Feminism in Italy

[datingcoach]

To Eurobrat who said there is no feminism in Italy.

TV ad on italian TV:



Do you imagine this TV commercial on a US or UK TV channel?

Feminists demonstrated against Berlusconi:



Feminists in Vatican:

[eurobrat]

N/A

[eurobrat]

...

[publicduende]

Very few of our fashion-conscious women would use a recolouring agent to revamp an old shirt, they'd rather keep it or throw it away. That's why the ad in question probably resorted to quite a strong, if tongue-in-cheek stereotype to try and sell. I am quite surprised you missed the irony, despite the ad having no dialogues...

Next up, Femen is nothing but a harmless fringe movement, possibly funded by some American wealthy businessman (as per Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN) to make a controversial dent into male-orientated pop culture, or to pursue god knows what other agenda.

Neither of these two are examples of feminism being on the rise in Italy. Quite the opposite. Italy has strong women, smart women, liberated women, some of whom are just as slutty as the US counterparts. What Italy does not have is women who use their (allegedly) feminist ideas to abdicate their femininity and their role in society, as it happens more and more often in Anglo cultures. Are you guys afraid of women gaining equal rights per se, or women gaining equal rights at the expense of their essence and that of men?

[Cornfed]

Are you guys afraid of women gaining equal rights per se, or women gaining equal rights at the expense of their essence and that of men?

It amounts to the same thing in practice.

[abcdavid01]

What Cornfed said.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... ediocrity/

Men tend to be about five points higher on overall IQ than women, a statistically small difference. However, males are overrepresented at both the bottom and top of the intelligence curve. Men outnumber women by two to one at an IQ of 125 and by six to one at the genius level of 155, according to studies by Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn, who took many surveys of sex differences and averaged them.

Men are significantly more likely to be either really smart or really dumb. Women are just average. We shouldn't be equating mediocrity as equal to genius. That's just in the field of politics though. It applies to science too. Obviously there are fields where women are better than men though.

So Feminism is basically a conceit. More men are failures by nature of having a higher competitive drive (70% of homeless are men). Feminists look at these men and think, "Hey, what's so great about men? We can do better!" But in application it fails because women have lower competitive drive, are significantly less likely to have genius level IQ, etc.

That's to say nothing of men being more inclined towards logical thinking than women. So it makes sense that women should be underrepresented in politics and the sciences, but trying to artificially boost them up as Feminism does...

It's not even choice either. Feminism enslaves just as much as it liberates. Only a small minority of women really want Feminist goals, but it ends up affecting everyone. Same as homosexuality. Very small population of gays, but society's acceptance of them sterilizes society. The minority is granted rights at the expense of everyone else.

[publicduende]

Are you guys afraid of women gaining equal rights per se, or women gaining equal rights at the expense of their essence and that of men?

It amounts to the same thing in practice.

Not really. It's the same conceptual difference between the terms "use" and "abuse".

[publicduende]

What Cornfed said.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... ediocrity/

Men tend to be about five points higher on overall IQ than women, a statistically small difference. However, males are overrepresented at both the bottom and top of the intelligence curve. Men outnumber women by two to one at an IQ of 125 and by six to one at the genius level of 155, according to studies by Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn, who took many surveys of sex differences and averaged them.

Men are significantly more likely to be either really smart or really dumb. Women are just average. We shouldn't be equating mediocrity as equal to genius. That's just in the field of politics though. It applies to science too. Obviously there are fields where women are better than men though.

So Feminism is basically a conceit. More men are failures by nature of having a higher competitive drive (70% of homeless are men). Feminists look at these men and think, "Hey, what's so great about men? We can do better!" But in application it fails because women have lower competitive drive, are significantly less likely to have genius level IQ, etc.

That's to say nothing of men being more inclined towards logical thinking than women. So it makes sense that women should be underrepresented in politics and the sciences, but trying to artificially boost them up as Feminism does...

It's not even choice either. Feminism enslaves just as much as it liberates. Only a small minority of women really want Feminist goals, but it ends up affecting everyone. Same as homosexuality. Very small population of gays, but society's acceptance of them sterilizes society. The minority is granted rights at the expense of everyone else.

I beg to differ on the entire line.

IQ is an outdated, obsolete measure of intelligence, personal and social "performance" and success. Richard Lynn's works are highly controversial and have been bashed for decades for their lack of statistical rigour. I would see them more as a "philosophical" take on intelligence based on gender and ethnical background. It was accepted wisdom in 18th century US that blacks were designed as inferior by God and their fate of slaves befalling on them entirely appropriate. It is of historical importance because it shaped a culture at an important juncture of history, but that doesn't make that accepted wisdom true, or fair, or humane.

I will leave it to the MENSA people to revel in their purported intellectual superiority. There are plenty of ways to measure the quality of an individual and its positive contribution to society. In an ideal society, a loving, nurturing mom would be far more valuable than a profit-obsessed corporate shark, even if the mom is a simple mind on high school education and said shark went to Harvard Law School. There are plenty of examples of male and female wizkids, top academic achievers as there are as men and women as thick as a plank, who couldn't logically think their way out of an open envelope. If you mention statistics, if anything, the law of large numbers would suggest that all men and women measurements of intellectual and social abilities would converge to the mean, perhaps a different mean for each gender, but a mean nonetheless.

It's true that women have lower competitive drive than men, their testosterone levels cannot compare to ours. Isn't this precisely why they tend to find themselves comfortable in social roles where creativity and contribution isn't played in a competitive arena: the academic environment, for example, or teaching, healthcare and social services, etc? This doesn't say much about how intelligent, or successful they are. The important thing about equal rights is that women are given the option to be whoever they want to be, to find their own balance between femininity and levels of achievement in the private/domestic and public/social/professional departments. If a woman desires to stay at home and take care of the husband and kids, be a good chef and a good lover, good for her, and good for that lucky man and those lucky kids. If a woman feels, by nature or nurture, the need to find a different balance between her biological and social roles, she should have the option, and indeed she does (in most civilised countries, at least).

This right to self-determination, like anything that expresses good ol' human free will, can be abused. That's where feminism and women who become a pathetic mockery of their male counterparts, come in. That's where self-determination expresses itself with tones and acts that descend into the farcical (see FEMEN). Yet, society judges feminist women, indeed women in general, accordingly. We are doing it on this forum. And men will choose those women, or not choose them, according to their own beliefs and requirements. Last time I checked one of the main themes of the Happier Abroad movement was for a man to extend his options to societies and cultures, no matter how geographically distant, where women who better match his personal beliefs and requirements are more easily found.

To stay on topic, the crux of my argument is that Italian women tend to find a far better balance than women from northern European countries. Rest assured that no man in Italy is as yet feeling threatened by women taking over them in any area of private and public life. If American women have become the source of your criticism, if not hate, it could well be an unwanted product of the sexual revolution, or the narcissism, materialism and self-entitlement that engulfs the majority of American society (and good part of first world societies), or the mounting pressure for them to be active social agents far beyond the domestic fences. Lots of factors combined, over a few decades time. Blaming feminism and feminism only is just very, very reductive.

I believe, with you, that a small minority of women wants feminist goals. But the relatively small minority of women who campaigned for equal rights, 50 or 100 years ago, and that progressive part of rule-making society who listened to them, didn't do a favour just to themselves. They changed the world.

Finally, this is the biggest meme of them all: "the minority is granted rights at the expense of everyone else"! Gay couples haven't acquired rights to be happy and recognised as a family unit at the expenses of heterosexual couples. They haven't sterilized society, since the overwhelming majority of people are heterosexual and will remain so. One might argue that women have stolen good jobs from men, but this is only apparent now that the entire paradigm of labour is crumbling down in the face of automation, outsourcing, increased efficiency. There just aren't enough good jobs for anyone in the West anymore, and any rethinking of this paradigm should include, and affect, both men and women.

[Cornfed]

Are you guys afraid of women gaining equal rights per se, or women gaining equal rights at the expense of their essence and that of men?

It amounts to the same thing in practice.

Not really. It's the same conceptual difference between the terms "use" and "abuse".

Not really. Equality between the sexes is sociologically impossible. To quote myself in another thread: "...women can't think for themselves and so are naturally the slaves of men. If men in their lives such as husbands and fathers don't assert control over them then, by default, elite men will. The elite will then use that control to diminish the status of the majority of men who will be shat on by everyone, just like now. Calling for equality is in practice the same as calling for feminism."

[publicduende]

Not really. Equality between the sexes is sociologically impossible. To quote myself in another thread: "...women can't think for themselves and so are naturally the slaves of men. If men in their lives such as husbands and fathers don't assert control over them then, by default, elite men will. The elite will then use that control to diminish the status of the majority of men who will be shat on by everyone, just like now. Calling for equality is in practice the same as calling for feminism."

I can't find any sense in any of the sentences, mate. First of all gender equality isn't about equality of sexes, but equality of rights, options and opportunities before the society.
Why is that "women can't think for themselves", and even if their intellectual or cognitive abilities were inferior to those of men, would that automatically mean they deserve to be their slaves? In a just society, should the patently weak be protected? Would you "enslave" and abuse children, or the handicapped because they can't reason and act like adults?

In what sense we should assert control over them? Ever heard or mutual respect? Not treat them badly and, if they're good women, they should treat you well in return. And who are the "elite men"? The shady Alpha men lurking in the shadow, waiting for a beta to lose reins over his wife/gf and jump on her? Or the elite government, who will use the arm of the law (or social rule) to empower them and turn them against their men?

See, this is why I find it very hard to believe that any of your arguments lives in a place outside your own mind...

[Cornfed]

I can't find any sense in any of the sentences, mate. First of all gender equality isn't about equality of sexes, but equality of rights, options and opportunities before the society.
Why is that "women can't think for themselves", and even if their intellectual or cognitive abilities were inferior to those of men, would that automatically mean they deserve to be their slaves? In a just society, should the patently weak be protected? Would you "enslave" and abuse children, or the handicapped because they can't reason and act like adults?

In what sense we should assert control over them? Ever heard or mutual respect? Not treat them badly and, if they're good women, they should treat you well in return. And who are the "elite men"? The shady Alpha men lurking in the shadow, waiting for a beta to lose reins over his wife/gf and jump on her? Or the elite government, who will use the arm of the law (or social rule) to empower them and turn them against their men?

See, this is why I find it very hard to believe that any of your arguments lives in a place outside your own mind...

You are speaking complete gibberish, as you know.

[publicduende]

I can't find any sense in any of the sentences, mate. First of all gender equality isn't about equality of sexes, but equality of rights, options and opportunities before the society.
Why is that "women can't think for themselves", and even if their intellectual or cognitive abilities were inferior to those of men, would that automatically mean they deserve to be their slaves? In a just society, should the patently weak be protected? Would you "enslave" and abuse children, or the handicapped because they can't reason and act like adults?

In what sense we should assert control over them? Ever heard or mutual respect? Not treat them badly and, if they're good women, they should treat you well in return. And who are the "elite men"? The shady Alpha men lurking in the shadow, waiting for a beta to lose reins over his wife/gf and jump on her? Or the elite government, who will use the arm of the law (or social rule) to empower them and turn them against their men?

See, this is why I find it very hard to believe that any of your arguments lives in a place outside your own mind...

You are speaking complete gibberish, as you know.

Well the irony, I meant the same thing, but had at least the grace to elaborate It's your usual psychobabble, CF, we all know that...

[abcdavid01]

At the end of the day I just think the proof is in the pudding. Cornfed's right because that's actually what happened when the theory was applied. The same type of reasoning can be used to critique Communism or Capitalism or any other ideology that might have once characterized a different zeitgeist.

As for the other remarks...I don't think the problem of slavery has been solved. Well actually it's better to look at slavery not as the problem, but the solution. It wasn't the only solution nor the best one. The modern solution is welfare, which also isn't ideal. But they both try to fix the same problem. What do you do with the proles?

The problem with anything involving IQ, mental health, etc. is that it isn't fully objective or subjective. It lies somewhere in between. I'm not arguing that IQ is an objective measure, but I do think it has some merit. It's not fully subjective either.

I have to question what you refer to as civilized though. Is sexual communism civilized? Because that's what readjusting the work/home life balance amounts to. That's regression to pre-civilized social arrangements. If women aren't property, then the alternative is sexual communism.

I wouldn't complain nearly so much if there was choice though. Men don't choose accordingly; they fall into traps. My parent's marriage is like that. Feminism is a revolutionary movement. Some places holdout more than others, but it seeks to eliminate choice.

Blaming Feminism is reductive. I blame Post-Modernism.

As for homosexuality, I'm not afraid of growing homosexual populations and dwindling heterosexual ones. The gay population may grow, but I still don't think it'll ever be significant. The human mind is usually too resistant. Nor do I care about some vague ephemera like the "sanctity of marriage." That misses the point and I'd hope to be thought more highly of.

I explained my reasoning as to why gay rights come at the expense of the heterosexual majority here:

viewtopic.php?t=15432

That's what most opponents of gay rights feel viscerally, but are unable to be fully conscious of. It's why they always lose the argument. Even I wasn't convinced by them to oppose gay rights until I understood the above.

But again, blaming gay rights is reductive. I blame Post Modernism and moral relativism.

I do believe in moral relativism (choice as you might call it) on a cosmic scale, but in actual application, like Cornfed says, it has visibly disastrous effects.

Going back to what I said about mental health, I think a lot of the confusion comes from things being neither fully objective nor subjective. I think White Nationalists have a point, but the irony is that my own misegenist existence had a eugenic effect on my intelligence. So mixing races isn't all bad, since it can be eugenic, but it's very often a recipe for disaster. My parent's crumbling marriage informs a lot of my conservatism.

It's the same comparison I made with Capitalism and Socialism. On the one hand, women can be looked at as property, which parallels Capitalism. On the other aisle is Sexual Communism and of course Feminist theory is inspired by Marx. I'll take someone like Ayn Rand over Karl Marx, but I don't fully commit to either. Capitalism leads to obesity and socialism to starvation. Obesity is better than starvation, but I'd rather just be healthy.

Ayn Rand, Conservatism, Right-Wing, that's associated with individualism and objectivity. The Left is associated with collectivism and subjectivity (moral relativism). I usually lean towards supporting objectivity because I don't like the violence that results from a lack of morality. Yet I don't think things are 100% objective either and I don't like pure individualism. The Marxists are correct about alienation if nothing else.

Objectivity and subjectivity can be replaced with instinct and reason. I don't fully support either, but I do support tradition, which lies in between instinct and reason. Tradition follows a cultural evolutionary model (natural selection of cultures). There's a lower birthrate among Whites and The West is losing influence in the world because of poor choices among traditions, which are passed down through generations like alleles . The West has made poor choices in morality and is beginning to fall victim to increasingly fit competitors.

[abcdavid01]

Not really. Equality between the sexes is sociologically impossible. To quote myself in another thread: "...women can't think for themselves and so are naturally the slaves of men. If men in their lives such as husbands and fathers don't assert control over them then, by default, elite men will. The elite will then use that control to diminish the status of the majority of men who will be shat on by everyone, just like now. Calling for equality is in practice the same as calling for feminism."

I can't find any sense in any of the sentences, mate. First of all gender equality isn't about equality of sexes, but equality of rights, options and opportunities before the society.
Why is that "women can't think for themselves", and even if their intellectual or cognitive abilities were inferior to those of men, would that automatically mean they deserve to be their slaves? In a just society, should the patently weak be protected? Would you "enslave" and abuse children, or the handicapped because they can't reason and act like adults?

In what sense we should assert control over them? Ever heard or mutual respect? Not treat them badly and, if they're good women, they should treat you well in return. And who are the "elite men"? The shady Alpha men lurking in the shadow, waiting for a beta to lose reins over his wife/gf and jump on her? Or the elite government, who will use the arm of the law (or social rule) to empower them and turn them against their men?

See, this is why I find it very hard to believe that any of your arguments lives in a place outside your own mind...

I don't like using the word equal. Men are unequal to women in many ways. If men and women are different in capabilities, it naturally follows that their rights and opportunities are different as well. I do believe in blind justice, but the Left doesn't, which is why hate crime laws exist. If anything I think Feminism enslaves women even more by encouraging them to become worker drones.

As I said before, slavery was just a solution to a problem that hasn't gone away. It wasn't necessarily the best solution, but it also had different advantages over the current solutions, which are also problematic.

If you listen to an agorist like zacb, children are slaves. If I were inclined to agree, I still wouldn't favor separating children from parents like in Orwell's 1984.

We do already enslave the handicapped and there's nothing wrong with that. Group homes and mental institutions are both examples. Sure, they can have their problems e.g. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I've been looked at as mentally ill myself. But doesn't mean the entire concept isn't valid.

The government already does empower women to turn against men. That's why the father's rights movement exists.

We killed God, but are people really better for it? All we've got for it is single motherhood. Well Mr. Marx, looks like you were right about those chains, but it turns out most people just can't handle being free. God of the Gaps.

For the record, I don't think what either of you posted is gibberish. Frankly I though my own first post was...

[eurobrat]

...