General Discussion

mackattack

(344 posts)

70. The second wave argument is....

Wed Mar 14, 2012, 11:37 PM

Mar 2012

That society is set up for male privilege. And while yes, some women have more power/prestige than some men (kardashian v pool boy) the entire socio-economic system is designed to benefit AND preserve male hegemony. This cannot be undone without a complete 'overthrow' of the existing order.

We know the argument best in the form of "white privilege." The argument, from the same era, states that all whites are essentially racist because they benefit from white privilege. Comedian Dave Chapelles dad was a big scholar in this field. So, according to these hegemonic-centered theories, if Dave Chapelle and I are driving through Dayton and and a cop comes up to us, I am going to have an easier time because of the racist system (im white).

Take it or leave it, but that is more or less what the underpinning of the "radical feminist" theory is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

267 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why "fun feminism" should be consigned to the rubbish bin [View all] seabeyond Mar 2012 OP

Seems like a very good article to post in the Feminist Forum. nt Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #1

I don't see that happening. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #2

Not really. MineralMan Mar 2012 #107

Turns out it is getting a good discussion here on GD Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #123

It is. That's what GD is good at, generating discussions MineralMan Mar 2012 #125

It's shame that you can't cross link a post to a specific group though. Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #133

I think many now a day take the personal is political boston bean Mar 2012 #3

Do you agree with her statement: tammywammy Mar 2012 #4

I don't get that. There are lots of men that are far more supportive of feminist ideals then some Jennicut Mar 2012 #7

I agree tammywammy Mar 2012 #11

To me, most women's rights issues are ideological. Jennicut Mar 2012 #16

my husband was an unwavering supporter of Hillary Clinton in 08. He persuaded me that I CTyankee Mar 2012 #101

Keep an eye on Elizabeth Warren KamaAina Mar 2012 #159

I'm a feminist and I didn't support Hillary for President. PassingFair Mar 2012 #162

I humbly say no DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #9

On a side note, about that damned patriarchal power structure Zalatix Mar 2012 #91

I would expand on that... the patriarchal system makes finding a mate even harder! tech_smythe Mar 2012 #244

a step further seabeyond Mar 2012 #262

I would really really like to see the OP's response to that. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #10

Yes, I do. salib Mar 2012 #205

I tend to agree with you. n/t MadrasT Mar 2012 #206

I would STILL really really like to see the OP's response to that. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #214

Some of us women run from the angry militancy as well Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #5

What angry militancy are you speaking of? boston bean Mar 2012 #6

LOL! The article in the OP, and Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #8

Here is what I think boston bean Mar 2012 #13

Thank you, that was helpful insight. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #14

I don't think you could transplant today's 3rd wavers into the culture 30-40 years ago Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #97

You may be Old and In the Way but I'm pretty sure you're not old enough to remember the 1st wavers Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #134

Yeah, I'm not really up on my waves, I guess. Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #138

Yes, you were talking about second wavers. Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #139

Actually, back in the late 60's, I was very focused on wave theories. Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #144

There is nothing wrong with being angry with other women. Daemonaquila Mar 2012 #192

You mean the sort of angry militancy that tells hetero women they can't be feminists if they're Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #235

She lost me at: LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #12

Very well stated. Thank you! Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #15

i had to go back and read the article, because i did not hear her say any of that. seabeyond Mar 2012 #17

I think LadyHawk is commenting on the final paragraph mackattack Mar 2012 #19

that was some interpretation. nt seabeyond Mar 2012 #21

Really? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #22

Well, when the author states... mackattack Mar 2012 #23

i think the difference would be seabeyond Mar 2012 #28

Forget interpretation, did you find the overall tone to be positive and welcoming? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #31

Julie Bindel encourages women to become political lesbians tammywammy Mar 2012 #36

ha ha. thanks. i appreciate that. i am going to read that tomorrow. seabeyond Mar 2012 #44

Try finding some of her other articles when you get time. tammywammy Mar 2012 #48

i did. actually i didnt seabeyond Mar 2012 #53

I get ya tammywammy Mar 2012 #55

traditional views of women and feminists themselves... much softer, appealing yet powerful force. seabeyond Mar 2012 #131

I read the article mackattack Mar 2012 #47

So she doesn't ACTUALLY want equality... so much as to flip the table tech_smythe Mar 2012 #248

that is just an opinion of the poster seabeyond Mar 2012 #263

It wasn't just the one sentence LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #76

SB... you seem to forget YOU'RE a reasonable person tech_smythe Mar 2012 #246

i love you..... seabeyond Mar 2012 #261

What? Blacks get to express hatred of white oppression and still get good corporate jobs? Really? saras Mar 2012 #216

That is the subtitle of the article stevenleser Mar 2012 #199

You hit the nail on the head Major Nikon Mar 2012 #51

Here's a black woman speaking about First and Second Wave Feminism... MicaelS Mar 2012 #185

Wow. +1. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #117

This writer's opinions would be on the extreme edge of second wave thought Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #137

That is true. nt boston bean Mar 2012 #172

You beat me too it but that is what lost me too. See my #195 stevenleser Mar 2012 #198

Very Well Put. n/t ElboRuum Mar 2012 #224

"For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare." mackattack Mar 2012 #18

I'm pretty sure that is not what the author meant. boston bean Mar 2012 #24

Ah! So "radical" is ok, but "militant" isn't. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #26

Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations seabeyond Mar 2012 #29

In saying it "sounds radical" boston bean Mar 2012 #30

So you feel that the article, being not radical, represents mainstream acceptable 2012 feminism? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #34

I think that nothing in that article boston bean Mar 2012 #40

I am not asking for homogeneous - just the opposite. Inclusion. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #43

That is a two way street, Ruby. boston bean Mar 2012 #49

There. Is. No. Patriarchy. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #56

wow. nt seabeyond Mar 2012 #59

Do you get class warfare? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #72

+2 double wow! Little Star Mar 2012 #104

see post 62 boston bean Mar 2012 #64

The second wave argument is.... mackattack Mar 2012 #70

Howdy! I *do* get that. My claim is that it is outdated. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #74

Ahhhh ok mackattack Mar 2012 #78

As a Marxist Ruby, I agree with you, EXCEPT......... socialist_n_TN Mar 2012 #124

You are monumentally correct. hifiguy Mar 2012 #140

I'm glad I'm not a feminist. It seems very complicated. scarletwoman Mar 2012 #82

It seems very complicated. mackattack Mar 2012 #90

this is going to be the next seabeyond Mar 2012 #98

My HERO. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #93

There is - first of all, look at the undeniable fact that women are not paid equal to men. chrisa Mar 2012 #197

Are you serious? Tumbulu Mar 2012 #212

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #240

"...is the struggle for equal rights between men and women. Not for men. Men already have more..." lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #126

we are multi task oriented and falls under human rights and equality. i dont think it is tough seabeyond Mar 2012 #128

If it were about equality, it wouldn't be necessary to multitask. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #130

of course. you are in a male movement. you focus on male issues. seabeyond Mar 2012 #132

Heh. Pretty exclusive "movement". lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #143

what i am really about done with, is people that ignore what is said seabeyond Mar 2012 #145

I can't ignore what you don't say. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #149

and at the very least seabeyond Mar 2012 #156

It wasn't my intent to criticize and yes. You ARE the one who speaks up. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #166

interesting. i really do LOVE discussing this with you seabeyond Mar 2012 #169

why should feminism have to worry about it? Scout Mar 2012 #135

Fine. You chose "eat the cake" lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #141

oh poor pitiful lambs, it's the evil feminist's fault... Scout Mar 2012 #168

I'm not whining. I'm saying. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #170

maybe this post isn't, but many of yours are. you're nothing if not consistent. Scout Mar 2012 #173

"Consistent" I think this word means something other than what you think it means. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #178

I read your post last night and had some thoughts to share with you Tumbulu Mar 2012 #231

That is a generalization that I would not make. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #233

More later I'm on the road Tumbulu Mar 2012 #245

I misunderstood. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #250

if she see's fit, yes Tumbulu Mar 2012 #251

back now Tumbulu Mar 2012 #249

not what the author says mackattack Mar 2012 #52

Two different sentences in two different paragraphs. boston bean Mar 2012 #71

Two different sentences in two different paragraphs...???? mackattack Mar 2012 #75

I was replying to your response to me, where I was speaking originally of this quote: boston bean Mar 2012 #83

Oh, no no no mackattack Mar 2012 #87

I understand mackattack Mar 2012 #27

This is where I think the problem arises. boston bean Mar 2012 #33

Or, people have heard it for ages, REJECTED it, and just now Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #41

What I am saying Ruby, is you can believe what you would like. boston bean Mar 2012 #46

Okay, hows this. I am woman. I am empowered. I am NOT OPPRESSED. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #54

That is what you believe. boston bean Mar 2012 #62

Because I am not supremacist. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #65

Come again? boston bean Mar 2012 #73

What do you replace it with Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #77

Replace it with Equality. nt boston bean Mar 2012 #79

So in acheiving that goal, feminist men are unwelcome. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #81

I wrote "Replace it with Equality" - as in replace the patriarchy with Equality, not a Matriarchy.. boston bean Mar 2012 #85

But the author never calls for that mackattack Mar 2012 #84

It was an article written for feminists, meant to be interesting to read. boston bean Mar 2012 #86

I can see how someone might see it as radical. But truly, it is not. mackattack Mar 2012 #88

She is speaking of a certain type of feminist boston bean Mar 2012 #89

Last I heard, the generally used definition of feminism was "equality for women". lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #122

for me, in my opinion, i think seabeyond Mar 2012 #127

"Equality for men" would be advocacy, not a search for equality. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #129

you can keep asking, but if you ignore my answer seabeyond Mar 2012 #142

The system which created a congress 83% male... lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #120

This message was self-deleted by its author tammywammy Mar 2012 #68

EXCELLENT post, Grasshopper! obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #110

That is exactly what she meant, that is what she is known for obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #109

Some Feminists give Feminists a bad name. Germaine Greer comes to mind. William769 Mar 2012 #20

Here's an interesting article tammywammy Mar 2012 #32

Very interesting. Thanks. William769 Mar 2012 #39

See muriel_volestrangler's post #35 for more links tammywammy Mar 2012 #42

gee, that can be said about any group of people, don't you think William? n/t Scout Mar 2012 #136

Of course. It just seems more pronounced in some more than others. n/t William769 Mar 2012 #148

back atcha. "more pronounced" in some than others. Scout Mar 2012 #174

What nonsense. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #25

you know the one poster seabeyond Mar 2012 #37

That has zero, zip, nada, nothing to do with the OP. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #45

you dont know what i am talking about. seabeyond Mar 2012 #57

LOL! Ok. Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #66

I have a pretty good idea what you're talking about Major Nikon Mar 2012 #80

That's not at all the point of the article. Daemonaquila Mar 2012 #193

Who the fuck said we can't talk about rape? Odin2005 Mar 2012 #247

Julie Bindel is highly controversial muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #35

I have no idea what this post is about Canuckistanian Mar 2012 #38

It is a promotion of 2nd wave feminism Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #50

It is amazing that almost every post I click on has a reply from you. You are crazy great. HangOnKids Mar 2012 #102

Ah! Thanks for the translation. HappyMe Mar 2012 #106

No, it isn't a promotion of 2nd wave feminism. It's a promotion of Bindel's curious and twisted take Gormy Cuss Mar 2012 #153

Youve probably heard it described as Womens Liberation mackattack Mar 2012 #60

Transphobic "feminism" needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin. Starry Messenger Mar 2012 #58

+1000! William769 Mar 2012 #63

+1 n/t tammywammy Mar 2012 #69

+1 n/t fishwax Mar 2012 #94

Yes! Vanje Mar 2012 #95

well said, short and to the Point. Whisp Mar 2012 #100

Exactly == "funbots" isn't demeaning to women? obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #111

Thank you Catherina Mar 2012 #179

+1. Clearly, some insults to women are more acceptable than others. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #213

The more I see, the more I'm convinced it's religious fundamentalism oozing out in a different form. Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #236

I support both radical and fun fishwax Mar 2012 #61

i.... seabeyond Mar 2012 #67

basically I just think that fishwax Mar 2012 #92

excellent. thank you seabeyond Mar 2012 #99

Heres a thought - quit trying to define yourself as a "2" or "3" Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #103

for me seabeyond Mar 2012 #115

How could you have been born at the beginning of the Third Wave obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #119

i was born at the time women of the 3rd wave was born, not 2nd... nt seabeyond Mar 2012 #121

All men are not your enemy. SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #96

Not to make light of feminism, MadHound Mar 2012 #105

Julie Bindel, the OP article's author, is extrememly transphobic obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #108

Movements that are exclusive, rather than inclusive, tend MineralMan Mar 2012 #112

After reading that, I declare that I am a fun feminist. ZenLefty Mar 2012 #113

Yummy! What kind? obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #114

Gluten free peanut butter cookies with funbot sprinkes! ZenLefty Mar 2012 #118

That'll work -- I love peanut butter obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #147

I can't reconcile these two sentences. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #116

A hateful bigot who doesn't understand Generation Y. Not surprising. Prism Mar 2012 #146

Great post, Prism obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #150

Really?! Prism Mar 2012 #152

I wouldn't say she's against marriage equality tammywammy Mar 2012 #188

I've read she is against all marriage/civil unions obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #210

Very well said. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #154

Yep. Spot on. "Puritanism is the nagging feeling that someone, somewhere, might be happy" Taverner Mar 2012 #157

very good post. thank you. i appreciate it seabeyond Mar 2012 #158

Radicalism works, until it doesn't Prism Mar 2012 #252

It started with Girl Power and has sunk into mindless hedonism. Why has sexual equality backfired? seabeyond Mar 2012 #160

Isn't calling a woman or group of women "hedonist" a form of an attempt at slut-shaming? stevenleser Mar 2012 #201

+ 1 ! Vanje Mar 2012 #209

Yes, it's slut shaming n/t obamanut2012 Mar 2012 #211

interesting article, thanks for the link Tumbulu Mar 2012 #221

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #242

I think we're watching a pendulum in motion Prism Mar 2012 #253

when you have an increase seabeyond Mar 2012 #259

The thing is, have 50 and 60-somethings EVER wrote about 20something trends and approved? Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #266

I had not ever heard of Bindel prior to this. boston bean Mar 2012 #163

The question of gender MadrasT Mar 2012 #180

There's no reason The Philosopher Mar 2012 #227

It's not a debate I particularly enjoy Prism Mar 2012 #254

Awe-inspiring post cthulu2016 Mar 2012 #165

It's posts like this that make visiting DU every day a very worthy experience! bullwinkle428 Mar 2012 #176

Nailed it. As always. Catherina Mar 2012 #186

Very nice post. Rex Mar 2012 #189

Beautifully stated. nt Starry Messenger Mar 2012 #190

It's hard to take anything she says seriously knowing her bigotry toward Transgendered people stevenleser Mar 2012 #203

Not thrilled with her "political lesbianism" either Prism Mar 2012 #255

some great points there -- nice post fishwax Mar 2012 #207

Great post! nt Vanje Mar 2012 #208

really well written. thanks. La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2012 #217

Wow. This was a genuine pleasure to read. LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #229

Why can't we bookmark replies? LiberalAndProud Mar 2012 #238

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #239

Gay men are always throwing a monkey wrench into 2nd wave Prism Mar 2012 #256

maybe it is not about her believing that it is a reality. maybe it is making a point. seabeyond Mar 2012 #264

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #265

She should be happy that feminism is going mainstream, I believe. chrisa Mar 2012 #151

how has owning the word slut as in slut walk, worked for us? seabeyond Mar 2012 #161

Maybe the word can never be owned, but its power can be taken away. chrisa Mar 2012 #164

i get the concept. i played it, too. i think we clearly show an example how the power was not seabeyond Mar 2012 #167

another kinda way out there thought, that i would like to explore seabeyond Mar 2012 #171

I'm afraid that these examples are the end results of the oversexualization of our kids librechik Mar 2012 #187

yes, I agree (nt) Tumbulu Mar 2012 #218

I'm going to try to address both the above posts in this one LadyHawkAZ Mar 2012 #243

i appreciate you taking account past posts. i value when a poster is able to do that seabeyond Mar 2012 #260

Aw jeez...not this shit again Taverner Mar 2012 #155

... Rex Mar 2012 #184

does anyone besides me hate "Slutwalks?" librechik Mar 2012 #175

Never heard of a slutwalk Rex Mar 2012 #181

post 167 and 171. have been thinking about this seabeyond Mar 2012 #182

I'm with you Tumbulu Mar 2012 #219

A strong woman is not a strident woman. naughty nina Mar 2012 #177

Poor troll Rex Mar 2012 #183

A strong Pizza served is not a bad pizza! Thanks MIRT/Admins! stevenleser Mar 2012 #200

I welcome your complete scorn... Oh, wait... ElboRuum Mar 2012 #226

What a load of horsecrap - no such thing as "proper, radical feminism." Daemonaquila Mar 2012 #191

+1 - I have been re-educated by being here on DU these last few weeks. Whisp Mar 2012 #204

Amen to that Alcibiades Mar 2012 #223

This is dehumanizing. Funbots? mahina Mar 2012 #194

Article starts with a failed premise: "If your brand of feminism seems good to men, its bad" stevenleser Mar 2012 #195

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!! nt TeamsterDem Mar 2012 #215

Um, seems a sexist thing to say what "most men" do TeamsterDem Mar 2012 #196

There are too many feminists aren't there? CreekDog Mar 2012 #202

OK, another chiming in DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #220

Thread went about as expected. flvegan Mar 2012 #222

I saw this song and dance performed live twenty years ago Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2012 #225

Can we go back to women's liberation? Alcibiades Mar 2012 #228

the author has a few good points but its clouded by her desire to denigrate women La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2012 #230

+1 Rex Mar 2012 #232

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #234

The "radical" feminism I encountered on DU has made me lose a lot of sympathy for feminists... DutchLiberal Mar 2012 #237

The author of the posted article is a hater of transsexual people and in general a self Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #241

Whatever bluestateguy Mar 2012 #257

NEWS FLASH: A 180-degree total inversion of humankind will never, ever happen. dogknob Mar 2012 #258

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2012 #267