Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Icons of Feminism?

  1. Jan 15, 2005 #1
    I wanted to add something to the 'Feminism' thread, but found is has been closed - why?

    Anyway, Germaine Greer, feminist icon, has caused a minor stir in the British media by leaving Big Brother, a reality TV show, saying that the place was like a fascist prison. Another icon of feminism, Julie Burchill, has written that it
    "is rather offensive to those who have spent time in fascist prisons — or even people who have two brain cells to rub together — to compare a game show to a fascist prison... she genuinely has lost some of her marvellous marbles and, like an old lady lifting up her dress and revealing her genitalia to a weeping world, simply does not understand how loony she looks".
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1437178,00.html

    I'm not sure who is impressed by the likes of Greer (who's ivory tower theories bear little relation to reality) or Burchill (who people might listen to if they weren't afraid she'd verbally scratch their eyes out). Who are the new icons of feminism?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 15, 2005 #2
    I owe my life, and sense of self, and personal freedom to people like Germaine Greer. There will continue to be a need for feminists until we have a world that runs on compassion and respect. Until then there will be a need for opposition to oppression of women, world wide.

    New feminist icons are great humanists, that offer us all a lesson on how to live with strength of conviction, grace and compassion. I look to people like Ghandi, The Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Mary Of Magdala, The Barbarian Pagan Women of the Old World, To friends and neighbors of either gender, To Elaine Pagels, and Marian Woodman. I was very lucky to have read all the American Feminists, and then to realize that there have always been courageous and strong people, women and men, who were willing to stand up for their personal rights, and the rights of others, the rights of nations, and peoples.

    There is a huge move in this nation, to re-enslave women, and to do it in God's name. Whoever can release girls and women into their own lives, does good work. I hope we can all share freedom and joy someday, world wide.
     
  4. Jan 15, 2005 #3
    Germaine Greer is a man hater and user. She is not someone who operates in compassion and respect.
    Ghandi was a racist who disliked indians from lower castes, believed in the segregation of the castes, and hated negros. Martin Luther King was a plaguarist who spent the his last night in bed with 2 prostitutes - a 'godly' married man who was competing with Hugh Hefner for women. He was only looking after people of his own race, and therefore was a racist also.

    Rubbish.
     
  5. Jan 15, 2005 #4
    There were a host of other authors that I read, when I read Germaine Greer. I never met Greer, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or Elaine Pagels. I enjoyed the words and some of the deeds of these people; an entire nation is celebrating the words and effects, of Dr. Martin Luther King, this weekend.

    Throwing a lot of stones, and looking under mattresses, and digging up the dirt, will never make anyone more esteemed, than any one of these individuals. India, the world's largest democracy, owes its existence to Ghandi.

    For me Feminist, is a word, invented to label independent thinkers, vibrant entities, that happen to be female. It is not a dirty word to me. It is kind of an end, to the rube goldberg, kicking machine, that used to always end with women. Feminism offered us a healthy balance in this nation, that daily, is assaulted from all sides. Human rights for women, and men should be a given, but isn't, even in this well fed nation.
     
  6. Jan 15, 2005 #5
    The success of feminism lies in winning the minds of the men. It cannot just be a movement solely for, and targeted at females alone. It should reach out to men, and let both the men and women do the heavy lifting. There's a reason why 2nd wave feminism died out, it is because, yes, it is out of touch with reality. Bra burning works only to a certain extent, but like I said, objectives would be met if men are "recruited" to the cause and a society with entirely malleable gender identities is created.
     
  7. Jan 16, 2005 #6
    And this is why it is important to look at just the man it is who they are celebrating. He just had a lot of charisma and became the figurehead for the movement. It is the movement for equal rights which should be celebrated not the media savy sleezeball

    India also its existance more to the British. If it were not for them then with out a doubt, India would be a collection of smaller countries. And to be fair, at the time, the British were handing back the rest of their empire, so if Ghandi were not there, then it still would have been returned. India owes more of its existance to Winston Churchill and the Nazis for proviking WW2.

    And yes, if someone has evil tendancies, hidden by the media, then talking about these faults will make other people more esteemed, bacause maybe then the right people will be celebrated instead of the wrong ones.
     
  8. Jan 16, 2005 #7
    Accenting the positive effects of a life, works better for me on a daily basis. There is an urgent politic in this trashing of Feminist Leaders, Liberation Leaders, Civil Rights Leaders.

    I don't think there will be a Winston Churchill day celebrated in India, to mark their liberation from colonialists. The past cannot be changed, as we understand things, in this timeline. It was not better that the British domineered the planet for some time, it was not better that we came to America and displaced the dwellers here. It is what happened because of the callous, arrogance, and greed, of the European Monarchies, and those that supported them in their taste for intercontinental robbery of all sorts.

    There is a reason that Europe and The North American continent now have such stable and relatively, if not horrifically successful economies, and relative domestic peace. This reason is that Women and Men live in relatively equal states, and both sides of their equation are used in the market place. It makes working systems more in tune with the realities of living in a bilateral society.

    Societal hells on Earth are inhabited by callous patriarchies, where women and children suffer, and only prosper marginally serving the patriarchs. Successful societies with rights for all, prosper under the dual management of Men and Women. Representational government makes sure that everyone is represented.

    I particularly salute the Women Of Islamic Nations, who brave the establishment of rights for Women And Girls, and families, under the direst of consequences, for such actions. Those are some very brave people.
     
  9. Jan 17, 2005 #8
    This is because they want to celebrate an indian - marking them out as racist and xenophobic.

    All premodern societies were ruled by very evil people from time to time.
    Displacing the dwellers of a place is happening all of the time. The mexicans are taking over USA just as the islamics are taking over Europe, just as the europeans in prior times moved to USA and australia.
    Yes feminism does add to the economy in the short term, but in the long term it causes lack of births, which leads to an aging population and a stagnant economy. You can see this especially well in Japan and Germany, and it will become very obvious in the next few years. Feminist societies are thus not stable as they will be always replaced by people with higher birthrates from non feminist cultures.

    The birth rate in Saudi Arabia is 7 children per woman, compared to Germany with 1.2 children per woman.
    I know where I would want to invest.
     
  10. Jan 17, 2005 #9
    Even though Gandhi did a lot of harm and I don't like him, I have never heard that he was a racist or hated negros or believed in the segregation of castes. Could you provide references for this statement?
     
  11. Jan 17, 2005 #10
    A 7-1 birth rate, coupled with polygamy, and zero rights for women, equals a slave based economy. The exception being Saudi Arabia, which has strictly an oil based economy. A prime example of an economy fueled by a birthrate, such as this, would be Bangladesh.

    The Germans make great cars, grow a lot of food, have a good tech sector, and a very high standard of living, and a reasonable crime rate. Not only would I want to invest there, I wouldn't mind living there.

    The rape centered societies, usually fit the description of living hell on Earth. There are rape centered societies. Our government is fond of discussing family values. Family being one man and one woman living in monogamy. In this nation Women and Men choose each other.

    In many societies, girls are circumcised before the menses begin, and given to much older men as chattel. They are expected to obey, and serve, and reproduce; all sex, is rape in these cultures. Pleasure or consent is not a part of the social equation. If these women displease their all powerful husbands, then they and their children can be sold into slavery. Their daughters are summarily sent off, at ages little more than eleven. The boys are to be used as the elders deem fit, including sexual slavery for them, to the friends of the Father. In Afghanistan, this process is called, "taking a Hakelon Boy". Boys are lent for use to allies of the Father, and then sometimes daughters of the powerful are given in marriage to Hakelon men, to keep them all as a part of a larger "family of flesh ties". This is a rape centered society, where children are just a form of bartering that includes human lives.

    If family law centers on the rights of women, and their minor children and their privacy, then they are given the power to nurture and sustain their families, and live well, relative to societies where they have no rights. The difference between these societies is like night and day. The western world is far from perfect, there is such personal freedom and variance allowed, it would be hard to homogenize it culturally, and who would want that anyway? It is the variety that gives us our health, and genetic variation. The culture of equality delivers high end, survival of the fittest, while more fundamental societies, gives us the survival of the most brutal.
     
  12. Jan 18, 2005 #11
    My example of saudi arabia was an extreme to contrast with germany.
    Like it or not, the German economy is going downhill. This does not take away from the fact that is very strong now. It is not too bad a place to live and obviously better than the 3rd world countries you mentioned.

    This is not true. In this situation, it is not survival of the fittest, it is survival of the one who has the most children. In the west it is the islamic immigrants. Out of the ethnic europeans though, it is the women who do not have high flying careers (who have more children), and this leads to a lowering of the average 'genetic' IQ level over a couple of generations. Also, the men who are best at seducing women are not intellectual, but tough guys, and this also reduces the average IQ level. In saudi arabia, it is not the most brutal who have the most children, but the richest. This has to increase the IQ and work rate, although the IQ is pretty low there now.

    It goes without saying that forcing young children into marriage or sexual contact with adults is wrong.
     
  13. Jan 18, 2005 #12
    Some interesting thoughts, Plus. Could you clarify a few points for me, please?

    Presumably this has only started since the 70s as a result of feminism.

    Do women like tough guys moreso now (since feminism) than in the past? Is this due to the rash of fawning 'new men' that have appeared as a result of feminism? Please clarify.

    According to the above reasoning (or perhaps only the first part), the next generation will be dumber due to feminism?
     
  14. Jan 19, 2005 #13
    Hi Dayle, how are you?
    I agree that a woman's life in such an oppressive society is sad, but instead of seeing their men as aggressors and oppressors, the way perhaps feminists tend to do, I see them as victims of the system as well. Let us use our empathetic imagination for a while and pretend we are heads of the families with big clout. So we bed whomever we like and rape those who are not pliant enough. We sell our own daughters and sons or just send them out as gifts. What kind of life is that to be such a man? Sounds pretty dreadful to me. No warmth or genuine affection from one's closest kins, no tenderness from one's wive(s). Sure, lots of copulation with different women. But com'on, how would you feel as a man knowing that the women you have the most intimate relationship with have only fear and dread of you? Not a very enviable life to me to say the least.
    And I think this is the shortcoming of feminism as I see it, always castigating men as oppressor at worst and completely useless at best. My other quarrel with feminism is that feminists seem to want to "sensitize" men and "harden, toughten up" women. I feel this "unisexualisation" tendency is both unnecessary and unsatisfactory. For if we are utterly honest with ourselves, nothing with bring greater happiness to a woman than the strong protective arms of a man, and to a man, the happy sweet smile of a woman.
     
  15. Jan 19, 2005 #14
    Wow. This is an impressive act of empathy. I can't imagine you are going to get a lot of people agreeing with this, though it is a valid point. I suppose the common answer will be 'a man who is so brutal doesn't value affection', but I agree with what I think is implicit here, that anyone who is deprived of love is in a kind of hell.
     
  16. Jan 19, 2005 #15
    :biggrin: Thank you darling, you are very "empowering".

    Do women like tough guys moreso now (since feminism) than in the past? Is this due to the rash of fawning 'new men' that have appeared as a result of feminism? Please clarify.

    Study after study says that women go for intelligence, kindness, humour, loyalty etc in a man. Where does toughness come in?

    According to the above reasoning (or perhaps only the first part), the next generation will be dumber due to feminism?

    I wouldn't go that far, but certainly less cared and less well bred.
     
  17. Jan 19, 2005 #16

    iansmith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Could you point us towards those study. I would like to see who the interrogated: the women or their boyfriend. Also the age of the subject my influence the responce.

    From my experience, most woman in their late teens and early twenties are more often impress by tough guys (guy with a bad boy attitude) rather than an intellectual type. As women get older, intelligence and kindness will have more of an influence on their choice.
     
  18. Jan 19, 2005 #17
    Women caring more about careers than families has become much more widespread now than before feminism. Yes the next generation will be dumber as there is a correlation between education level and interest in careers. There is a correlation between IQ and education level. Assuming that nothing strange is occuring there is then a correlation between IQ and interest in careers. And careers means less time for babies.

    Women prefer bad boys more now than in previous generations, because in previous times the women had to be dependant upon the man,and they did not want to be dependant upon someone who was unreliable and untrustworthy. Wheras now they can just go for the most exciting option.

    I agree that when women get older they begin to see the benefits of nice men, as opposed to when younger. This is because when they realise that they have been used for sex and then dumped many times by the bad boys, and that they are now older and past their best, they want some nice man who they ignored in the past to come and make it all better. But by this stage they are mostly past their prime fertile years and maybe already have children by then anyway (probably being supported on welfare by the nice men who just work hard and pay taxes).
     
  19. Jan 19, 2005 #18
    I agree with kindness, and having a good job for older women, but disagree with intelligence. Why do you say this?
     
  20. Jan 19, 2005 #19
    Because he is intelligent? :surprised :biggrin:

    Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on, don't mind me. o:)
     
  21. Jan 19, 2005 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I seriously doubt that. Most women in low income families have to work. I think you will find the percent of successful women that choose not to have children is not that high. All of the successful women I know have children.

    Dumb women do that, not intelligent women.

    very young girls (some not all) have no clue what they want. Looking at my two daughters and their girlfriends, they HATE bad boy types and avoid them like the plague. Ian, it sounds like you've been running into a lot of airheads.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Icons of Feminism?
  1. Feminism (Replies: 33)

  2. Zoobyshoe's icon (Replies: 8)

  3. Wolram's icon (Replies: 53)

  4. Iconic Musicians? (Replies: 14)

Loading...