude beaches but those seem to be utilised by couples and triples of men, ah....enjoying the sun :/ so not a place for children at all.

Just so you know. I have no problem with beaches (Australia has some absolutely wonderful beaches) or woman at beaches etc. My sole restriction is I think a practical and fair restriction: that woman be required to wear bottoms and tops.

If were going to ignore the effect a topless woman has on men - and so, ignore how it effect half the population - then what argument can be made to keep people from walking bottomless?

We hide those parts which incite attraction in the other sex. For women, there are two parts, for men, just one.

You did come off as quite frustrated in your original posts to be sure, but perhaps you should speak more plainly then and not try to over intellectualise nor paint everything with such a religious brush.

What do you mean, over-intellectualize. Would you criticize Hegel, or Descartes, or Kant for over-intellectualizing?? I'm not saying I'm in their intellectual category, but when a subject of dispute arises I have to explain myself, and it just so happens to require abstract explication.

Religions for the most part and wanting to control is a lot of the why we are here as it is today

What do you mean by that??

Do you people just ignore that the grossest abuses against human life have been committed by secular, Godless governments? The communists i.e. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Vietcong, Derg, the Nazis; all secularists, and it was they who showed the most disdain and disregard for human life.

As bad as religion can be, it is not religion that is the problem, but man. Religion CAN and SHOULD continue to exist. What needs to be understood is for people to abandon these apocalyptic designs and come to a mutual understanding of their differences as well as an understanding of their similarities; accept the differences and embrace the similarities.

It's essentially in our love for God, or the Absolute, that we can come to a mutual respect and love (which is a negative love, as opposed to the love felt between lovers, or between close friends, immediate family members) for one another.

It is not religion. Religion is a beautiful thing. I would never want to live in a world in which people could not congregate and celebrate life or praise God.

Women are not inferior of thought because they have stronger emotions

Reason and emotion are diametrically opposed; the former is rational, the latter, irrational. The more 'emotional' one is, the less reasonable.

I'm not saying emotion is bad. One cannot be too much of either in my opinion. There should be a balance, but the reason should dominate by allowing the objective to take precedence over the subjective situation.

reply to post by dontreally


in all my years of life, 'I have never, at any time, cycle or not, had the desire to push a pregnant lady down the stairs, or go blow money that would be better suited for food on anything else!!

ya, we have a cycle, you are aware that men also have a cycle??

okay, after that one, the 50/50 has become 75/25, with women being the more reasonable...
since it's totally unreasonable to think that women shouldn't hold the reigns of their own lives for themselves based on the fact that they happen to bleed once a month....and, well, the idea that men are in jeopardy because all these women are running around topless is kind of unreasonable in and of itself!! at least where I am living, the cops would be called, and the person would be arrested or sent off to a mental institution. heck I have never, in my life see a women running down the street topless!!!

As for women and their emotions. Its a general statement. Woman, possess reason. They are humans.

Nonetheless, they have a monthly cycle which causes them to become unstable i.e. unreasonable, highly subjective and irritable, which makes it difficult for them to argue that they are more 'reasonable' than men.

How about you stop generalizing? I'm not unstable, unreasonable, highly subjective, or irritable when I'm menstruating. In fact, I would say that any incidents of such were dramatically reduced to nil since I started using alternative menstrual products. Tampons tend to cause heavier bleeding and physical issues like cramps and headaches. The products women are forced to use are generally to blame for that. There are plenty of other women who can back up my claims on this. My husband doesn't even know when I'm menstruating anymore since I've switched.

That said- even if women are irritable while menstruating- they still have the ability to exert self-control and to reason. Even men aren't anywhere near approaching the Vulcans on Star Trek, where one must suppress all emotion or become compromised of all logical faculties.

ETA: Bit of advice for you, dontreally. Do not get married. Ever.

Originally posted by dontreally
We can ignore for the time being two and half men. I don't like how anyone is depicted in that show.

But in shows which involve a man-woman relationship, I cannot for the life of me understand how you don't see any emasculation in it.

Is this not justified?

This is moving the goal posts from 'supporting liberal feminist agenda' to 'vaguely insulting men' but I still think you're wrong.

Stories require their main character to have flaws. For example, Becker has anger management issues. Fraser is neurotic and petty. Seinfeld is a bit of an exception but the rule still applies that he struggles to deal with small things. Home Improvement, Al is constantly trying to improve everything but is often short sighted. Everyone Loves Raymond is about loveable yet silly Ray's antics and him dealing with his wife.

What you're failing to see is the professional benefit to being the buffoon in the comedy show. The vast majority of these shows are written by male writers, directed by male directors, and produced by male executives. These male characters wouldn't be very interesting if they were smart and well adjusted. This reduces the (as you call it) smart female characters to the narrative B role or to being the 'problem'.

Becker's secretary's at best serve to dish up the moral of the story and at worse get a handful of one liners. In Home Improvement, Al's wife simply provides background color to Al's forays into fatherhood. Even the Simpsons, Homer and Bart provide the jokes, Marge and Lisa assist with the boring parts of the narrative. It is a favored position.

Female examples include the Vicar of Dibley and the Nanny. I'd hardly say either show demonstrates positive female role models but they do make good main characters for a comedy (I hate the Nanny tho).

The moron is at a position of privilege in the comedy, professionally it's a desired role to play. In the vast majority of the above examples the male is places in an ideal position to gain the most laughs. Obviously I'm generalizing a bit but honestly I don't believe it's that far off the mark. Al's wife in home improvement may always be right, but that's only to fill in the blanks of the narrative. Raymond's wife is Raymond's problem half the time and not much more.

I think you're just looking at your television with a strong agenda and ignoring the professional implications of an actor playing the 'smart one'.

Originally posted by dontreally
Then why do the devout - the monks - retire to some distant monastery?

I think that you are mistaking monasticism with hermitude. Monks join communities where they can live with like minded men (and women in the case of convents) with a collective aim. The position of the monasteries, originally, had more to do with the land and resources that they were given by their benefactors. Hermits on the other hand do seek solitude and isolation for contemplation and meditation, but due to others wishing disciple-ship, monasteries have often sprung up around those hermitudes.

Originally posted by dontreally
There seems to be an implied idealism in Christianity that it is better not to be apart of the world - in a real sense - than to be apart of it; as if it were a concession to a necessary evil.

I don't think that this is in anyway isolated to Christianity, ascetism exists within most religious traditions, even those predating the Abrahamic faiths. Certainly during the middle ages, celibacy and other forms of self-denial were seen as the only means of having direct experience of god, and it was considered necessary to shed all attachments in order to achieve that with the most expediency, but that is only really in emulation of the ideal that the stories of Jesus presents himself by his forty days in the wilderness, and it has to be borne in mind, that many of those who preached poverty in those times, did so in conflict with a very wealthy and powerful church.

Originally posted by dontreally
I of course was using the term gnosticism (from 'gnosis' knowledge) in its meta-historical sense, as referring to the attitude that puts a preponderance of thinking - contemplation - over action.

And also, those that preached such beliefs were also treated as heretics. Monasticism certainly was very much about the combination of right thought and right practice, and the existence of hospitals and charities in modernity, as well as educational structures, are testament to that practice by the brothers and sisters of the Christian faiths. Very few monks and nuns were able to devote their lives to contemplation and prayer, only those from the nobility and upper classes who bought their way in, women by means of dowry, men, usually, by using the wealth they acquired through occupation or inheritance to establish their own house. They did so due to a desire to serve god by caring for the sick and poor, and through education of the masses to the word of god.

The term 'Gnostic' has become too much of a blanket in meaning. None of the sects that it is applied to ever deemed or termed themselves Gnostics, and it perhaps better that it is done away with to avoid the continuance of the confusion that you seem to express.

Originally posted by dontreally
And that could explain the Christian overall hatred of the Jewish God, who the Jews believe created this world for a reason. It's in the particular - the determined state - that symbolism becomes meaning. Judaism looks beyond the mystery - which preoccupies Christendom, the Pagan philosphers of Greece, India and elsewhere, and finds meaning in the relative - in the world God created.

Again, you seem to be mixing the beliefs of some Christians with those of all Christians. The seperation of the Jewish god from the Christian god was particular to Manichaean beliefs. The vast majority of Christians believe that the god that the Jews worship is the same as that that the Christians do.

That the Christianity that attained dominance was that of the Greek tradition is apparent in much of their practices, the Eucharist itself is a fusion of Judaic and Dionysian rituals. This is what lies at the heart of both religions though, the syncretism that is used to united otherwise disparate tribal groups. Mohammed did pretty much the same thing in the 6th century for the Arab peoples, he found the common ground that everyone could agree on, and thereby he created unity. The Jews did it, then the Christians, and then the Muslims. And secular leaders too followed this pattern as the example of Alexander demonstrates.

Originally posted by dontreally
To not care about the symbolic, I dare say, is to profane Gods creation.

Have you read The Glass Bead Game by Hermann Hesse?

Originally posted by dontreally
In anycase, as I said, I prefer a mixed system. I know that interminable conflict lies in either extreme. Thus, however great and meaningful I find the theology of Judaism, I must come to a compromise with the liberal. I only hope the liberal could overcome his/her egoism and do the same.

Conflict is a matter of territoralism, both on an individual and collective level. Mutual respect and sharing are the solution. Easier said than done, all things considered.

When contemplating this topic dontreally... consider what it would be to try having a reasonable discussion with an ocean about the passions of the oceans.

Thank you for your efforts.