Hey all,

I recently had a very heated discussion with someone I would now call a radical feminist. Personally, I am a man who openly supports all women in their right to "define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social right", and so I found it strange that the discussion could degenerate so drastically. All this got me thinking; that today their exists in feminism a set very contradictory ideas pertaining to sex.

Here's a generalized overview:

1. c. 1950 -- Judeo-Christian morals: virtue, loyalty, fidelity and chastity.

2. c. 1960 – Radical feminists reject Judeo-Christian morals as an artifact of patriarchy, also rejecting it's demand for virtue, loyalty, fidelity and chastity. The modern feminist embraces “sexual liberation". Sex is increasingly seen as meaningless/ casual, though it has been viewed as sacred for most of human history.

3. c. 1970 -- In treating and then trading sex as a commodity, radical feminism worsens the preexisting issues of women being ssen as sexual objects.
___

Basically, I think there's a seriously disbalance between the above mentioned morals, and women being equal to men and having sexual liberty.

I'd like to see how fellow nexians view this? Does our culture undervalue sex, and does this result in much of the objectification of women, rape culture etc. that we see today?

***After the 50th reply, I can see that this is going nowhere. I propose a new direction and hope we can focus in

What I now offer up for discussion, not irrelated to my orginal question, is as follows: Yes, men are the main perpetrators of rape, overwhelmingly so. But is an individual's choice to rape not one symptom, in an alredy disturbed person, of something much more hideous? And that that, (and I would like to discuss what that is), is now no more the fault of men or of women, and not something that either can deal with alone? That it is counterproductive to lay blame to men, or to men's rape "culture", as this third wave so often does.

The kind of rape culture that undermines rape, downplays the suffering of the victims; this is not men, it is a sick society. It's everyone as a collective that is out of touch.

So, thoughts?

Rape culture has been around for probably as long as mankind and has more to do with the set than his setting.

As for the value of sex. Sex can be both meaningful/spiritual AND casual depending on the persons involved and where they are at in their life.

I'll agree some radical feminists rub me the wrong way, but they are necessary after 1000's of year of dominant males which have actually on the whole acted in much more extreme ways than the average hardcore feminist.

How can anyone say the objectification of women began in 1970? I'm guessing you didn't word this right /left out part of your argument?

http://dominatorculture....edelics-and-the-feminine


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMB2XIe9gI8
Riane Eisler and terence mckenna discuss man and woman through out history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uXrIgqFYHw

I've always held similar views to mckenna when it comes to feminism, maybe not to the extent that mckenna did, but similar. I can understand the value of feminism, and not just for females, but for the entire species.

I think the situation is far more complex than it seems on the surface, and can not be truly discussed in simple terms or "black and white" concepts.

The links I posted go into this topic in depth, so rather than fill the thread with transcriptions, I'll leave the links for those who are interested. The terence mckenna Riane Eisler discussions are amazing, and I highly recommend them, it's a 5 hour video, but even if you just browse through and listen to pieces here and there I think you will find a wealth of intelligent and in depth conversation on the topic.

As far as the original post, I'm not quite sure what you were getting at...were you saying rejection of church morals and sexual liberation led to objectification of women and then rape culture? ...regardless, it may help if you would clarify a bit.

-eg

A clarification of my thesis:

There’s a tendency in radical feminism for the rejections of many previously well established morals, that, within the context of a society that still values/valued said morals, hurts the feminist cause as a whole, and, starting probably/roughly around 1970, worsens issues such the objectification of women and rape culture.

Sexual liberation has led to women having more powers if anything.
In some cultures, male sexuality gets put down in an attempt to give women even more power in these matters.



Can you explain what that is supposed to be?

I don't believe in equality because people aren't equal by nature.
Equal chances? Nice idea, but life can never be fair. How can it be?

What about women who WANT to be controlled by men?
WANT to be objectified?

Also:

What about men who WANT to be sexual objects?

It's amazing that some feminists call for an abandonment of the "patriarchy" and everything that might give men satisfaction, but then are in favor of all kinds of extravagant gender identities ...

Here

By believing in equality, I believe in not having a preconceived notion that woman are not equal to men.
That's what believing in equality means.

For me this doesn't clarify anything as i do not know which morals you are referring to and therefore how their rejection would affect the feminist cause. Can you expand on this?

edit, sorry, re read your first post and think i know what you are going on about...

As I said in the original post: "Judeo-Christian morals: virtue, loyalty, fidelity and chastity." that have supposedly been what we're suppose to live up for the last 2000+ years.

My own response to my thesis

I believe that there are such things as “unvirtuous” or “amoral” behavior, and that, even if all people are inherently sacred, the individual can be more or less “good” depending on his/her level of virtuosity.

I would of course be very careful in what I use to measure someone’s virtue, but I think in seeking the truth and being empathetic and conscientious, one is indeed a virtuous person. Within that context, I think a rejection of, for example, loyalty or chastity (polyamory, open relationships) can exist without in any way being amoral or unvirtuous.

Unfortunately, in rejecting the Judaeo-Christian morals, modern/radical feminism has also become an easy means of escaping any kind of judgement, a means of justifying amorality, not about equal rights.

Equal rights shouldn't mean women being “allowed” to be as much of an asshole has the stereotypical "oppressor man" that woman are revolting against.

I think much of the negativity directed towards feminism, along with the continued objectification of woman and the existence of rape culture, would diminish significantly if feminism wasn’t so often used an easy moral escape.

Objectification of women is perpetuated by male dominated culture, it's roots originate in sexism, male dominance, and oppression of the female sex. Females are culturally programmed to think that as a female they must fit a certain mold, and this suppressive cultural programming is largely perpetuated by male dominator types, seeking control over the female sex, and taking great offense at female liberation, whether it be the right to vote, the right to work so they need not be dependant on a husband, or the right to control their own reproduction.

I still don't see feminism as a moral escape, what feminist do you know that is promoting immoral behavior, or covering their immoral behavior with feminism?

Some feminists come off as thinking that women are superior, they seem to dislike males, and do not seem to promote equality, I can't say I agree with this in any way, BUT I also can't say I see it leading to a decay of church morals resulting in promiscuous sex and rape culture...if anything it degrades the type of culture that promotes females as sexual objects, those hardcore feminists are never "sexual object" types, and I can't see their behavior contributing to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnmBLB-UX4
The females of Samburu have escaped oppressive male dominance and have formed their own women only village, I see this as an act of feminism, and I in no way see any evidence of moral degradation.


I see this (above) as an act of feminism as well, and i do not feel it is indicative of a decline into immorality. emma Goldman is not your typical feminist, but see fought for many of the rights that people would consider women's rights, though she really stood for equality between all people regardless of gender, class, race, etc...she fully rejected the values of organized religion, however this did not make her a bad or immoral person by any means, church dogma is not a prerequisite for morality, and plenty of people can reject the church in every way and still have impeccable moral standings...


I could bring up several examples, though I don't feel it would matter...

I highly recommend you give some of this https://www.anoniem.org/....com/watch?v=tMB2XIe9gI8 a listen, and see if it changes your perspective in any way...

This isn't a conversation I'm really qualified to engage in, my knowledge of feminism is limited to terence mckenna, Emma Goldman, and the feminist influenced notions of several psychedelic icons, I really don't know enough about feminism to argue for it...



-eg

Firstly, I'm in no way saying feminism is a moral escape, nor am I saying that real feminism (which fights for equal rights) promotes immoral behavior. I'm talking about the kind of feminism you see on social media, not in books. Unfortunately, few people read books anymore.

Secondly, I'm talking about "church morals", I'm saying that all morals in western society can find their historical roots in Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that if one rejects Judeo-Christian beliefs and their morals, they're rejecting western morals as a whole. Feminism has rejected Judeo-Christian morals, and so in not filling the void with some new moral system, is leaving enough room for feminism to be used as an escape, by those that wish to do so. And these are the people that can end up making the job of real feminists a lot harder.

Finally, I downloaded the McKenna video. It's long a heck but I'll take listen

Here: http://www.huffingtonpos...-feminism_b_8210636.html

One cool thing i've noticed is that all the commentators on this thread (myself included) are male. I would like to read some input into this thread from female members.

Though I may be wrong, I feel like the forum's population is 85% male

Philosophy still seems to be a male dominated field

I don't that modern western values are actually judeo-christian. Obviously, for almost 2000 years, christianity has been dominant in europe.
When it comes to judaism however, i think it's fair to say that europe does not realy have such a great track record.
Much of christian morality has been based on judaism ofcourse, but also on greek moral philosophy.

But i think you could see western civilisation in many ways as a succession of the roman empire. Even when the western part of the roman empire collapsed, many of the roman cultural and political traditions where being continued.

What i mean to say with this, is that western civilisation has Always had some sort of cosmopolitanism. In modern western moral philosophy, kantianism, utilitarianism and contractualism have been the most dominant moral theories. These moral theories are all non-religious, egalitarian and to some extent liberal. In post war western civilisation, kantianism has given way to utilitarianism and contractualism.

Utilitarianism and contractualism are the most dominant moral views these days. They partly overlap and tend both to be egalitarian and liberal.
feminism fits those views pretty well.

I think rape culture in modern western civilisation, if there realy is such a thing, is primarily the result of the porn busines.

Pornographers tend to push the existing moral and legal limits. They will Always try to go for something a little more filthy, disgusting and degrading than what's being accepted at the time.
If there is anyplace where women are being treated as even less than objects, it's the fantasyland of porn. It is a world where women are being humiliated violently and casually, with or without their consent.

I think it's actually christianity that's mostly to blame for this though. If they would not have made sexuality such a taboo'd thing, the porn-industry would not be cashing in, selling the taboo'd that much.

In western europe, the most religious country, italy, is also the country where the most prostitution is taking place, where most of the child-prostitution is taking place and where most of the prostitutes happen to be ladyboys...men with breasts.
And look at the many pedophilia-scandals within the catholic church itself.

Women that decide to be assholes would probably be assholes even if the feminist movement had never started. Plenty people justify and validate their assholery with political, social or religious excuses.


I agree with Soulfood, men have been raping women forever. Maybe it is down to feminism that women have more of a voice and when someone is raped we hear about it more often and so it appears that rape is more commonplace.



Isn't rape more to do with power over someone rather than sex? I am not really sure. I think that there has always been filthy and morally suspect pornography. It's just that we have more access to it in the modern age.

It's called Third-Wave Feminism, as distinguished from First- and Second-Wave Feminism.

It's not so much about fighting for equality as it is about constantly finding new reasons why they're oppressed victims and why men - particularly white men - particularly particularly straight white men - are inherently oppressive and 'problematic'.

It is more or less the product of androphobic, lesbian gender-studies professors.

It spawned the hyper-politically-correct Social Justice Warrior (SJW) phenomenon (keywords: micro-aggression, trigger warning, safe-space, white privilege, cis-gender, etc etc) and there is currently a huge backlash against its ever-mutating and logic-free agenda of screeching accusation and intolerance.


Christina Hoff Sommers is a 2nd-waver and prominent critic of the 3rd wave.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a more controversial and prominent critic of the 3rd wave.

I'm curious now...

I know nothing about social media, I still don't even know what a hashtag is, so I can't comment in that area.

It appears there was a misunderstanding, I would be happy to listen to your views and ill try to understand them, I may have let my assumptions regarding what you were saying cloud my response.

(That mckenna lecture is great, it's not his usual sci-fi fantasy rap, it's actually a very intelligent and down to earth discussion regarding men and women. Sorry it's long, though you could even browse through random segments to get a feel for it)

-eg

I have checked all profiles and noone has specified their gender. Also, do not see any relevancy.

I would also appreciate less of a bullshit-bingo in this discussion and a bit more explaining and context. What do i know why someone thinks judeo-christian utilitarists have or have not furthered the cause of porn which is a symptom of freedom when it comes to 5th wave gender feminists.

Re: Rape Culture - i'm not buying it. Sure, there are rape cultures among rapists for instance. But for where i live, the notion of a rape culture being existent is absurd in my opinion.