Creighton Duke Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 An interesting take on feminism. LINK “One of my biggest frustrations with contemporary feminism today is that it has painted women as agency-less,” says Schaeffer, “as victims who are constantly in need of either government protection or who are always the underdog — rather than seeing women are accomplishing more than ever before and outpacing men professionally, financially.” Read more: Conservative Feminists Flip the 'War on Women' | Fast forward | OZY She makes a good point. Many women finally seem to be waking up from many of the poisonous teachings of feminism/modern feminism 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional? Are you saying modern feminism isn't based on the idea of women being victims in a society that was built to give men the advantage? Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional? http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/ Apparently the "society" is large enough that Time Magazine felt the need to put out a piece related to it (well, the women that are opposed to it, that is). Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional?Are you saying modern feminism isn't based on the idea of women being victims in a society that was built to give men the advantage? No, I'm asking where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional? Link to comment
LukeinNE Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 No, I'm asking where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional? I guess I have to admit being confused by what you're asking as well, Knapp. I mean, a quick visit to NOW's (the current authority on feminism, right?) website reveals calls to overturn SCOTUS's abortion clinic buffer zone ruling, firing George Will for writing a column about campus rape that annoyed them, pay equality laws, and a 10 point gender equality act to "end discrimination against women." I think the mere act of talking about discrimination against women indicates that they think they're underdogs in society, and calls for government laws to rectify this situation sounds a lot like asking for government protection to me. But you're a smart guy, and I assume you know this already, so I sense I'm missing what you're getting at. Link to comment
tschu Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 Where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional?Are you saying modern feminism isn't based on the idea of women being victims in a society that was built to give men the advantage? No, I'm asking where is this society of women who think they must rely on government protection or are the underdog? In what branch of society is this occurring? Or is it regional? It's a made-up conservative talking point that has no basis in reality, as per usual 3 Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 It's a made-up conservative talking point that has no basis in reality, as per usual And we have our winner. This should have been an easy question to answer. If society was permeated with these government-dependent women it would be easy to point to regular women in regular situations who "rely on the government." I asked a plain question in plain English, looking for that simple, obvious answer. Instead, we get vague references to women's rights groups and "talking about discrimination" as evidence.... I guess I have to admit being confused by what you're asking as well, Knapp. I mean, a quick visit to NOW's (the current authority on feminism, right?) website reveals calls to overturn SCOTUS's abortion clinic buffer zone ruling, firing George Will for writing a column about campus rape that annoyed them, pay equality laws, and a 10 point gender equality act to "end discrimination against women." I think the mere act of talking about discrimination against women indicates that they think they're underdogs in society, and calls for government laws to rectify this situation sounds a lot like asking for government protection to me. But you're a smart guy, and I assume you know this already, so I sense I'm missing what you're getting at. Implying that anyone with a group or organization is inherently looking for "protection" and that, applying the litmus test from the post that started this tangent, without such groups those in the group would be "agency-less," and "relying on government protection." That would appear to cover quite a few special-interest groups, all listed on this page with NOW: The NRA The American Farm Bureau Federation The AARP English First The implication being that organizing = having a protection dependence seems to be a bit bunk. And if the "mere act of talking about discrimination against women indicates that they think they're underdogs in society," that, apparently, means that the NRA, and the AARP also feel they are underdogs. But if all these special interest groups are "underdogs," who isn't an underdog? Presumably, the answer to that would be, anyone who doesn't feel or act as such - which would include the vast, vast majority of women who don't belong to NOW, or file discrimination claims. And that means the author of that feminism piece isn't talking about "women," she's talking about a small group of non-representational people, not women as a whole. Or, as we sometimes call it, a straw man. (straw woman?) 2 Link to comment
tschu Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 It really comes from the same dumbass throught process that went into Paul Ryan's 100% fictional (as in, he literally plagiarized this anecdote straight from an actual fiction novel, so it's hilarious in multiple ways) comment about a young kid he knew one time who didn't want the government-funded free school lunch. He wanted his school food to come from his parents in a brown paper bag because he wanted to know that someone loved him or something and BOOTSTRAPS. "Women don't want people to help them fight for their rights, they are tired of being coddled and want to fight for their own rights" because....because something, i have no idea. I don't think any women actually feel reliant on the government for anything. And I don't get what the endgame of this is for conservatives. Keeping women at their current status because the Constitution doesn't say "All men AND WOMEN" are created equal? Constitution brah, women ain't even mentioned! (I'm joking of course) Or are all the white males out there just sick of other people trying to make their lots in life as good as theirs? Sometimes I think it's the latter, which is sad ignorance 4 Link to comment
tschu Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 But of course, in order to establish that line of thought, you have to create the illusion that women are in fact these coddled creatures who just want free rides through life, or whatever, which they aren't, so there's where this all comes from. So it's basically disconnected from reality in 2 ways. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Knapp.... I don't believe they are an underdog. That is why I can't answer your question as to where these women are that are underdogs. However, the feminist movement has been all about how American society is designed to benefit men and how women have not been equals in the work place. Hell, in this thread there is a discussion about how women don't get equal pay. To say the feminist movement isn't about convincing people that women are not treated as equal in society is laughable. To that, if the feminist movement totally admits that women are equal and don't need any protection under the law to become more equal.....then why is there a feminist movement and why is it one of the points mentioned in the first post in this thread? Link to comment
tschu Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 It also comes down to us talking about a fringe-right-wing feminist (anti-feminist?) group and trying to read into one quote by a single woman who has a pretty skewed view of what she thinks is going on. There are zero actual facts presented in the article, just opinions. So again...talking points. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 So, the feminist movement isn't seeking continued government protection in their right to have abortions. The feminist movement isn't seeking government protection in equal pay for equal work. The feminist movement isn't seeking government protection in their right for Hobby Lobby to pay for their birth control. Why is the feminist movement so politically active if they aren't seeking government protection on various issues? Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 So, the feminist movement isn't seeking continued government protection in their right to have abortions.That's some impressive jiu-jitsu. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts