Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm
I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".
1. There is something
unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.
2. There is nothing
unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.
The second position is associated with what was called Second-Wave feminism, this was a movement that ran from the early 1960's (when American journalist and dissident hausfrau
Betty Friedan, published her best-selling book "The Feminine Mystique" in 1963) through to the 1980's. The Second Wave feminist movement was quite aggressive and radically anti-establishment. It's leading lights were writers, academics and journalists like : Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, Shulasmith Firestone and I will add Andrea Dworkin (even though technically she came to prominence in the 1990's) All of them and their cronies were strong advocates for the second position which is GENDER feminism. The Gender Feminist thesis is that even though they have different sets of sexual genitalia, men and women are otherwise equal (and by "equal", they mean, literally, the SAME). For instance, there is no innate difference in modes of cognition, the experiencing and regulation of emotion, or any of any other mental events men and women experience in waking, phenomenal consciousness. The upshot is that the innate disposition that 5 -year- old boys possess to play with objects like toy trucks and racing car is purely "socially constructed; just is the strong preference that little girls display to play with more "Social" toys, like dolls that need nursing or teddy bears that need to be organized with little cups of tea at a teddy bears' picnic.
Any individual with a modicum of intelligence knew that when Second Wave feminism started telling average adults in the West that having a pair of balls (testicles) didn't make men any different (psychologically) from Heffner's "Playboy Bunnies", that what they were listening to was 100 %, crazy bullshit. (And) I maintain to this day that Germaine Greer, Shulasmith Firestone, and obnoxious specimens like Andrea Dworkin ,are certifiably insane ( I MEAN IT !) Dworkin seriously
believes that all men are rapists. She has published this theory in various books and feminist literature papers she has written. Now, if I were a competent Western psychiatrist and I were asked to evaluate the state of mind of an adult woman who sincerely believed that every time a male had penetrative vaginal sex with a female partner, a "rape" , had taken place; and that ALL men were inherently rapists by nature, I would know straight away that I was certainly dealing with some kind of serious psychopathology (personality disorder? psychosis of some kind?, delusional disorder? I would have my work cut out isolating the correct diagnosis).In any case, the Second Position, is no longer tenable. Recent research investigations in neuroscience using in utero
male and female foetuses have found substantial
differences in the structure and function of the physical brains of foetal boys and foetal girls. Because these differences in the male and female brain were observed in utero,
obviously, they cannot
be the result of any external, environmental socialization processes of the kind feminist theory has always proposed. Or in other words the whole bogus corpus of Gender Feminist theory has already disappeared right down the gurgler. Funny how feminists never mention the fact these days. Funny how they now refuse to discuss the issue?
Thus POSITION 2 is Dead, buried, cremated... That doesn't mean the notion is not still out there floating around in the mind of 1000s of female half-wits - IT IS (!!), and this is what continues to cause do much damage to the fundamental fabric of Western Society.
I don't think I would class "Position 1" as a feminist position, IC, (Although ,strictly speaking, you are referring to Gender Essentialism, I think, and this is , in fact, regarded as a distinctive strand of 3rd-wave feminist theory -why
, I don't know) not at least, the way you've written it. It would lead to the conclusion that generally women are more emotional labile than men, that they possess a relative to men a sizable deficiency in their ability for moral rationalization ( that was the original Immanuel KANT's view, back in the era of 18th century Europe, before modern neuroscience ( neuropsychology, neuroimaging, etc.) existed, the good news is that we DO have the requisite neuroscientific technology now, and it confirms the original Immanuel Kant's observations, and those of Neitzsche and Aristotle !); that they (females/women) are typically averse to involving themselves in physical violence, that they are generally less aggressive, that they are more empathetic, nurturing and caring, compassionate and charitably disposed than men, that they are not as physically strong as men, that generally speaking normal, healthy, young females YEARN to be pregnant ( from and have children of their own, that (in the romantic context) they definitely do not find themselves attracted to men who are wimpy, weak, "beta males" or overly effeminate , rather, they expect the men they marry to "crack the whip" (like Nietzsche !) and keep them firmly, but fairly in line !! (they are biologically wired to expect that they will be pulled sharply back into line by their husbands when they misbehave) , and if they don't get get this treatment, you (the husband) will end up in a divorce court, and then and empty pocked after a legal system that is systematically biased in favour of women, makes you cough up mega-dollars in alimony payments and child support that will financially cripple you !)
Now, whether or not they know it is true (which, of course, it is), no feminist will sign up for "Position One" as I outlined it above. Take it from me,you only need remember one fact about feminism, IC, and that is that from 1960 to 2020, feminist theory has, without exception been BASED on a PACK OF LIES and STUPIDITY.
NB:I have just quickly read a summary of "Feminist Essentialism" which say that it is a concept/principle in feminist theory and gender studies which attributes a fixed "essence" to women (in the sense that a medieval Schoolman like Thomas Aquinas would conceptualise the term) This essence is presumed to be universal and is generally identified with those psychological characteristics traditionally viewed as feminine such as : nurturance, empathy/compassion, non-competitiveness, poor emotional regulation, deficient moral rationality, cunning, mendacity and so on. These mental attributes are biologically- based in the brain. So if this is a part of 3rd wave feminism, I welcome it, because at long last we are hearing some common sense. OF COURSE
men and WOMEN think differently and experience different levels and patterns of emotional expression, OF COURSE
, men are innately more rational (Aristotle worked that out a long time ago), OF COURSE
they react to sense perception when they are represented in consciousness in different way. The thesis of Gender Essentialism strengthens the binary between males and females and is therefore very welcome, IMO, (because this is perfectly natural), though what it has to do with feminism - which has traditionally been all about securing the goal of equality between the sexes/genders - I do no know?
Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)................ (Beware the dog)