A couple of days ago I had the opportunity to discuss with a group of "feminists", as you know, I don't mean the women who formed that civil movement that advocated the women's right to vote at the beginning of the last century, but the new and diverse group of individuals that has now become famous for supporting and defending the so-called "gender-inclusive language", for spraying men's groin in the subway with water, for reporting a 4 or 5 year old child to the police, and in general, for having an irrationally childish behavior.
As those who are already familiar with these "feminist" groups will know, it is practically impossible to have a serious discussion and in terms of mutual respect with this specific group of individuals. Fallacies, personal attacks and insults is all that one can expect when discussing with these people.
Before having that discussion I made an investigation about it, to my surprise, I could find that the movement is extremely large, apparently, they have dedicated for several decades to expand all the theory that sustains its movement, topics such as "history of feminism", "feminist culture", "feminist art", "feminist music" and many others appeared mixed and related to the infinity of divergent variants and currents of thought within the same movement. Gramsci would be pleased to see the work they have done in assimilating his idea of "counter-hegemony", the rhetoric of the class struggle has been transferred to the struggle of genres in a way that borders on plagiarism in a naively blatant way, using as a point of support the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School.
That is how I came across the concept, which by now everyone should know even a little, "gender roles", which supposedly describes the behavior that society gives to men and women based on their genders. Being these roles, according to "feminist" theory, a social construct, they must be eliminated, since they harm all people, mainly women
As we know, modern society has no mechanism to grant such "gender roles" legally, since women are not forced to work on one thing and men on another. However, the position of the movement explains that conveniently the modern establishment belongs to a patriarchal structure that indirectly places men in the places of power, which hegemonically and systematically oppress, consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, to the woman.
For this reason, there is a need to eliminate "gender roles", in addition to a myriad of things that qualify as "social constructs" in order to achieve equality. This is based on revoking or abolishing the beliefs imposed by patriarchy, such as: being a nurse, secretary, housewife, or feeling attraction for men is something feminine, and being a military, carpenter, or feeling attraction for women it is something masculine. So that, if society does not have these false precepts about behavior, we would all benefit and have a greater degree of freedom, mainly women, who would benefit from being able to enjoy equality, instead of the patriarchal oppression established by the gender roles.
Everything seems fine with that, except for one thing; has no sense!
You see, if I talk about an "apple", people know what specific thing I am referring to. They know that I am referring to a fruit, but at the same time the idea of the apple also allows me to distinguish it from other fruits, vegetables and anything else. Thanks to its inherent characteristics and the uses that society gives the apple, we know that it is an apple and not pear or lemon. If I put an apple, a tomato, and a carrot on a table, and I ask you to take the apple, you would know perfectly what to take. That is so true that I don't even need to illustrate the example, because in your mind you already have a clear idea of any of these fruits and vegetables that I mentioned. No one can take an eggplant and try to sell it as if it were an apple in the market; the farmer knows that he sows and harvests potatoes and collects potatoes, some bigger than others but all finally potatoes.
What does this have to do with the whole issue of feminism?
For it is simple, as in the previous case, although there may be many different women with different characteristics, there is also an idea of what a woman is, as well as of what femininity means, the same thing happens with the idea of man and masculinity. And there really should not be a big problem with the fact of renewing these ideas naturally to suit the circumstances, but what cannot be done is to eliminate the idea completely.
Modern "feminism", fighting fervently to eliminate gender roles and to eliminate all these "social constructs", is only abolishing the very idea of women, and therefore, femininity. If a certain role and certain characteristics are not granted to women in society, speaking in ideal terms of course, then the only thing that could define what a woman is, is exclusively their biological condition. Nevertheless, for most "feminist" movements even the biological condition does not determine the gender of the person, so there simply would not be a way of knowing who is a woman and who is not, or even knowing, what a woman is.
Only those who defined themselves as women would be women, however, the mere word "woman" would become a label without any meaning, an empty word and devoid of any connotation.
It must be understood that I am not talking about the disappearance of what we understand today as a woman, or what we understand today as femininity, but about the total disappearance of the meaning of the idea of woman and femininity.
My question is; can we call feminism a movement that precisely seeks to abolish the idea of women and femininity?
In that discussion that I mentioned at the beginning, I asked a great variety of women and men who support this movement, only the following: What is a woman?
None could give me an answer.
None was able to answer that question that should be the easiest answer in principle, being that they call themselves feminists, and that they support a movement that uses a woman as a standard, one supposes that the first thing they should know, that which It is supposed to be the essence of the movement, it is what a woman is.
I don't have the authority to define what should be or not the woman or femininity, however, no matter how misleading these concepts may be at present, they are concepts that, at least give a concise and clear definition of what is a woman and what is femininity. Can they be modified for a better concept? I would say yes. But abolishing the idea of women and femininity is totally absurd. In any case, I repeat, can a movement that seeks to abolish the idea of women and femininity be called feminism?
Let's look at the following, according to the UN there are more than 100 official genres, you know what this means, I'll tell you in the following way.
Do you really believe that the people who promote this think that there are so many genders? Do you really think that they want you to learn a list with a hundred genders so as not to offend anyone? Do you really think this is about inclusion?
But even more, do you really believe that people with money, power, and influence to run the UN are in favor of a theory that has basic logical flaws?
The reality is that no, none of those people really believe that there are so many genders, in fact, they don't even believe that there are two, these people don't believe that there is such a thing as gender. The only reason why they are promoting this agenda, is not for inclusion and equality, not for their infinite benevolence, it's about eliminating something that they believe is a social construct, they don't want you to learn any of these new genders, they just want to make the task of defining a gender so complicated that you cannot use them. It is about the total suppression of the idea of gender, there are no men, there are no women, there is nothing else.
That is the reason why "feminists" can not even say what a woman is.
Do you know what this means? That in the new world they propose, the simple fact of defining yourself as "heterosexual" represents a big problem, because it means that first you must define yourself as "man" or as "woman", and that for them is totally unacceptable.
If there are no genders, neither by biology nor by essence, as they claim, but everything is a social construct, there is nothing that differentiates one individual from another, so that individuals are transformed into a homogenous mass without identity, because every attempt to define yourself as something represents for them a "social construct", this is unmistakably the first step to the total suppression of individuality.
Image Source: 1
For some time I've been telling that future really looks like Atlas Shrugged meets The Camp of the Saints.
BTW you might find these interviews interesting:
Worst part about ideas is that ideas build culture and culture has more influence in the direction of a civilization than anything else.
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@vimukthi/let-s-talk-memes-the-builder-of-destiny-and-civilizations-and-the-most-powerful-weapon-known-to-man
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@vimukthi/chintana-the-socio-psychological-force-that-guide-the-fate-of-nations-cultures-and-all-sorts-of-groups-an-explanation-of-the
I did not know about this issue in Thailand, for some reason I thought they were more conservative.
Informative video. The people on the street seemed to be intelligent and answer the questions thoughtfully.
You make one, massive fundamental mistake in your arguments, and thus rendering the entire post pointless...
Talking to the mentally ill in a logical fashion, is like trying to describe a color to a blind man...An exercise in futility.
(as really am starting to see postmodernist logic as a mental illness)
lol
Could you help me?
In Russia, we had a small discussion about Venezuela and gasoline.
I argue that government regulation of gasoline prices leads to a shortage of gasoline.
My opponent claims that under Hugo Chávez there was no shortage of petrol in Venezuela.
Could you, if it doesn’t make it difficult for you, bring me the facts of gasoline shortage under Hugo Chávez or confirm the absence of such facts.
And if you also write an article on this topic, then I will be just immensely happy and grateful to you.
Thank you in advance.
I found only this information:
"
CARACAS -- A sudden spate of largely unexplained shortages of gasoline -- of all things in the country with the biggest oil reserves in the Western hemisphere, or officials claim, the entire world -- has put President Hugo Chávez' government on the spot.
In a country where at least the better off are addicted to driving everywhere (while everybody queues for an ever more unreliable bus or subway train and then sweats through their journey), failure to ensure that people can fill up their tanks at the drop of a hat and with little impact on their pocket is tantamount to serious failure.
Energy and Mines Minister Rafael Ramírez went Thursday to Maracaibo, capital of the western state of Zulia and where shortages were starting to look like becoming acute, in an evident attempt to calm tempers. There, he "guaranteed that supplies would be "regularized" soon but was distinctly short on explanation of what had happened, and why.
"
Source: http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=334115&CategoryId=10717
That article is old, Ramirez is not a minister now, in fact, now he is in investigations, due to an internal quarrel within Chavism, he and Maduro are facing each other. Both accuse each other of corruption.
You can read this post I did:
Socialism in Venezuela: Why is gasoline so cheap? 9510 gallons of gasoline for $ 1 !!!
Although currently the government changed the system, but we are still in the testing stage, it has not been implemented and generalized throughout the country. According to the new system, people will only be able to buy gasoline at a subsidized price through the use of the "Carnet de la Patria", a kind of special identification that will adjust to an automated system, in such a way as to allow the government to know how much each person consumes, with the objective of rationing the amount of gasoline sold at a subsidized price, and avoiding contraband to the Colombian border.
With Chavez there was no shortage of gasoline, but during the previous governments there was no such problem, and the price was the same. The issue is that between 1999 and 2014, the Venezuelan government received US $ 960,589 million for oil export concepts. An average of US $ 56,500 million annually for 17 years, which allowed the government to import a lot of gasoline easily. This is known as the Dutch disease. Previous governments maintained more or less the autonomy of the company, so production, although never reached the level of production when they were different private companies, remained high enough. But during the Chavez government, the workers of the company opposed him, and he dismissed them, which caused a significant flight of labor capital and highly qualified professionals, PDVSA was the 2nd most efficient company in the oil sector, later, after the dismissals that Chavez made, the company became a very corrupt and incompetent company, which is why it produces high costs. In 1998 the company had 30,000 employees and produced 3 million barrels of oil a day, today it has almost 200,000 and produces 1 million a day.
I hope I have helped you, anything I can answer your doubts.
Fine. Exactly what is needed.
CryptoThanks)
Curated for #informationwar (by @gregorypatrick)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 9,500 Steem Power and 40+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
I have shared this post to our Gab, Twitter, Tumblr and Freedomsocial feeds as well as our reddit!! Join us everywhere Decentralized News lives and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call
Check out our live interactive podcasts every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 12am UTC.
Ways you can help the @informationwar
There are only 2 genders, male and female.
My opinion is that people have an intuitive/spiritual/energetic sense that equality exists and then try to fit the genders (and potentially everything else) into that view. The problem with this is that equality does NOT exist within the manifested universe, only within the Oneness from which everything originated.
The purpose of manifested reality is for Oneness to experience itself as "different / not equal". This is a view which is fairly consistent within metaphysics. If you're interested in pursuing the topic, here's a link that @vimukthi sent me a while ago. The section on metaphysics has some links on the topic. I would also add the Law of One material to that list.
http://www.gestaltreality.com/gestalt-synthesis/
Ha, @vimukthi always has some good material spread there in links.
I am of your opinion. Forcing physical equality in every aspect is nothing but foolishness, and it is counterproductive. I think they are being naive, I don't think they have bad intentions, but they will end up causing exactly what they want to avoid.
To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:
Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.