The limits of choice

[Chessmistress]

And even more
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. ... 5977-e-010

This chapter characterizes feminism as a rejection of the ideology of patriarchy. Feminism rejects two patriarchal tenets, the fetishism of choice and the prison of biology, by which patriarchal ideology in Western liberal societies insists that gender inequality is inevitable yet unproblematic. Against this patriarchal story, feminism insists that women are neither imprisoned by biology nor liberated by individual choice. Instead, feminists hold three theses: the entrenchment of gender, the existence of patriarchy and the need for change. Gender remains one of the most salient social cleavages, one which advantages men and disadvantages women. However, it can and must be disrupted by social action.

So, please, stop with this blablabla aboyut "that isn't feminism" and "she never proposed a ban", it's becoming boring, and even quite silly. It seems to me just a way to derail. I would know WHY people think it's wrong, not people contending this is feminism or Chambers proposed a ban.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And even more
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. ... 5977-e-010

This chapter characterizes feminism as a rejection of the ideology of patriarchy. Feminism rejects two patriarchal tenets, the fetishism of choice and the prison of biology, by which patriarchal ideology in Western liberal societies insists that gender inequality is inevitable yet unproblematic. Against this patriarchal story, feminism insists that women are neither imprisoned by biology nor liberated by individual choice. Instead, feminists hold three theses: the entrenchment of gender, the existence of patriarchy and the need for change. Gender remains one of the most salient social cleavages, one which advantages men and disadvantages women. However, it can and must be disrupted by social action.

So, please, stop with this blablabla aboyut "that isn't feminism" and "she never proposed a ban", it's becoming boring, and even quite silly.

No, your bullshit and quote mining is becoming quite silly and, quite frankly, irritating.

But it is cute that you both don't understand what is being said, but also that you are trying to tell me, someone who understands English better than you, what the fuck I'm reading.

Since when did you go from having a language barrier in English and "English is not my first language" to now try to act like an English professor?

[Constantinopolis]

Here's an inconvenient truth that only authoritarians like me will admit:

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

So yes, if you think there is something very wrong with present-day culture that needs to be changed ASAP - regardless of whether you're coming from a liberal or conservative angle, whether you want to uphold women's rights or restore the importance of religion in society or whatever - then you will be naturally drawn to authoritarian measures. Because those are the only measures that can make big changes quickly. And that's ok. The state is the greatest tool for social change ever invented by human kind. Use it. Embrace it.

Those who oppose the use of state power to change culture are those who basically support the status quo. If you are against the status quo in a big way, come to the authoritarian side.

[Socialist Tera]

Here's an inconvenient truth that only authoritarians like me will admit:

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

So yes, if you think there is something very wrong with present-day culture that needs to be changed ASAP - regardless of whether you're coming from a liberal or conservative angle, whether you want to uphold women's rights or restore the importance of religion in society or whatever - then you will be naturally drawn to authoritarian measures. Because those are the only measures that can make big changes quickly. And that's ok. The state is the greatest tool for social change ever invented by human kind. Use it. Embrace it.

Those who oppose the use of state power to change culture are those who basically support the status quo. If you are against the status quo in a big way, come to the authoritarian side.

+1. A cultural revolution would be needed in modern society.

[Chessmistress]

And even more
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. ... 5977-e-010



So, please, stop with this blablabla aboyut "that isn't feminism" and "she never proposed a ban", it's becoming boring, and even quite silly.

No, your bullshit and quote mining is becoming quite silly.

But it is cute that you both don't understand what is being said, but also that you are trying to tell me, someone who understands English better than you, what the fuck I'm reading.

Since when did you go from having a language barrier in English and "English is not my first language" to now try to act like an English professor?

Are you trying to derail? Aren't you?
I would know WHY people think it's wrong, I'm uninterested about people contending this is feminism or Chambers proposed a ban: a professor in Feminism proposed a ban on breast implants. FACT. OUT OF DISCUSSION.
Why you think the ban she proposed it's wrong?

Personally I think she's not wrong but she propose the wrong solution: awareness campaigns + taxation would work better than prohibitions, and I exposed my reasons:
We cannot know how much these "choices" are really personal and how much these "choices" are enforced by the patriarchy. So, an intermediate solution would work fine, and it would be less harsh for women.

[Deuxtete]

Posters are stawmanning chessmistress. Read this, if you want to understand her position: http://www.extrememediastudies.org/extr ... _super.pdf

I dont want to understand it.
I don't want "robbing choice from women, for the benefit of women" to make any sense to me.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Here's an inconvenient truth that only authoritarians like me will admit:

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

So yes, if you think there is something very wrong with present-day culture that needs to be changed ASAP - regardless of whether you're coming from a liberal or conservative angle, whether you want to uphold women's rights or restore the importance of religion in society or whatever - then you will be naturally drawn to authoritarian measures. Because those are the only measures that can make big changes quickly. And that's ok. The state is the greatest tool for social change ever invented by human kind. Use it. Embrace it.

Those who oppose the use of state power to change culture are those who basically support the status quo. If you are against the status quo in a big way, come to the authoritarian side.

I don't think that the state is the greatest tool for social change, so we happen to disagree on that.

I am not saying the state can't make social changes, but that the state doesn't effectively deal with changes. Because you cannot simply pass laws banning shit just to change a culture. Even if you did, that wouldn't stop people from doing what they want, and if you ban something that is pervasive then you are only leading people to dissent against your state's government.

[The Red Veil]

I think breast implants are gross and it's pretty fucked up that anyone would get them. Then again, I also think ketchup is gross and it's pretty fucked up how many people eat it. Are we going to ban ketchup?

^

(I'm neutral towards ketchup )

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, your bullshit and quote mining is becoming quite silly.

But it is cute that you both don't understand what is being said, but also that you are trying to tell me, someone who understands English better than you, what the fuck I'm reading.

Since when did you go from having a language barrier in English and "English is not my first language" to now try to act like an English professor?

Are you trying to derail? Aren't you?
I would know WHY people think it's wrong, I'm uninterested about people contending this is feminism or Chambers proposed a ban: a professor in Feminism proposed a ban on breast implants. FACT. OUT OF DISCUSSION.
Why you think the ban she proposed it's wrong?

Personally I think she's not wrong but she propose the wrong solution: awareness campaigns + taxation would work better than prohibitions, and I exposed my reasons:
We cannot know how much these "choices" are really personal and how much these "choices" are enforced by the patriarchy. So, an intermediate solution would work fine, and it would be less harsh for women.

No, there's a difference between derailing and calling out your bullshit. I am doing the latter, not the former.

You would know, or do you WANT to know why people think it's wrong. A professor in philosophy and feminism proposed that there should be social action through the state against certain things and that liberalism isn't helping with her view against "the patriarchy"; that's not something I pulled out of my ass. If you would have read her introduction you would know that that's her contention. The fact that you are getting her arguments wrong is, literally, a strawman.

My reasons why I don't think her idea of using the state as a tool for social change would work lies in the fact that women will make these choices anyways. Even if you tax them, they would pay the tax in order to get them. You cannot also make a prohibitive tax because then it'd be gender discrimination, and women themselves would take the law to court.

[Socialist Tera]

Posters are stawmanning chessmistress. Read this, if you want to understand her position: http://www.extrememediastudies.org/extr ... _super.pdf

I dont want to understand it.
I don't want "robbing choice from women, for the benefit of women" to make any sense to me.

It is basically saying women do not have choice to begin with, they are brought up in a certain way to promote certain attributes, if you had a test where a group of boys and girls go to an island and boys are brought up to wear skirts and do girly stuff while being told that's what's boys do and with girls vice verse, then they go back to normal society, would boys and girls instantly go to gender norms?

[Chessmistress]

Here's an inconvenient truth that only authoritarians like me will admit:

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

So yes, if you think there is something very wrong with present-day culture that needs to be changed ASAP - regardless of whether you're coming from a liberal or conservative angle, whether you want to uphold women's rights or restore the importance of religion in society or whatever - then you will be naturally drawn to authoritarian measures. Because those are the only measures that can make big changes quickly. And that's ok. The state is the greatest tool for social change ever invented by human kind. Use it. Embrace it.

Those who oppose the use of state power to change culture are those who basically support the status quo.

^this^
And that's exactly why we, as Radical Feminists, are ready even to temporary and apparently weird alliances, like in example when we marched right next christians in order to stop the legalization of prostitution: because we accept that some force is needed if someone wish to change things, and in a democracy force is achieved by numbers.
In example: Convention of Istanbul, a Radical Feminist policy protecting women from domestic violence performed by males, was passed even with a lot of conservative votes across 18 European countries.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I dont want to understand it.
I don't want "robbing choice from women, for the benefit of women" to make any sense to me.

It is basically saying women do not have choice to begin with, they are brought up in a certain way to promote certain attributes, if you had a test where a group of boys and girls go to an island and boys are brought up to wear skirts and do girly stuff while being told that's what's boys do and with girls vice verse, then they go back to normal society, would boys and girls instantly go to gender norms?

So because women have zero choice to begin with, they still must be left without a choice?

[Constantinopolis]

Here's an inconvenient truth that only authoritarians like me will admit:

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

So yes, if you think there is something very wrong with present-day culture that needs to be changed ASAP - regardless of whether you're coming from a liberal or conservative angle, whether you want to uphold women's rights or restore the importance of religion in society or whatever - then you will be naturally drawn to authoritarian measures. Because those are the only measures that can make big changes quickly. And that's ok. The state is the greatest tool for social change ever invented by human kind. Use it. Embrace it.

Those who oppose the use of state power to change culture are those who basically support the status quo. If you are against the status quo in a big way, come to the authoritarian side.

I don't think that the state is the greatest tool for social change, so we happen to disagree on that.

I am not saying the state can't make social changes, but that the state doesn't effectively deal with changes. Because you cannot simply pass laws banning shit just to change a culture. Even if you did, that wouldn't stop people from doing what they want, and if you ban something that is pervasive then you are only leading people to dissent against your state's government.

Sure, when you try to ban something that is pervasive, you may or may not succeed in actually making people stop doing that thing. It depends on precisely how the ban is implemented. There are smart ways to ban things, and stupid ways to ban things.

But if you don't pass laws banning it (or at least severely restricting it), then the pervasive thing will just continue to be pervasive.

In other words, there are many situations where state action has no more than a 50% chance of changing the culture, but non-state action has a 0% chance, so if you really want that change to happen, the state is still your best bet.

Even supposedly "grassroots" cultural changes typically have a strong component of state action behind them. Martin Luther King and his civil rights movement is often held up as the poster boy of grassroots change, but racism didn't become taboo in the US all by itself. The federal government had a strong role in actively suppressing it. Schools and other places were forced to de-segregate literally at gunpoint.

[Socialist Tera]

It is basically saying women do not have choice to begin with, they are brought up in a certain way to promote certain attributes, if you had a test where a group of boys and girls go to an island and boys are brought up to wear skirts and do girly stuff while being told that's what's boys do and with girls vice verse, then they go back to normal society, would boys and girls instantly go to gender norms?

So because women have zero choice to begin with, they still must be left without a choice?

Implying that breast implants can be even listed as a choice rather than an influence from the environment, it is rare it happens that a girl chooses outside of patriarchal control to get the breast implants and it is rare but the patriarchy has a too big influence, meaning no choice is made. It is an example of corrupt culture.

[Chessmistress]

Posters are stawmanning chessmistress. Read this, if you want to understand her position: http://www.extrememediastudies.org/extr ... _super.pdf

Thank you.
Usually it's misogynists who try to strawman Radical Feminist positions, but I learnt something new in this site: it seems to me that there are people trying to negate evidences, and that's even more than strawmanning.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't think that the state is the greatest tool for social change, so we happen to disagree on that.

I am not saying the state can't make social changes, but that the state doesn't effectively deal with changes. Because you cannot simply pass laws banning shit just to change a culture. Even if you did, that wouldn't stop people from doing what they want, and if you ban something that is pervasive then you are only leading people to dissent against your state's government.

Sure, when you try to ban something that is pervasive, you may or may not succeed in actually making people stop doing that thing. It depends on precisely how the ban is implemented. There are smart ways to ban things, and stupid ways to ban things.

But if you don't pass laws banning it (or at least severely restricting it), then the pervasive thing will just continue to be pervasive.

In other words, there are many situations where state action has no more than a 50% chance of changing the culture, but non-state action has a 0% chance, so if you really want that change to happen, the state is still your best bet.

Even supposedly "grassroots" cultural changes typically have a strong component of state action behind them. Martin Luther King and his civil rights movement is often held up as the poster boy of grassroots change, but racism didn't become taboo in the US all by itself. The federal government had a strong role in actively suppressing it. Schools and other places were forced to de-segregate literally at gunpoint.

Indeed, however, there have been stupid ways to ban things that did not work. See, prohibition and the drug trade. Passing bans against these things only exacerbated the problem in certain areas of the world. Alcohol bans only led to racket businesses and the mafia in the United States.

State action is needed only to back up a movement, but a ban, in and of itself, doesn't solve anything and in fact it hardly has accomplished anything useful within society. Because the government can only legislate, it doesn't change a culture. In fact, I would argue, that the culture changes the state, and not the inverse.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So because women have zero choice to begin with, they still must be left without a choice?

Implying that breast implants can be even listed as a choice rather than an influence from the environment, it is rare it happens that a girl chooses outside of patriarchal control to get the breast implants and it is rare but the patriarchy has a too big influence, meaning no choice is made. It is an example of corrupt culture.

It actually depends on culture, I would say.

The problem I see is that people think that breast implants are a pervasive problem while at the same time saying that breast implants are the result of a corrupt culture which doesn't actually glorify women with silicone implants.

[Socialist Tera]

Posters are stawmanning chessmistress. Read this, if you want to understand her position: http://www.extrememediastudies.org/extr ... _super.pdf

Thank you.
Usually it's misogynists who try to strawman Radical Feminist positions, but I learnt something new in this site: it seems to me that there are people trying to negate evidences, and that's even more than strawmanning.

It's ok. I take mainly the Maoist line on the subject of feminism, support feminist allies. Some posters on this site do not understand Frankfurt school of thinking or radical feminism, they refuse to listen and learn from people. There are too many liberals on this site.

Implying that breast implants can be even listed as a choice rather than an influence from the environment, it is rare it happens that a girl chooses outside of patriarchal control to get the breast implants and it is rare but the patriarchy has a too big influence, meaning no choice is made. It is an example of corrupt culture.

It actually depends on culture, I would say.

The problem I see is that people think that breast implants are a pervasive problem while at the same time saying that breast implants are the result of a corrupt culture which doesn't actually glorify women with silicone implants.

Women shouldn't be culturally persuaded to do things that are damaging to their own bodies for the benefits of men, I think they should ban more women getting it, women who already have the implants can keep it but they should ban the implants on new customers, surgeons who try and operate on women that don't have implants will be jailed.

[Chessmistress]

It is basically saying women do not have choice to begin with, they are brought up in a certain way to promote certain attributes, if you had a test where a group of boys and girls go to an island and boys are brought up to wear skirts and do girly stuff while being told that's what's boys do and with girls vice verse, then they go back to normal society, would boys and girls instantly go to gender norms?

So because women have zero choice to begin with, they still must be left without a choice?

With awareness campaigns + taxation on breast implants women worshipping patriarchal norms and wishing to please males would still have the chance to get breast implants: they would just have to pay breast implants a little more. I don't think it's a great problem, if they are so willingly about please males and conforming to patriarchal norms.
The solution proposed by dr. Clare Chambers is too extreme: a total ban is quite unfair, I think. These women are still women.
As I already said, I'm just only a little above the average European Radical Feminist, nothing so special: indeed, it seems dr. Clare Chambers is a little above me.

[Constantinopolis]

It is basically saying women do not have choice to begin with, they are brought up in a certain way to promote certain attributes, if you had a test where a group of boys and girls go to an island and boys are brought up to wear skirts and do girly stuff while being told that's what's boys do and with girls vice verse, then they go back to normal society, would boys and girls instantly go to gender norms?

So because women have zero choice to begin with, they still must be left without a choice?

It's not about choice. It's about dignity.

Now, I'm not a radical feminist, but if I understand it correctly, the goal isn't to maximize "choice" for women. The goal is to improve the position of women in society. And sometimes, in order to improve the position of a certain group, you have to actively suppress the choices of some members of that group who are happy with the status quo.

Example: When a given ethnic group starts a war for national independence against some empire that is currently ruling them, there are always some members of that ethnic group who actually liked the empire and don't really want independence. The independence movement does not respect these people's choices; in fact, they are actively suppressed. In order to improve the position of a certain group (in this example, in order to give them an independent state), it is necessary to suppress the choices of some members of that group - the ones who are happy being subservient.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So because women have zero choice to begin with, they still must be left without a choice?

With awareness campaigns + taxation on breast implants women worshipping patriarchal norms and wishing to please males would still have the chance to get breast implants: they would just have to pay breast implants a little more. I don't think it's a great problem, if they are so willingly about please males and conforming to patriarchal norms.
The solution proposed by dr. Clare Chambers is too extreme: a total ban is quite unfair, I think.
As I already said, I'm just only a little above the average European Radical Feminist, nothing so special: indeed, it seems dr. Clare Chambers is a little above me.

It depends on how this "patriarchal norm" is actually fulfilled in society, don't you think?

I will be honest: in my many years living in the Americas I have never heard women fawning over silicone implants. In fact, many women actually don't like the things and many American men are fine with breasts. In fact, I would say that the mainstream American culture is biased against implants rather than for them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So because women have zero choice to begin with, they still must be left without a choice?

It's not about choice. It's about dignity.

Now, I'm not a radical feminist, but if I understand it correctly, the goal isn't to maximize "choice" for women. The goal is to improve the position of women in society. And sometimes, in order to improve the position of a certain group, you have to actively suppress the choices of some members of that group who are happy with the status quo.

Example: When a given ethnic group starts a war for national independence against some empire that is currently ruling them, there are always some members of that ethnic group who actually liked the empire and don't really want independence. The independence movement does not respect these people's choices; in fact, they are actively suppressed. In order to improve the position of a certain group (in this example, in order to give them an independent state), it is necessary to suppress the choices of some members of that group - the ones who are happy being subservient.

Indeed. However, as I understand feminism, it is about bringing equal status to women to that of men. Men have always been told they have something women do not, and that is the fact we can make choices, or body autonomy for that matter.

If body autonomy and the freedom to choose for a woman isn't an ideal of feminism then they are not in an equal status to men who can make these choices or can potentially make them.

In other words, while dignity is an argument, it conflicts with the matter of choice.

[Chessmistress]

Thank you.
Usually it's misogynists who try to strawman Radical Feminist positions, but I learnt something new in this site: it seems to me that there are people trying to negate evidences, and that's even more than strawmanning.

It's ok. I take mainly the Maoist line on the subject of feminism, support feminist allies. Some posters on this site do not understand Frankfurt school of thinking or radical feminism, they refuse to listen and learn from people. There are too many liberals on this site.

It actually depends on culture, I would say.

The problem I see is that people think that breast implants are a pervasive problem while at the same time saying that breast implants are the result of a corrupt culture which doesn't actually glorify women with silicone implants.

Women shouldn't be culturally persuaded to do things that are damaging to their own bodies for the benefits of men, I think they should ban more women getting it, women who already have the implants can keep it but they should ban the implants on new customers, surgeons who try and operate on women that don't have implants will be jailed.

So you propose a total ban like dr. Chambers?
I admit there's something really charming in the idea of jailing patriarchal doctors performing such operations in order to modify women's bodies in order to better suit them to male-dominated society.
Still, I have a lot of doubts about it: there would be punishments even for women trying to avoid the ban, and as Radical Feminist I cannot agree with such thing.

[Chessmistress]

Now, I'm not a radical feminist, but if I understand it correctly, the goal isn't to maximize "choice" for women. The goal is to improve the position of women in society. And sometimes, in order to improve the position of a certain group, you have to actively suppress the choices of some members of that group who are happy with the status quo.

Example: When a given ethnic group starts a war for national independence against some empire that is currently ruling them, there are always some members of that ethnic group who actually liked the empire and don't really want independence. The independence movement does not respect these people's choices; in fact, they are actively suppressed. In order to improve the position of a certain group (in this example, in order to give them an independent state), it is necessary to suppress the choices of some members of that group - the ones who are happy being subservient.

Exactly.
You have understand it, perfectly.
That's exactly what I meant when I wrote "it would be a little less freedom from fake choices for some women but more empowerment for all women"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Thank you.
Usually it's misogynists who try to strawman Radical Feminist positions, but I learnt something new in this site: it seems to me that there are people trying to negate evidences, and that's even more than strawmanning.

It's ok. I take mainly the Maoist line on the subject of feminism, support feminist allies. Some posters on this site do not understand Frankfurt school of thinking or radical feminism, they refuse to listen and learn from people. There are too many liberals on this site.

It actually depends on culture, I would say.

The problem I see is that people think that breast implants are a pervasive problem while at the same time saying that breast implants are the result of a corrupt culture which doesn't actually glorify women with silicone implants.

Women shouldn't be culturally persuaded to do things that are damaging to their own bodies for the benefits of men, I think they should ban more women getting it, women who already have the implants can keep it but they should ban the implants on new customers, surgeons who try and operate on women that don't have implants will be jailed.

I agree with you in that women shouldn't do things for us.

However, I don't see the point of saying that we should ban, or otherwise change, the notion of breast implants, again, in American culture. Now, I do not know how it is in European culture. But in America I have never heard a woman saying "I will put silicone in my boobs for my husband". That's just not a conversation that usually happens, nor an opinion that is really mainstream here in America.

Culture always persuades people, however, different cultures have different problems. I will admit I know little about how Europe has a problem with implants, but in America at least we have an opposite view of silicone implants than the author of the book is trying to convey and I'd say that most of the problems being discussed in the book are, perhaps, European problems.