Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    It had a good record of racial, economic and political...

    feminism is marxism

    The personal is political. http://scholar.alexanderstreet.com... The paper, "The Personal Is Political," was originally published in Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation in 1970 and was widely reprinted and passed around the Movement and beyond in the next several years. I didn't know just how much it had gotten around until I did a Goggle search and found it being discussed in many different languages. I'd like to clarify for the record that I did not give the paper its title, "The Personal Is Political." As far as I know, that was done by Notes from the Second Year editors Shulie Firestone and Anne Koedt after Kathie Sarachild brought it to their attention as a possible paper to be printed in that early collection. Also, "political" was used here in the broard sense of the word as having to do with power relationships, not the narrow sense of electorial politics. The paper actually began as a memo that I wrote in February of 1969 while in Gainesville, Florida. It was sent to the women's caucus of the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) a group for whom I was a subsistence-paid organizer doing exploratory work for establishing a women's liberation project in the South. The memo was originally titled, "Some Thoughts in Response to Dottie's Thoughts on a Women's Liberation Movement," and was written in reply to a memo by another staff member, Dottie Zellner, who contended that consciousness-raising was just therapy and questioned whether the new independent WLM was really "political." This was not an unusual reaction to radical feminist ideas in early 1969. WLM groups had been springing up all over the country -- and the world. The radical movements of Civil Rights, Anti-Vietnam War, and Old and New Left groups from which many of us sprang were male dominated and very nervous about women's liberation in general, but especially the spectre of the mushrooming independent women's liberation movement, of which I was a staunch advocate. Arriving in New York City after ten months in the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement, I had found SCEF to be one of the more mature and better progressive groups around. It had a good record of racial, economic and political justice work since New Deal days, and I joined its staff in 1966 as its New York office manager. SCEF allowed New York Radical Women to meet in its New York office, where I worked, and at my request agreed to explore setting up a women's liberation project in the South. However, many on the SCEF staff, both men and women, ended up joining the criticism of women getting together in consciousness-raising groups to discuss their own oppression as "naval-gazing" and "personal therapy" -- and certainly "not political." They could sometimes admit that women were oppressed (but only by "the system") and said that we should have equal pay for equal work, and some other "rights." But they belittled us no end for trying to bring our so-called "personal problems" into the public arena - especially "all those body issues" like sex, appearance, and abortion. Our demands that men share the housework and childcare were likewise deemed a personal problem between a woman and her individual man. The opposition claimed if women would just "stand up for themselves" and take more responsibility for their own lives, they wouldn't need to have an independent movement for women's liberation. What personal initiative wouldn't solve, they said, "the revolution" would take care of if we would just shut up and do our part. Heaven forbid that we should point out that men benefit from oppressing women. Recognizing the need to fight male supremacy as a movement instead of blaming the individual woman for her oppression was where the Pro-Woman Line came in. It challenged the old anti-woman line that used spiritual, psychological, metaphysical, and pseudo-historical explanations for women's oppression with a real, materialist analysis for why women do what we do. (By materialist, I mean in the Marxist materialist (based in reality) sense, not in the "desire for consumer goods" sense.) Taking the position that "women are messed over, not messed up" took the focus off individual struggle and put it on group or class struggle, exposing the necessity for an independent WLM to deal with male supremacy. The Pro-Woman Line also helped challenge the "sex role theory" of women's oppression that said women act as we do because "that's how we were taught" by "society." (We all can think of things we were taught to think or do that we rejected once the forces that kept us thinking or doing them were removed.) It was consciousness-raising that led to the emergence of the Pro-Woman Line with its scientific explanation based on an analysis of our own experiences and an examination of "who benefits" from women's oppression. Understanding that our oppressive situations were not our own fault -- were not, in the parlance of the time, "all in our head" -- gave us a lot more courage as well as a more solid, real foundation on which to fight for liberation. "The Personal is Political" paper and the theory it contains, was my response in the heat of the battle to the attacks on us by SCEF and the rest of the radical movement. I think it's important to realize that the paper came out of struggle -- not just my struggle in SCEF but the struggle of the independent WLM against those who were trying to either stop it or to push it into directions they found less threatening. It's also important to realize the theory the paper contains did not come solely out of my individual brain. It came out of a movement (the Women's Liberation Movement) and a specific group within that movement (New York Radical Women) and a specific group of women within New York Radical Women, sometimes referred to as the Pro-Woman Line faction. Of course there were women within New York Radical Women and the broader feminist movement who argued from the beginning against consciousness raising and claimed women were brainwashed and complicit in their own oppression, an argument rooted in the sociological and psychological rather than the political. They, too, helped in the formulation of Pro-Woman Line theory. By arguing the then "standard wisdom" against us, they forced us to clarify and hone and develop and refine and articulate the new theory so that it could be spread more widely. After New York Radical Women meetings, the Pro-Woman Line faction would usually end up at Miteras, a nearby restaurant that served fantastic apple pie a la mode. There we would discuss how the meeting had gone and the ideas that had been talked about until two or three in the morning, both agreeing with and challenging each other in wonderful, lively debate among ourselves. In September of 1968 -- six months before "The Personal Is Political" was written, the Miss America Protest brought home to many why the Pro-Woman Line theory we were developing was so important when it came to taking action outside the group. In another paper entitled "A Critique of the Miss America Protest" I wrote about how the anti-women faction of the protesters detracted from our message that ALL women are oppressed by beauty standards, even the contestants. Signs like "Up Against the Wall, Miss America" and "Miss America Is a Big Falsie" made these contestants out to be our enemy instead of the men and bosses who imposed false beauty standards on women. Political struggle or debate is the key to good political theory. A theory is just a bunch of words -- sometimes interesting to think about, but just words, nevertheless---until it is tested in real life. Many a theory has delivered surprises, both positive and negative, when an attempt has been made to put it into practice. While trying to think how I would change "The Personal Is Political" paper if I could rewrite it with today's hindsight, I was actually surprised how well it s

  • PRO

    Its hard to find a real man these day..Definition of one...

    The feminism of Men

    Its hard to find a real man these day..Definition of one is: Masculine ( not physical structure but being the head of the house,.Provider and Protector of his family (Real Men take care of their family needs,they make sure most if not everything is provided for them). Courageous, Hardworker,Motivator,Brave etc Feminized Men are lazy, good for nothing gossipers who do not have courage to initiate just a simple conversation.Can that person head a house?? LIKE REALLY!!! That's why women are now proposing to men, do you blame them?? Nowadays.....Women has taken over the masculine prowess and its amazing how many men depend on women...WOMEN SIMPLE RUN THE WORLD IN SILENCE , HAVE TAKEN OVER,NOT THAT THEY WANT TO,BUT THE MEN HAVE BECOME FEMINIZED.Men wakey wakey,its time to smell the coffee!

  • PRO

    I have done it. ... We must begin by throwing some sand...

    Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

    Thanks I thought nobody would be in for it. My Greatest respects. Sincerely, me The Fool says: Money, money, why is it always about money? Is that all woman want, with their diamonds, cloth and jewellery. Get you grubby fingers out of here…Its mine... Its mine I tell you.. all mine. ;) Me: I must say that was not even funny I apologize. A Sophist report: A June 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor(1) read that, in 2009, women who were full time salary or wage employees earned only 80% of their male counterparts. The fool: the problem with this stat is that the sentence seems to give the impression that they are speaking within a framework of similar jobs.. as oppose the general set of Labour jobs. That is, it does not entail either or. 1. For let it be the case woman work in the same job and they get less pay. A fool’s job: I have worked in construction, and when I entered I got less pay then everybody, why because I was new and less practiced. Even when I took on new duty I got more but the other guys would get paid more as well. Why? Because they were now more experience in these new duties. They did the job faster and with fewer mistakes. Eventually I read the top. But the others at the top still got more pay because they had been there longer and were still more experienced. And most companies only need so much people. I am black and the rest of the company is white. I could start complaining that it’s because I am black but that doesn’t make because I understand the complexity of the issue. If woman are entering larger variety of jobs gap it is to be expect that there will be this effect for a while. It is immoral to just presuppose you are owed what other people have worked for. But instead stealing it gets renamed into owing by some divine notion of righteous. 2. For let it be the case that woman get paid less in the general labour jobs or in general all together. An important thing to think about is, that there are still many more house wives in relation to house husband. If this is true then we have all the right to expect there to be this gap, since men in general are more likely to be the wage of more than one person. Moreover if a family is successful with this strategy we should expect these men to be the people who make higher salaries then others, for it is really a salary of two people. If we account for the important factors I have mentioned, we may even see a slant in the other direction. If feminist seek equality why is this information being omitted from feminist studies. A fool test: walk up to some feminist mob and start asking these questions. The anger will turn into HATE very fast, just for asking questions. But if they are speaking the truth, why would they do that? I have done it. Lol. But I have always been more of a Galileo then a Copernicus. (More on hate later) Even worse: Wage is not the only source of funding, if men pay more taxes because of making more and with the increased tax rate. Men pay more taxes then woman. But more taxes go to woman. When we look at social programs to help females and males, there is a huge majority in toward woman and woman only programs. In large part in particularly by feminists programs. Some other forms are in educational programs, e.g. females only in scholarships; focus on female encouragement, more resources. This is all besides the fact that more shelters, and guidance counsellors more social supportive resources. Even aside from what has been mentioned men still spend more on woman then woman on men. That is woman get more free goods then men in general. The issue of finance is not as simple as same job same pay. Don’t be fooled. (these are slippery these ones) The fool Says: the r- Sophist over simplifies when it is in their favour and then appeals to complexity when it is not. For these are the sophisms of the relativist. Look out for their switchiness nature. ;) A fools warning: One thing I want to make clear is to not mistake feminist or feminism with the sex: woman, in this case people with XX chromosomes. For the Fool is at war with fundamentalism. In this case the fundamentalisms’ within Feminism. My claim is that it became and I more harmful society. The Fool: When I reflect on my studies about the history of feminism. I remember only a small group of feminist, and even then they would speak as though they were speaking for all women past and present for all eternity. But this will always be a problem because, feminists could never be representative sample of population of woman because they will always be a sample with more conviction, motivation and often more hate in relation to the actual population of woman. In what sense is this ever accounted for in feminist claim? F-fundementalism: what I mean by this is any content of a belief system, or beliefs/faiths, opinions, viewpoints are considered truths base from expectation alone. It is very familiar to hear people say that everything is a belief or it’s all a matter of opinion. What do is the difference? What could we know for sure? Well for example I have concept/thought of a unicorn. But let’s say a Sophist tells me that it is a belief, I would say no it’s impossible, why because I don’t believe in unicorns. Therefore it would be a contradiction. That is, your thought is synonymous with the mental concept. You could never be wrong about what you are just thinking. Your thought is your thought it is always and absolutely true or you couldn’t even be thinking it. We can call this a self-evident truth; Proof: Just picture a tree in your mind, no matter what I think or believe or other people say your mental conceptions (ideas) are true as an idea. This is always absolutely true even if you don’t believe it. For example you may forget tomorrow that you thought of a tree just now, but it will always be true that at this time right now you had that thought whether you even believe or not. Even if no one can recognize it still happened. No matter what anyone tells you could never be wrong about what you’re thinking. The sophist will try and trick you out of it. A belief/faith is different because they depend on expectations, which is more than just a thought. When we say we believe in a tree we mean a tree in another context then thought alone. Proof: thinks of something that you belief in but you don’t’ expect to be true. (try) you will see it doesn’t make sense. That is to not expect something to be true, is to not belief. So remember to expect something doesn’t mean it will be true, it just mean you expect something to be true. But remember what you believe in can turn out to be false. So there is the belief and the content (the thing you believe in) What we are doing here is working with the mind. It is your mind that is the proof of these things. If you get what I mean you should understand your own mind A true belief means the content is true. To claim that a something is true just because you expect it too is f-fundamentalist belief. So to have f-knowledge it must be more than just a belief, that is it must be a belief+evidence Evidence is simply a form of verification. (Experience) it doesn’t have to be physical. So we may say that knowledge is justified believe. Another level, the highest level is f-certified knowledge, which is proven justified belief or it can be called True justified belief. We consider math to be TJB The fool: the relative sophist is a very slippery creature. It strength lies in vague term and the manipulation of definition. We must begin by throwing some sand on it.

CON