interesting. I see feminism more through the light of virtue/rights advocacy. it is like humanism about equal rights but specifically in regards to gender.
to stay at home is for me not a rejection of feminism if it is not connected to the belief that doing so is the only right choice for women specifically.
I know she doesn’t represent all of feminism, but this classic quote from Simone de Beauvoir is interesting in this context:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children… Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Can one appreciate feminism and yet reject it? Well, it depends on definitions and which aspects of feminism we are talking about. One can appreciate some aspects and reject other aspects. My wife, for one, is a SAHM and consciously grateful that because of one aspect of feminism this is a choice for her. And yet, she is saddened that because another aspect of feminism tends to reduce the status of motherhood, fewer people choose to become mothers, or put it off.
There is a large body of feminist literature and quotes that prime women to see motherhood as empty, infantilizing, stifling, “barbaric”, controlling, limited, and restricting in comparison to working a 9-5. When it is just as possible to see motherhood as a superpower, ennobling, creative, beautiful, and fulfilling.
What could possibly be more emblematic of femininity than motherhood? Aspects of feminism that reduce the status of mothers and femininity are self-defeating in that they actually make life worse for women, while other aspects of femininity undeniably make life better.
Did you...I don't know, read the post? The conclusion that was made was that feminism, as an enterprise, is not self-undermining. Moreover, what you said is the core principle of classical feminism, which had a much different central premise.
Again, had you read the post, I very specifically said "remove structural barriers on women's autonomy" is the core principal of CONTEMPORARY feminism, which is entirely different in the nature of the obstacles it needs to overcome.
Lastly, AGAIN, had you read the article properly, you'd see that I said "remove structural barriers on women's autonomy" is something you are *likely to hear* as a core principle of contemporary feminism. I don't particularly care what you are not did you do anything to help, all you demonstrated was borderline illiteracy. If you're going to be condescending at least do it in such a way that remotely resembles having understood what you read.
So, just to be clear here, your excuse for unnecessarily repeating my conclusion as if I hadn't explicitly made it in the post, being condescending, and misrepresenting MULTIPLE things I said is because: "I'm tired of hearing men talk about this" combined with: "I find the discussion insulting." Well I'm terribly sorry you find philosophical conceptual analysis of something insulting. What a terrible thing it is to try and steelman a position against possible claims!! Thank you for pointing that out to me, gosh!
Contemporary feminism has ESTABLISHED that women have choices, on both legal and social levels. The logical next step is breaking down the rest of the barriers with autonomy, the contemporary feminist literature supports this. It does nothing explanatory to take an established principle/thesis and use to ground an entirely separate one that occurs, not just chronologically after, but conceptually.
Moreover, I did not ask if the proposition "women are people too" was self-undermining, I asked if a very specific framework associated with a time-period was. Women get to debate the virtues and pitfalls of mens humanity too, everyone gets to do that about just about everyone else, because moral issues ought to be discussed. I did no such equating, in fact, that is precisely what you've just done when you accused me of critiquing the proposition "women are people." Perhaps I would have heard the pain behind your words had they not been drowned out by the condescension you so "woefully" brought along with it.
interesting. I see feminism more through the light of virtue/rights advocacy. it is like humanism about equal rights but specifically in regards to gender.
to stay at home is for me not a rejection of feminism if it is not connected to the belief that doing so is the only right choice for women specifically.
I know she doesn’t represent all of feminism, but this classic quote from Simone de Beauvoir is interesting in this context:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children… Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Can one appreciate feminism and yet reject it? Well, it depends on definitions and which aspects of feminism we are talking about. One can appreciate some aspects and reject other aspects. My wife, for one, is a SAHM and consciously grateful that because of one aspect of feminism this is a choice for her. And yet, she is saddened that because another aspect of feminism tends to reduce the status of motherhood, fewer people choose to become mothers, or put it off.
There is a large body of feminist literature and quotes that prime women to see motherhood as empty, infantilizing, stifling, “barbaric”, controlling, limited, and restricting in comparison to working a 9-5. When it is just as possible to see motherhood as a superpower, ennobling, creative, beautiful, and fulfilling.
What could possibly be more emblematic of femininity than motherhood? Aspects of feminism that reduce the status of mothers and femininity are self-defeating in that they actually make life worse for women, while other aspects of femininity undeniably make life better.
Did you...I don't know, read the post? The conclusion that was made was that feminism, as an enterprise, is not self-undermining. Moreover, what you said is the core principle of classical feminism, which had a much different central premise.
Again, had you read the post, I very specifically said "remove structural barriers on women's autonomy" is the core principal of CONTEMPORARY feminism, which is entirely different in the nature of the obstacles it needs to overcome.
Lastly, AGAIN, had you read the article properly, you'd see that I said "remove structural barriers on women's autonomy" is something you are *likely to hear* as a core principle of contemporary feminism. I don't particularly care what you are not did you do anything to help, all you demonstrated was borderline illiteracy. If you're going to be condescending at least do it in such a way that remotely resembles having understood what you read.
So, just to be clear here, your excuse for unnecessarily repeating my conclusion as if I hadn't explicitly made it in the post, being condescending, and misrepresenting MULTIPLE things I said is because: "I'm tired of hearing men talk about this" combined with: "I find the discussion insulting." Well I'm terribly sorry you find philosophical conceptual analysis of something insulting. What a terrible thing it is to try and steelman a position against possible claims!! Thank you for pointing that out to me, gosh!
Contemporary feminism has ESTABLISHED that women have choices, on both legal and social levels. The logical next step is breaking down the rest of the barriers with autonomy, the contemporary feminist literature supports this. It does nothing explanatory to take an established principle/thesis and use to ground an entirely separate one that occurs, not just chronologically after, but conceptually.
Moreover, I did not ask if the proposition "women are people too" was self-undermining, I asked if a very specific framework associated with a time-period was. Women get to debate the virtues and pitfalls of mens humanity too, everyone gets to do that about just about everyone else, because moral issues ought to be discussed. I did no such equating, in fact, that is precisely what you've just done when you accused me of critiquing the proposition "women are people." Perhaps I would have heard the pain behind your words had they not been drowned out by the condescension you so "woefully" brought along with it.