Tyckte artikeln var rätt bra och förklara VARFÖR så många mistolkar Feminismen (som jag anser var infiltrerade, som Sanningsrörelsen, för länge sen)


Läs artikeln i original kontext här

What Is Feminism?
by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards

The following is an excerpt from Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2000). Learn more at www.manifesta.net.

What is Feminism?
"[Feminists are] just women who don't want to be treated like shit." Su, an Australian woman interviewed for the 1996 anthology DIY Feminism.

In 1998, during the middle stages of Clinton's personal "woman problem," Barbara Ehrenreich made a curious statement. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Silence of the Beltway Feminists," the great leftist author lamented that, "The feminists didn't even give [Paula Jones] a hearing," and went on to say that "Paula Jones isn't the only woman betrayed by organized feminism."

Ehrenreich is famous for dissecting sexual politics, feminizing the sexual revolution, and authoring books vindicating witches and abortionists, so it seemed odd that as long as she had the floor, she-a self-proclaimed feminist-hadn't thought to give Jones that fair hearing; a hearing which the National Organization for Women (NOW) attempted to schedule with Paula Jones on two occasions, and on each occasion was stood-up by the famous plaintiff herself.

So the question remain: Why didn't Ehrenreich stage her own defense of her maligned sister Paula? And if she thought she did with that op-ed or earlier when she originally reported on Jones in her Time magazine column, wasn't that a feminist defense?

Of course, Ehrenreich isn't alone in distancing herself from the movement. Other amnesia feminists-brilliant, usually prominently political women who forget that they are within the movement when launching a critique-include Katha Pollitt (a columnist for The Nation) and Gwendolyn Mink (a professor of politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz).

The spectre of these otherwise feminist women pointing their fingers at "the feminists" begs two questions: Who are the feminists and what is feminism?

By feminists, we mean each and every politically and socially conscious woman or man who works for equality within or outside the movement, writes about feminism, or calls her- or himself a feminist.

In reality, there is no formal alliance of women we can call "the feminists." Although there are institutions and other forums under which women and men organize and rally, feminism isn't a bureaucratic monolith like Communism or. . . Scientology.

It's a loose collection of individuals.

There is one exception.

In the late sixties, there was an actual group of activists in New York City who called themselves The Feminists.

Ti-Grace Atkinson, a Second-Wave woman warrior who started off her career with the liberal gals at NOW but soon out-radicalled the radicals, was the most prominent of the group, but because they didn't subscribe to formal hierarchies, she was never the leader.

Hard-core as hell, The Feminists were known for having the strictest membership rules: only one-third could be married or living with a man ("hostages," Atkinson called those ladies who socialized with possessors of the Y-chromosome). At meetings, to promote a sort of communal conversation ethic, women were each doled out an equal number of poker chips. Whenever a member wanted to speak, she paid by tossing down a chip. Of course, some women chose to speak for twenty minutes with each toss, so it wasn't an incorruptible system.

But, defunct since 1973, The Feminists are not who Ehrenreich, Mink, and Pollitt mean when they wonder where the feminists are.

No, the organized feminists whom people seem to feel betrayed by are the leaders of feminist institutions and those anointed as "the feminists" by the media: most often Patricia Ireland and her company at NOW; Eleanor Smeal and the Feminist Majority Foundation; and Gloria Steinem of Ms. magazine and Voters for Choice, among other allegiances-women whose every statement is taken as representative of us all.

For example, when the stories about Clinton groping Kathleen Willey and having an affair with [Monica] Lewinsky broke in January 1998, the media devoted two months to asking "where are the feminists?" Then, on March 22, Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed for The New York Times arguing that Clinton's behavior was gross and probably pathological, but not sexual harassment and therefore not actionable.

The next week, columns abounded: Feminists Are Divided on the Clinton Scandal. It's a sure-fire sign of oppressed status when an entire group gets reduced to one, or even three, individuals.

Now for the second question: When the topic of feminism tumbles out of anyone's mouth, whether it be the Vamp-painted lips of lesbian film-fatale Guin Turner asking "What does feminism mean anymore anyway?", the earnest jaws of your grandfather, or one of the 75 or so people who visit Ask Amy each week, the inevitable question arises: "What is it?"


In the most basic sense, feminism is exactly what the dictionary says it is: the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women. Public opinion polls confirm that when people are given this definition, 67 percent say they agree with feminism.

We prefer to add to that seemingly uncontroversial statement the following: feminism means that women have the right to enough information to make informed choices about their lives.


And because "women" is an all encompassing term that includes middle-class white women, rich black lesbians, and working-class straight Asian women, an organic intertwining with movements for racial and economic equality, as well as gay rights, is inherent to the feminist mandate. Some sort of allegiance between women and men is also an important component of equality. After all, equality is a balance between the male and female with the intention of liberating the individual.

Breaking down that one very basic definition, feminism has three components. It is a movement, meaning a group working to accomplish specific goals.

Those goals are social and political change -implying that one must be engaged with the government and law, as well as social practices and beliefs. And implicit to these goals is access to sufficient information to enable women to make responsible choices.

Of course the goals of feminism are carried out by every day women themselves. Maybe you aren't sure you need feminism, or you're not sure it needs you. You're sexy, a wallflower, you shop at Calvin Klein, you are a stay-at-home mom, a big Hollywood producer, a beautiful bride all in white, an ex-wife raising three kids, or you shave, pluck, and wax.



In reality, feminism wants you to be whoever you are-but with a political consciousness. And, vice versa: You want to be a feminist because you want to be exactly who you are. That may be a person patriarchal society doesn't value or allow-from a female cadet at the Citadel to a lesbian mother.



(mer i nästa kommentär)

Maybe you feel aligned with the self-determination and human rights implicit in feminism, but you also organize your life around race, religion, or class, rather than solely around gender. For instance, in the Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History, the editors list 17 prominent kinds of feminism based on identity, including American Indian, Arab American, Asian American, Jewish, Latina, Lesbian, Marxist, Puerto Rican, and Working Class.

There are also womanists, which, as coined and defined by novelist and poet Alice Walker, designates a black feminist (womanists are rarely men) without having to "add a color to become visible." Womanism, distinct from feminism's often white-centered history, is an alternative casting of the same basic beliefs about equality and freedom, and few womanists would deny the link to feminism. While each of these groups is magnetized by political equality, some additional aspect of their personhood needs to be emphasized because it affects their struggle for equality.

Using a qualifier in order to further define identity is very different from foregoing the feminist label altogether. For instance, women within other social justice movements-environmental, peace, human rights, and hip-hop, for example-often opt for the term "humanist."

Although humanism includes men (and especially those who aren't white or otherwise privileged), in reality, it is a retreat from feminism. Using humanism as a replacement for feminism is also a misuse of the term-theologically, humanism is a rejection of supernaturalism, not an embrace of equality between men and women. Internationally, twice as many women as men are illiterate, and it was only in 1998 that an international court denounced rape as a form of torture in prison, and as a war crime when conducted systematically by the military.

Along those lines, gender-based persecution isn't recognized as grounds for asylum in the United States, which means that women who are likely to be killed by their husbands or sure to be genitally mutilated if they return to their countries are usually put on the next plane back, regardless of this potential danger. (Or, like Adelaide Abankwa and Fauzyia Kasinja, they are imprisoned for years, and only granted permanent residency, and later asylum after long campaigns conducted on their behalf by U.S. feminists.) Feminism seeks to include women in human rights.

Most women come to feminism through personal experience, which is one of the reasons the core identity of feminism has to be so elastic. The term represents an incredible diversity of individual lives.

Often a woman who otherwise won't align herself with feminism will seek it out when she is confronted with an abusive relationship, or if her boss is paying her less than her male counterparts, or, on a positive note, if she needs credit to start her own beauty salon. Historically, who else besides feminists have been there to help women, whether they be Calvin Klein-devotees or Vegan Earth Mothers?

Many women tap into or create feminist resources not knowing they are on a feminist path. On the work front, secretaries founded 9-to-5-a union for (mainly) pink-collar women workers-and women supported the National Committee on Pay Equity as well as microlending and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, because no one else was interested in the problems of working women.

Kris, a stylist who wrote in to Ask Amy, turned to feminist resources when she wanted to open her own salon. She didn't appeal to the Small Business Administration (SBA) because its process is complicated and full of red tape, when all she needed was a little money to tide her over as she built up her client base. Amy sent her to New York City's Women's Venture Fund, which makes micro-loans.

Women even turn to feminism when they want to learn how to masturbate-vulvas were mapped out in Betty Dodson's video Sex for One, and orgasms expanded on in Susie Bright's 1991 Susie Sexpert's Lesbian Sex Guide. Most safe-sex shops were founded by feminists, from Eve's Garden in New York City, opened by Dell Williams in 1974, and Good Vibrations, founded by sex therapist Joani Blank in San Francisco in 1977, to newer sex shops like Toys in Babeland in New York City and Seattle.

Clearly, the only people actively paving the paths to women's equality are feminists. Eventually, most women seeking to expand or change their lives find feminism. This makes it sound as if the movement is a huge force of conscious feminists constantly fortified by new recruits. Actually, a problem diminishing "enrollment" in the movement is political co-optation.

The moment a concern pioneered and promoted by feminists-such as domestic violence, micro-enterprise, the fight for affordable health-care, and day care-becomes mainstream or at all successful, it is no longer seen as a women's issue, but simply a newsworthy issue. It becomes depoliticized, taken out of the hands of the grassroots, and divorced from the very process that was necessary to its success.

The most obvious example of co-opting feminist issues is the movement against domestic violence. Until feminism, there was no word for battered women or domestic violence, no legal argument of self-defense for women who killed their abusers, and no shelter system.

In the seventies and eighties, shelters, funded by grassroots feminist groups and fledgling foundations (like the early Ms. Foundation for Women), proliferated, but the government, police, and media outlets still paid very little attention to violence within the home. For example, the first shelter for women in the United States was started in California in 1964.

(This was out of pure need, not because feminists were franchising.) Now, there is an organized battered women's movement of shelters, awareness campaigns, reformed laws and police practices, and legislative strategies. For example, October is Domestic Violence Awareness month, and 1994 saw the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which set the precedent for prosecuting abusers who cross state lines, and a mandate for nationwide enforcement of protection orders.

Nonetheless, in 1994 when Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered and her hulking football-hero ex-husband was accused of the crime, domestic violence was launched into the mainstream, "professionalized" according to one young activist, and divorced by the media from the grassroots organizations who had named its reality and pioneered its treatment. What this means is that today a woman like G.E. executive Sam Allison can be on the board of The Women's Center in Milwaukee, and claim that she's not a feminist, she's simply an "advocate to end violence against women."

Meanwhile, entrepreneur Melissa Bradley broke ground in the field of women's economic development without being aware of feminists like Connie Evans, who started the Women's Self-Employment Project a dozen years earlier.

By 1998, Evans had dispensed more than $1.3 million in 600 short-term micro loans, and became the largest small-business fund for low-income women; all undertaken by her as feminist work. Bradley, who is the founder of The Entrepreneurial Development Institute and then worked for the federal government implementing its welfare to work programs, doesn't consider her work feminist. Of course, this is assimilation, and in some ways, it is our goal. After all, as long as Women's History and African American History are independent curricula, history itself will still be a white man's story.

In that same way, the women's rights movement will have been successful when we no longer have to advocate separately for half the population's human rights. On the other hand, ideally women's egos would be more invested in their work.

You can't continue change if you don't know the process necessary to make it.

If feminists first exposed domestic violence as a reality in many women's lives, funded the first women's shelters, and drafted and fought for legislation that is now working to end violence against women, then an "advocate to end violence against women" (Sam Allison's term for herself) is just another word for "feminist."

Issues divorced from their feminist roots eventually become depoliticized, and the resulting social programs are reduced to treating the symptoms rather than curing-or preventing-the disease. In order to have a robust movement, domestic violence and economic development need to be re-identified as feminist issues and victories. And, Allison and Bradley need to be outed as feminists.

CONTINUED-->
The above is an excerpt from Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2000). Learn more at www.manifesta.net. You can hear the authors themselves at www.talktotara.com.

Artikeln fortsätter under....

Fearing Feminism

Now, let's discuss what a feminist isn't. T-shirt and button slogans such as a feminist is "opposite of a doormat" and "not a masochist" have outworn their usefulness in bringing clarity to the subject.

Feminism is more often described by what it isn't than what it is, which creates some confusion (and is the reason why we defined it before going into all this).

The inadvertently humorous descriptions by Right-wing ideologues such as Pat Robertson don't help, either: "Feminists encourage women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, become lesbians, and destroy capitalism." Of course, that definition is not so much wrong as hyperbolic.

To a fundamentalist, that's just a description of no-fault divorce laws, abortion rights, rejection of God as a Father, acceptance of female sexuality, and a commitment to workers.

Nonetheless, women far to the left of Robertson still fear feminism. The fact that the feminist movement has developed networks to help women who are victimized is one reason that women fear the word. Identifying ourselves as feminists means addressing uncomfortable topics: the humiliation of being discriminated against, the fact that we are vulnerable when we walk home late at night or even in our homes, or the sadness of discovering that the sons in our families are treated altogether differently from the daughters.

Injustice and oppression are hard to face, a fact that is evident in the number of rape and sexual harassment charges that emerge years, even decades, after the event actually happened.

To use one example, Juanita Broaddrick waited twenty years to accuse Bill Clinton of forcing her into sex in a hotel room. This was during a time when forced sex among acquaintances-what is now called date rape-was excused as relatively inevitable, certainly not criminal, male behavior.

Feminists fought for a realistic legal definition of rape that acknowledged degrees of sexual assault (and protected male rape victims, too), a minimum one-year statute of limitations, rape shield laws that prohibit using a victim's sexual history against her (or him), and the training of emergency room and police personnel to gather evidence, including a so-called "rape kit," when a victim comes into their hospitals or precincts.

Feminism would have meant being there for Broaddrick-utilizing the legal system and social service institutions-the second she could get out of the hotel room to press charges.

To take it one step further, the goal of feminism is to create a climate in which Clinton couldn't possibly have raped Broaddrick, or anyone, without knowing that "no means no" and a prison sentence was imminent.

Even at the beginning of the Second Wave, women were resistant to acknowledging discrimination.

The results of the 1972 Virginia Slims poll (the first one that acknowledged women's issues) found that men observed discrimination against women more often than women did. As we said, consciousness is everything.
Even now, acknowledging inequality begs one to do something about it-and that is a daunting, albeit righteous, responsibility.

Feminism's philosophy certainly isn't narrow-minded enough to be solely about our sexuality or our pay-checks, and certainly not about man-hating or chivalry. (In our opinion, whoever gets to the door first should be responsible for opening it).

Still, some people choose to stay away from feminism because they don't want to be associated with spooky stereotypes about feminists and their freaky excesses. You know this rap: some feminists think all sex is rape, all men are evil, that you have to be a lesbian to be a feminist, you can't wear

Girlie clothes or makeup, or that married women are lame. This conversation is usually baiting and can ride the force of homophobia or internalized Phallofilia (socialized glorification of the male principle and men). Women who love lipstick and also standing up for themselves, but are not politicized, are especially vulnerable to being conned into distancing themselves from the movement, while fully hoping for and expecting to be treated equally.

A good example of this is the Lilith Fair. Canadian chanteuse Sarah McLachlan put together an historic Mothership of ladies (another term that deserves to be reclaimed; this time from uptight, upper-class olden days and proffered as just another, kind of jaunty, word for women).

These were stars who had topped the music charts and McLachlan trotted them across America to make the point that, not only are female rock stars achieving a critical mass, but women rake in the audiences. The tour earned over $16.4 million in the first year alone and drew over 75 percent female audiences all three years of its life.

To make it even more stunning, the Lilith management gave checks averaging $30,000 to a battered women's shelter or grassroots social service agency in every locale in which the lavender Lilith backdrop undulated. But what happened when McLachlan was asked about women and politics? "The tour isn't a soapbox for extremist feminism," she said in a New York Newsday interview during the first tour.

"This is not at all about dissing men." There are certain assurances we just shouldn't have to make, especially when a majority of the back-up band members are male, as is the vast majority of the stage crew, sound people, bus drivers, talent management, and the male-owned companies that underwrote the tour. Besides, as a friend of ours pointed out, even if there weren't a male presence behind the front-women at Lilith, there is no need for the disclaimer. After all, an all-black tour of hip-hop musician wouldn't feel obligated to assure people that they are not dissing whites.

Furthermore, if Sarah McLachlan had brushed up on her feminist history, she would have been aware of Olivia Records, Redwood Recordings, Ladyslipper distribution, and Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. Then, she could have built upon that separatist womyn's music movement (which flourished in the seventies) as her foundation, a movement that created a network of producers, labels, and festivals entirely outside of the mainstream.

Shining a light on the long line of women who continue to transform the male-run music industry would have gotten Lilith closer to its implied goal of equal treatment for women. McLachlan didn't remain fearful of the feminist implications of her tour. According to Amy Ray of the Indigo Girls, an artist who performed at Lilith all three years, after a few years of being immersed in this feminist experience, McLachlan changed her tune and proudly called the tour feminist.
"I think Sarah always had the same vision for Lilith," says Ray. "But she became much more confident about standing up for the idea that women need an all-female tour, they want it, and they're going to take it without apology."

Most of those Ladyslipper/Michigan/Olivia feminists are womyn-loving-womyn, an association which Lilith and many other women in rock tend to fear. "The idea that all feminists are lesbians is scary enough for some women to stay away from the feminist label and movement, even when their beliefs are basically feminist," wrote Barbara Findlen in her pioneering anthology Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation.

Homophobia is as essential to root out of the movement as racism was and is. To eschew calling yourself a feminist because you don't want to be called a "dyke" is like not joining the civil rights movement because you don't want to be called a "nigger" or a "nigger lover."

Besides, regardless of one's sexuality, all people have a vested interest in reclaiming the inherent dignity of the terms lesbian, gay, and queer, since straight women who refuse a subservient role (and straight men who refuse to dominate) are likely to be called gay. Findlen also points out the odd way that some straight women reconcile themselves with this threat: by arguing that feminists aren't all dykes. (Which implies, among other ignorant assumptions, that all gay women are inherently feminist.) Rather than challenging the homophobia-and misogyny-head on, this tactic sidesteps the issue, allowing women to embrace a limited feminism without disavowing dyke-baiting.

In truth, the movement is comprised of women from all points on the sexual spectrum. And, because they may be more able to risk male disapproval, lesbian and bisexual women have had a particularly creative and strong history in the women's movement, from founding the aforementioned womyn's music scene to writing world-changing books such as Sexual Politics (Kate Millett), Sister Outsider (Audre Lorde), and Sisterhood is Powerful (Robin Morgan) to being the most iconic activists (Barbara Smith, Angela Davis, and Rita Mae Brown). It's interesting to note that homophobes never attack feminist critic Camille Paglia for being of the Sapphic persuasion-proof that dyke-baiting and bashing feminists is only employed in the service of woman-hating. As Kaia Wilson, formerly the guitarist for lesbian super-group Team Dresch and currently for the Butchies, puts it: "There can be really good reasons for not wanting to call yourself a feminist but most of the time, it's due to misogyny."

Even when the winds of misogyny and homophobia aren't blowing feminism's house down, women can be their own big bad wolves. Injudicious niceness, which is a socialized disease, often explains why women tend not to demand equality.

It also may be why feminist women feel it necessary to answer questions that are hostile to feminism, no matter how silly or offensive.

Conversely, when a woman is politically oriented and knowledgeable about history, she knows the burden of proof should be on the questioner and is less likely to have a misguided sense of politeness. When someone asks, "Why is it that all feminists think they are better than men?" (or insert any weird generalization involving lesbians, matriarchies, and hatred of sex), one should respond with something along the lines of "Who are you referring to?" Imagine the organizing and theorizing which has been stopped because we have allowed ourselves to be delayed by these distractions.

In the case of the mythical statement, "Andrea Dworkin says that all sex is rape," recommend actually reading her book Intercourse (the salient chapter is called "Occupation/Collaboration"), and starting the conversation from there. To give you a taste, Dworkin writes pungently: "Women lie about life by not demanding to understand the meaning of entry, penetration, occupation, having boundaries crossed over, having lesser privacy: by avoiding the difficult, perhaps impossible (but how will we ever know?) questions of female freedom.

" Clearly she is making a much more subtle, disturbing, and ultimately liberating point than an easy generalization could convey. If you want more clarity, you could do what the Hungry Mind Review did, and ask Dworkin directly what she thinks sex is. "I think of sexual contact and sexual intimacy as pleasure," she told them. "And as a way of experiencing freedom."

Feminism is often mistaken as being an enabler, a "sop" discouraging women from taking action in their lives, the genesis of the victim culture that critics like Katie Roiphe and Christina Hoff Sommers so despise.

Even women who rely on and are seeking feminist resources can mistake feminism for the equivalent of a Knight in Shining Armor to save them from their woes.

In fact, the urge to protect women is part of the problem feminists fight. As Susan Faludi (famed author of Backlash and, more recently, Stiffed) and others have noted, protection starts out polite-women and children first off the sinking ship and so forth-and ends up justifying why women can't be naval captains or firefighters or subjects for medical research. Women can't ride this antiquated stereotype and at the same time fight for independence. In reality, feminism requires action and responsibility for oneself.

Take job discrimination as a case in point. A clerk at Wal-Mart, sensing that she was getting a raw deal, wrote to Ask Amy. For the last five of her ten years at the store, her salary had stayed the same, while male cashiers were given annual raises. Other feminists had done their part by creating laws against sex discrimination, trainings for implementation of these laws, and organizations to help women through the process.

Amy's website informed her of her legal rights but also pointed out that now the Wal-Mart clerk must do her part-document the discrimination and file a complaint.

To sum up, feminism is helped by a working knowledge of history, and requires a willingness to act on behalf of yourself, and to stand up for all women in the face of everything from misogyny to a social mandate that says "be nice."

Tycker inte vi behöver ett till ord istället som betyder jämställdhet! Jämställdhet räcker gott och väl, det täcker alla människor, rika som fattiga..

Nu på senaste tiden har dom även börjat blanda in genus tillsammans med jämställdhet?!

Quote:

Håller med.

Jag är helt facinerade med det hela, hur FEMINISMEN var ett försök med jämmställdhet i en tid som var på vissa sätt svårare som nu.

Tror begreppet började sen på 1910 talet?

Feminismen i sitt ursprung handlar om just detta:
Jämställdhet.

Som det står i artikeln:

"In the most basic sense, feminism is exactly what the dictionary says it is: the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women. "

Men det var för FARLIGT för Eliten, agendan att fortsätta SEPERARA oss på denna nivån började om igen....

Exakt, söndra och härska!

Feminismen började som en term i Frankrike (Feminisme) i slutet av 1800-talet. Men principen bakom ordet - det vill säga kampen för ”jämlikhet” – har bara funnits sedan början av västvärlden. Det kom till USA i början av 1900-talet via en artikel om en fransk suffragist med namnet Madeline Pelltier. Madeline var en neo-malthusian som förespråkade befolkningsbegränsning och hon grundade det franska socialistpartiet, hon var även frimurare och medlem i det franska kommunistpartiet. Termen blev inte populär användning förrän 1960-70 talet, och vid den tiden hade det inget med jämlikhet att göra.

Feminism är en ideologi. Precis som kommunismen. I själva verket fick feministerna sina idéer om att förstöra familjen etc från Karl Marx. Feminism i skepnad av frihet för kvinnor har hjälpt till att förstöra den sociala och kulturella strukturen i Europa, USA, Ryssland och andra utvecklade länder. I islamiska och orientaliska samhällen har kvinnor däremot utfört en kritisk funktion för att stabilisera den grundläggande enheten i samhället som kallas familj. Därför stödde Rockefeller och CIA den feministiska rörelsen, då det uppenbarligen hjälpte deras agenda av social kontroll.

Allt feministerna förespråkade hade förespråkats av kommunistiska partiet i USA på 1940-talet och 1950-talet. Betty Friedan, författare till The Feminine Mystique (1963) och grundare av den moderna feminismen, gömde faktumet att hon hade varit en kommunistisk aktivist i 20 år. (Se feministiska historikern Kate Weigand's, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001). Feminism överför helt enkelt den marxistiska klassanalysen till kön. Målet är detsamma: "patriarkatet" (vita män, kapitalism) är källan till allt ont och måste förstöras ("omvandlas"). Kvinnor (proletariatet) och alla andra som anses "förtryckta" ska få makt i samhället på ett silverfat. Eleanor Flexner var en pionjär feminist historiker. Många av principerna som hennes kända arbete Century of Struggle talar om, har utvecklats av en liten grupp marxistiska kvinnor som förutom Flexner själv, inkluderade Susan B. Anthony II, Gerda Lerner, och Eva Merriam. Det var dock först 1982, som Flexner offentligt erkände sitt tidigare medlemskap i kommunistpartiet.

Några talande citat:

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989).

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." (Functions of the Family, by Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.)

“How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” — Female Liberation, Roxanne Dunbar.

Mer här:

How feminists tried to destroy the family

Why I loathe feminism... and believe it will ultimately destroy the family

Communism and Feminism - The Undeniable Link

Feminism Has Communist Roots

Ekvivalism.

Just det:

Sanningensrörelsen är då Medelklass, vita män, kristna, paranoid, osv....

Feminismen är:

the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women.

Den du menar TreeOf är då DEN INFILTRERADE OCH KORRUPTA VILSELEDDE RÖRELSEN.

Som de som tycker starka att Truth Movement.. TRUTH, skall då bara handlar om 9-11, Illuminati osv...

Sanningen om OPRESSION, den Omoraliska ledar till upplyssning om ORÄTTVISOR.

Mot kvinnor.

Om MAN lyssnar noga på kvinnor vi hajar direkt att något fundamentallt och stort är fel.

Ang familjer:

Kolla på 05:31 här:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzZSmgKe1Jg

Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner present "Feminism: Who Needs It?"


Det handlar om att kunna VÄLJA. Det var VÄLDIGT svårt för kninnor att kunna VÄLJA förut.

Feminismen's grund ide var att BÅDE könen kunde VÄLJA.Stanna hemma med barn eller jobba, eller bytta rollerna.

Kärnfamiljen, det var /är ingen vidare. En partriakat kyrko påhitt, skapade av Eliten.

Rockefeller pengar och CIA hjälpte till att ledde rörelsen mot att Kvinnor ska ut och jobba. Bara denna, betala mer skatt.

Kolla på "This is what a feminist looks like" och inser hur vrikade dels av rörelsen har varit, där kvinnor VILL vara "sexiga" enligt hur Eliten vill att de skall vara...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YA13GNT8Mc

Sorligt till en viss grad. Däremot finns det väldigt många avslappnade människor med...

I artikeln (Om du har läste genom denna noga, TreeOf... OM du har gjort det), läser du mycket om hur rörelsen är splittrat och fel, och hur det finns mycket goda saker. Och varför. Läs och lär.

Bill DeBerg: "DEN INFILTRERADE OCH KORRUPTA VILSELEDDE RÖRELSEN" som du skriver, är den enda som har existerat. Man kan inte ta en grupp kvinnor, under en tidsperiod, som jobbade för jämlikhet och peka på dom som de "sanna feministerna" när de själva inte var pionjärerna som startade upp det hela. Som jag förklara, så har principen bakom ordet bara funnits sedan början av västvärlden, och termen blev inte populär användning förrän 1960-70 talet, och vid den tiden hade det inget med jämlikhet att göra. Madeline Pelltier som började sprida termen, var en förvirrad kvinna som inte tyckte om äktenskap och som blev undersökt av polisen för sina befolkningsbegränsnings ideer, och hon stödde politiska system som omöjligt kunde ge jämlikhet till alla.

Vi kan båda vara överens om att det finns kvinnor som jobbar för jämlikhet idag som identifierar sig själva som feminister. Detta bror enligt mig på att folk ofta vill tillhöra en grupp som har en historisk betydelse och känna att dom tillsammans med andra bidrar i kampen för jämlikhet, vilket det inte är något fel med.

Vad jag menar, är att det är viktigt att vara historiskt korrekt. De flesta kvinnor har tyvärr inte studerat feminismens historia, vilket också bror på att det inte finns så många arbeten som undersöker vilka kvinnorna bakom femenismen var och vad för politiska kopplingar de hade. Har man däremot studerat denna historien, då förstår man att det är ungefär som att kalla sig för nazist och tror att det handlar om att skydda judars rättigheter.

Du skrev själv att du inte visste när termen feminism började användas. Jag har förklarat i denna tråden att det startades av socialister/kommunister som ville förstöra familjen. Det handlar inte om jämlikhet. Feminismen har en lång historia av hemskheter och extremister, och är något som är mycket kontroversiellt idag, många kvinnor hatar feminister, och de som idag identifierar sig själva som feminister, dom gör så för att dom har hört någon annan säga att det handlar om jämlikhet, inte för att dom själva har studerat frågan och kommit fram till det. Det finns ingen anledning att koppla en grupp med en sådan mörk historia till något bra, att använda sig av ordet i samband med att man talar om jämlikhet är bara fel och dumt.

Vi är i tjugohundratalet nu, och vi står inför problem som hotar hela mänskligheten, vilket gör att det blir lite löjligt att känna ett behov av att kalla sig själv för feminist och kämpa för rättvisa mellan könen när det är en självklarhet. Vad alla borde lägga fokuset på är att rätta till de riktiga problemen som gör att folk blir bombade, förlorar sina hus, och hitta lösningar som kan bygga ett säkert system där denna tyrannin inte kan existera och där alla har samma rättigheter. Skrota termen feminism som bara upprör folk med dens onda historia.

Medlen är många till att få folk och tävla mot varandra.

Quote:

Tree, du behöver inte äga din tid år att LÄRA mig vilka HOt mänskligheten står inför idag, faktum är att INDIVIDER har varit förtryckte, dödade och exploiterade för länge.

Det finns ingen "mänskligheten" enligt mig, snarare INDIVIDER. Där skiljer mig ifrån Kommunister / Socialister. De använder sådana termer ofta, men med lite TÄNKAR inser vi att även om vi kan "grupperas" generallt det finns alltid indiviner.

Du säger att "Feminismen har en lång historia av hemskheter och extremister"

Wow! Can du göra mig lite exemplar, och jämföra de GÄRNA med vad PATRIAKAT har gjort, med Religion, Kungar, Finans, KRIG, Vapen, osv...?

Du säger SJÄLV Vad vi är hotat av, skapade INTE av kvinnor, av män. Bilderbergers CFRs Trilaterals osv...

Sanningen är brett fast enkla är lösningar.

Du och Jag kunda någon utanför denna kontext LÄTT beskrivas som "truthers" fast vi skiljer oss MYCKET kring våran vaderingar och ider.

För att vi är individer. Inte kloner.

Att många människor tycker att budskapat på Vaken är bara bullshit överaska mig inte ett dugg, de fattar lite för att PATRIAKAT har hjärntvättat de.

Att många människor hatar feminister handlar bara om Elitens arbete imot människans (re KVINNANS) friheter att vara sanna oberoende individer. I TUSENTALS år.

Vad är ditt syfte om inte att gör det orättvist RÄTTVIS, att inte BEVISA SANNINGEN och bedragari?

Vad är ditt syftet då det finns ett stort behov och sanning kring kvinnornas förtryck även idag, som splittrar oss, skapade av Eliten?

Om vi INTE kan fixa det grundläggande lokallt, den vi kan DAGLIGEN kommer vi aldrig i närheten att fixa något större.

Backom den korrupterat Feminismen finns alltid män.

Backom det korrupterade Truth Movement finns alltid män.

Backom den icke-förståelse och HAT mot kvinnor på Vaken finns alltid män (som behöver inser en SANNING här).

Det finns många fucked up truthers, vill du ha en lista?

Då kan vi ta denna listan och BEVISA omvärlden att Sanningens-rörelsen är då icke trovärdigt.

Patriakat not.

Inte god save the queen utan orsak.

Både män och kvinnor lurar sig själv , det finns inget och vinna på se ner på det andra könet.

I ett annat liv var mestadels av er man och kvinna ochså.

Att ge det ena könet fördelar och sedan spela på en maktbalans som inte syftar till annat än splittra människor är bara sjukt.

Utan kvinnan är inte mannen komplett och utan mannen är inte kvinnan komplett det är bara så det är.

Yin & Yang

Bill DeBerg: Vet du själv vad du menar med "den sanna goda feminismem" som du talar om utan att nämna rörelsens namn och när den startade. Du skrev själv i denna tråden att du inte visste när termen feminism började att användas, så hur kan du då tala om en god feminism när du inte vet när den startades och av vem?.

Feminism är kommunism och det handlar om att förstöra familjen, läs mer här:
http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/feminism_terms_defined.htm

Alltså finns det ingen anledning att associera sig själv med feminism om man står för jämlikhet. Det är rätt rakt fram och lätt att förstå om man studerar historien.

"Backom den icke-förståelse och HAT mot kvinnor på Vaken finns alltid män (som behöver inser en SANNING här)."

Vad talar du om nu?. Har aldrig sett några hatiska inlägg mot kvinnor på vaken?. Menar du att de som kritiserar feminism automatiskt hatar kvinnor?. Feminister brukar kontra med att man hatar kvinnor när man kritiserar dom, och Erin Pizzey, som är en kämpe för kvinnors rättigheter, började få mordhot när hon talade ut om hur det ofta är kvinnor som är våldsamma i förhållanden och inte bara män, och den feministiska rörelsen protesterade mot henne med skyltar där det stog att alla män är våldtäktsmän osv. Är det en trevlig rörelse som jobbar för jämlikhet?. Man kan inte bara blunda från den mycket långa och mörka historien av feminism som har sina rötter i kommunism, och välja någon favorit feminist som kanske råkade vara godhjärtad, och påstå att feminism alltid har varit en kamp för jämlikhet.

Varför kalla något för manligt och kvinnligt när det inte förhåller sig till dess natur ?

Vart är manligheten och kvinnligheten i att hata det andra könet ?

Det är varken manligt eller kvinnligt det är traumatisk icke natur.

Ett blygsamt inlägg för män och kvinnor som har hyfsad ordning på sitt ego:

Det existerar enligt utsago hos förståsigpåare en ljus och en mörk feminin ( EJ FEMINISTISK) sida, likaså en ljus och en mörk maskulin sida hos oss "människor"

När den ljusa feminina sidan identifieras och används av än så länge en minoritet av dessa fantastiska varelser som kvinnan gestaltar så väcks den ljusa maskulina sidan och världen skulle se ut som många av oss idag skulle uppskatta att erfara.

När den icke identifierade av världsbyggarna påhejade mörka femenina sidan tillämpas så väcks den mörka maskulina sidan, och resultatet upplever vi idag.

En mycket sympatisk ung kvinna Renee Wade beskriver detta på ett lättillgängligt och medryckande sätt på sin blogg " feminine women" den är riktad till kvinnor men det framgår tydligt att det gäller män i lika hög grad.

Att vår allas uppfinnare hade en skvätt pervers humor vid vårat tillblivande gav oss egenskaper som inte kan kallas lätt kompatibla, och ju fler som inser och förstår dessa grundläggande skillnader på man och kvinna ju förr kan vi tillsammans kasta den kil som så länge hindrat oss att tillsammans söka vår fulla potential.

Så gå gärna igenom dessa pusselbitar utan förutfattade meningar innan ni kommenterar, och en utmaning till mina vilseledda systrar som benämner sig själva feminister, läs artikeln " why men love blowjobs" och se om era förutfattade meningar håller om ni har styrkan att objektivt bearbeta andemeningen i artikeln utan att avfärda TITELN på artikeln.

Mycket nöje och våga ifrågasätta doktriner, för all del läs gärna kommentarerna på denna mycket intressanta och informativa blogg hos en sällsynt insiktsfull ung kvinna, ni som förstått att ett förhållande är som en blomma, behöver ständig omvårdnad, ogräshantering, gödning, vattning och kanske mest av allt daglig kärlek.

Ett förhållande handlar inte om att få ut nåt ut av det utan kanske snarare om vad man kan ge, för det är ju trots allt skillnad på att ge och att tillhandahålla.

Vi har alla blivit blåsta på både det ena och det andra men det ger ju samtidigt en chans till lärdom och nu i upplysningens tidevarv kanske vi kan gå vidare tillsammans till nåt bättre, både män och kvinnor som ett komplementerande team istället för som nu som arga rivaler till dom självvalda sk. världsbyggarnas förtjusning.

Lev väl och älska dagligen, bra för hyn också.

Människor är roliga.

Varför förknippar dom allt som har med mörker och göra med negativitet?

Man rädds det man inte vet något om.

I mörker ser man inte vad som kommer men man känner.

Om man litar på sig själv eller om man har en ficklampa.

Men ändå så sover dom men ljusen släckta.

Mannen ger kvinnan kraft Yang fyller yin.

Men kvinnan öppnar mannen För ying har plats åt yang.


Allt har en natur allt allt har sin tid sin plats sin orsak sin mening och sin tid.

Det är inte utan orsak kunskap kommer från mörker och visdom från ljus.

Lol hur många tror du det är som utövar och har förstått detta djupa samspel i sig själva och hämtat kunskapen därrifrån istället för dumburken eller samhället?

Och märks det inte kanske?

Är kvinnor lika avtrubbade som män?
Är män lika mjuka som kvinnor`?
osv osv osv.

Det har en orsak.

Vad jag inte gillar är när samhället försöker förneka att saker har en natur och på dem promisserna vända folk mot varandra med ord som jämlikhet .

Kan människan vara ojämlik överhuvudtaget?

Hur skulle det ha sett ut om kvinnan helt tagit bort sin ställning från mannen eller vice versa.

Då hade vi ens inte varit här.

Jag ger dig inga barn nähee men du får inga spermier heller.

Varför istället inte dra nytta av dom fördelar och nackdelar denna natur ger utan att se ner på varandra ?

Människan är bra sinnesvag dom har nästan helt tappat förnuftet och lösa sina problem själva genom att nå en självklar slutsats som stått och stirrat dem framför ansiktet hela tiden.

Varför är människan lätt att manipulera?
För dom har inte fattat än att deras val styrs av känslor.
Känslor som dom inte kan kontrollera och dom inte in-ser produkten av.

Ni som påstår att kön är en social konstruktion har ni ens tagit till er den faktan som motsäger allt detta ?

Böcker
http://www.adlibris.com/se/product.aspx?isbn=9197603309

http://www.kurslitteratur.se/Item/356816

http://www.bok.nu/Doreen_Kimura/Kon_och_kognition

Film
"Mannens vetenskap"


En sammansättande artikel om dessa tips
http://tanjabergkvist.wordpress.com/2 ... a-definitionen-av-svensk/


Ang: Feminism
Så finns denna bok som PDF och den går även att köpa

http://www.dnv.se/mou/feministiska_myter.htm samt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsuqIp3yWwQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MihTqBet1aE

(Länken ovan en talbok om kvinnoväldet och manshatet)

In the most basic sense, feminism is exactly what the dictionary says it is: the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women.




Sen dess var det infiltrerat.

The issues are still the same, the conspiracy bigger tan ever and the Elephant is in the Living room.

Läs vad jag postade, där de säger rakt ut att många är INTE enade och de kommer med kritik i feminismen av feminister till och om feminismen

Du behöver inte hänvisa till ordböcker, deras definition är felaktig. Dom plockar deras "fakta" från feministisk litteratur.

"Sen dess var det infiltrerat."

Du skrev för några inlägg sedan att du inte visste när termen feminism började att användas, och nu pratar du om en rörelse som stog för något bra som sedan blev infiltrerat, men som vanligt kan du inte nämna vilken rörelse, vilket år, och vilka personer som var inblandade... Det kan nog bli svårt att avprogrammera dig i denna frågan då du inte tar in någon information som går emot ditt trosystem.

Det har aldrig blivit infiltrerat, så jag har svårt att förstå vad du menar. Att Rockefeller/CIA stödde det till en vis grad skulle jag inte kalla för infiltration, dom bara såg en rörelse av galna kvinnor och såg det som en chans att utöka deras sociala kontroll.

Problemet var alltså ingen infiltration av en rörelse som till att börja med hade en god agenda, utan problemt var de sjuka kommunist kvinnorna som startade rörelsen. Feminism ÄR kommunism.

Bara läs länkarna jag postat, sedan använd dig aldrig av ordet feminism när du pratar om jämlikhet igen. Feminism är hatat runt hela världen, av både kvinnor och män, för det är ren ondska, och du har demonstrerat deras hjärntvättning när du skriver att det förekommer hat mot kvinnor på vaken, hatet är då kritiken mot feminism, som inte är tillåtet, då hatar man kvinnor, så visst låter det som att du är tränad som en sann feminism, dags att vakna Bill DeBerg, om du älskar feminism så mycket så ta på dig röda kläder också...

Quote:


Ingen kommentar på mitt inlägg ?