The contradictions of "movements."
Sep. 16th, 2007 02:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shirenomadThere were some arguments about feminism flying around a couple communities, many of them centered around its effects on sexual behavior. On that subject, a thought occurred to me, which I will preface with the Socratic disclaimer that I don't necessarily have a clue what I'm talking about.
Something a lot of people both in and out of the movement don't realize is that there are extremes of thought in feminism about the nature of sexuality. One extreme says that sex is a tool of men to dominate women and should therefore be resisted. Men should remain loyal to those they have committed to. Men who sleep around are pigs who want to feel like they're in control of multiple women. Men think too much with their pants in general and should not be encouraged. And so forth. Then there's the other extreme, which says that sex doesn't have to be just about the men; why should they have all the fun? This view allows women to sleep around as much as men, to take some control for themselves, as it were.
Both are potentially valid if completely polar approaches. Certainly neither are contradictory by themselves. But here's the trick: both claim to be feminist ideas without further qualification. So those looking at the situation see what appears to be a single movement claiming a) men should remain monogamous and shouldn't be so interested in sex, and b) women should do the opposite. Well, that doesn't seem any more fair or just (or sane; it's the very definition of "mixed signals") than the scenario feminists are accusing men of causing. What no one seems to recognize (including some confused souls inside the movement) is that you're trying to merge two completely opposing philosophies. Of course it's going to seem contradictory!
Expand this to anything. Read political columns or listen to talk radio, and you'll hear about the contradictions of "the Republicans" or "the Democrats" as if they were of a single mind, instead of half the nation. You may be told of how "Christians" believe both X and not X, when in reality Christianity is a collection of denominations (and individual preachers), all with their own opinions on the details of the faith. What is frequently the case is that one subgroup thinks one way, and another thinks the opposite. Most individuals within these organizations remain consistant, non-contradictory, fair beings (at least those who don't unthinkingly parrot the multiple messages they hear from every source they come across).
But we fail to distinguish. We see everything as monolithic classifications, and everything within them must behave the same. And if the details contradict, that's their problem, not ours. Right?
Something a lot of people both in and out of the movement don't realize is that there are extremes of thought in feminism about the nature of sexuality. One extreme says that sex is a tool of men to dominate women and should therefore be resisted. Men should remain loyal to those they have committed to. Men who sleep around are pigs who want to feel like they're in control of multiple women. Men think too much with their pants in general and should not be encouraged. And so forth. Then there's the other extreme, which says that sex doesn't have to be just about the men; why should they have all the fun? This view allows women to sleep around as much as men, to take some control for themselves, as it were.
Both are potentially valid if completely polar approaches. Certainly neither are contradictory by themselves. But here's the trick: both claim to be feminist ideas without further qualification. So those looking at the situation see what appears to be a single movement claiming a) men should remain monogamous and shouldn't be so interested in sex, and b) women should do the opposite. Well, that doesn't seem any more fair or just (or sane; it's the very definition of "mixed signals") than the scenario feminists are accusing men of causing. What no one seems to recognize (including some confused souls inside the movement) is that you're trying to merge two completely opposing philosophies. Of course it's going to seem contradictory!
Expand this to anything. Read political columns or listen to talk radio, and you'll hear about the contradictions of "the Republicans" or "the Democrats" as if they were of a single mind, instead of half the nation. You may be told of how "Christians" believe both X and not X, when in reality Christianity is a collection of denominations (and individual preachers), all with their own opinions on the details of the faith. What is frequently the case is that one subgroup thinks one way, and another thinks the opposite. Most individuals within these organizations remain consistant, non-contradictory, fair beings (at least those who don't unthinkingly parrot the multiple messages they hear from every source they come across).
But we fail to distinguish. We see everything as monolithic classifications, and everything within them must behave the same. And if the details contradict, that's their problem, not ours. Right?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-16 10:23 pm (UTC)On the other hand, I've left communities because there have been people who should have been able to break away from this habit but don't. It's not that they can't, it's that they're so stubborn and yet so inclined to conform to their group that they won't see it any other way.
One of my LJ friends had two entries about the same thing recently, too, talking about how even if there was no religion or political structure, we'd always have competition between "clans." Even if I get tired of many people who fall under the "liberal" persuasion, it still makes me feel uncomfortable when someone says things targeted towards liberals.
In the end, what I tend to look for are people who realize that there are happy mediums, even if they don't prescribe to them. I imagine they'd be much less of a pain to play Mario Kart with, too.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-17 12:39 am (UTC)Not to say this means the philosophies of the groups are incorrect, though I think that's also the case. It does, however, sharply reduce the amount of trust I'm willing to give their members right off the bat. While I'm as likely to disagree with a Canadian Conservative as I am a Canadian Liberal, and just as vehemently, I'm much more willing to open and continue a dialog with a Conservative because my experience has been that they will more often than not open with and continue to use reason. Liberals I've met- not all, but most- resort to shouting and browbeating and guilt within five minutes, if they don't start right away.
Again, that's not saying Liberals (or "emergent church" people, or post-modern feminists, or whoever) don't have a point. I've been forced to admit they've got some good arguments for why, if not how. But I avoid listening to them because they are not very capable of expressing coherent thoughts.
...
/rant