The desire to tackle a complex subject like feminism was born from my own recent research on the myth of the Mother Goddess. Sites that spoke of the famous feminist matriarchy are over and from there to bioethical issues such as abortion and individual freedom. I therefore questions such as, starting from a just, feminism has ended up making the woman is a mere object that a uoma, or a caricature. The question is not easy and I found a lot of difficulties to analyze point by point the features of feminist ideology, but I managed to keep separate the positive from that degenerate. At least from my point of view, of course.
At this point I do the usual small premise. I am not of any party, I have said many times. I believe in the cooperation of all parties for the good of human beings, because all of us without distinction of sex or race can be fulfilled as we want to bring us in harmony and without damage to each other. It goes without saying that every revolutionary idea and exasperated, of any party, to be blunt.
feminism starts from this belief. I omit the famous three waves in which the current is divided, speaking only of feminism in Italy. At first, there are two strands, in clear disagreement between them. The first emphasizes the role of women in society and its development, calling for equal rights between male and female. The second relies on the myth of matriarchy, the beneficial primitive communism practiced by women and the intrinsic evil of patriarchy and capitalism. Although this line wants the equalization of men and women, but in very different ways. The woman should be in every way like man, canceling all characteristic of the female gender. Since women were, according to this ideology, oppressed by men for millennia, it is time to resume his revenge by taking over the reins of power. This leads to a progressive rejection of feminine characteristics, not because they really humiliating, but only as part of a past seen as stifling and oppressive. The right to procreate is seen as a wave, a more difficult affected only to women, and thus limiting the absolute leveling-man woman. It is first and right to contraception, which is also claimed by the first thread, which does not reject motherhood as something wrong. But the second line points out the ineffectiveness of some methods and the limitation of their freedom. Born abortion. Not comment on whether it is right or wrong, only carry the meaning of abortion in the feminist ideology. Abortion is tantamount to the affirmation of the absolute sovereignty of the woman's body, as it is considered unfair that the fetus can force the mother to sacrifice their individual freedom by giving their lives.
The second conquest necessary to complete the feminist revolution is the destruction of family and marriage, "traditional." Even here there is to be divided between the request and the amendment of divorce to marriage and the battle to completely demolish the foundations of the family classic. " For the benefit of divorce are reports of husbands, bosses really terrible and it affirms the need to modify the rights and duties of spouses, and then turning them into each other's equal for both man and woman. To support the killing of family and marriage is used once again the only ideology, arguing that those forms of culture are wrong because it set up by misogynist men.
short, as is clear from this framework, there is a dichotomy between reality and ideology. Hannah Arendt, who knew a lot of totalitarian doctrines, said that ideology is often a way of not looking at reality. If you think that philosophy is the portrait of the banality of Nazi evil, heinous and cruel men, but to instill calm and convinced that he did the right thing, you realize the power nefarious ideology. Not a theory in itself, but of his frustration and extremism at the expense of factual reality. In a nutshell, I'm talking pure idealization of any project that does not take into account the multiplicity and complexity of the human race.
Without mincing words, it is clear the revolutionary ideology that embraces feminist theory and Marxist communist. Now, communism is not in its foundations the black beast that many believe. I say this as apolitical, eh. The idea of \u200b\u200bcommunism is an idea to mount beautiful, good, fair. Even Marx was a great, a brilliant person who understood how the capitalist system is self-initiated once virtually alone, each time producing wealth and increase value. Marx up front that includes the exploitation of the worker is not a matter of cruelty by the master, but because the system in which the worker has entered is flawed from the beginning, based on capital gains. In addition, the worker develops attachment to the fruit of his labor and so tends to alienate the work that pulls the fruit and that forced him to mechanical and repetitive gestures. This psychological aspect has never been touched by anyone before Marx and is much more important than you think. So the idea of \u200b\u200bimproving the condition of the workers and to curb the negative influences of capitalism is not bad. The problem arises later, in transforming the idea into an ideology. Good addition to the bases of patriarchy theory related to private property and marriage, with subsequent transformation of women and children in possession of goods, the total demonization of capitalism and the intention to establish an egalitarian society such as primitive. Marx asserts, in fact, that if man is completely detached from material things and then wins the selfishness can live without laws and the state. All this is carried out by Marxist doctrine, in which the same Marx ends up not recognize (the emblematic sentence: If this is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist). The friend of Marx, Engels, strongly reaffirms the theory of patriarchy as the beginning of the violence and inequality, the death of the peaceful and perfect matriarchy.
parentheses skinny but I made this clear enough to go to a refutation of the revolutionary ideology feminist. You need to first understand what this blessed matriarchy. As the meaning, "rule of the mother," the matriarchy means a society governed mainly by women. The first proponent of this theory was the Swiss historian Johann Jakob Bachofen, who lived in the second half of the nineteenth century. According to him the matriarchy to the early civilizations was the dominant form of government, then displaced by the violence of their patriarchal system of Indo-European invaders. Historians today, but did not find sufficient evidence in favor of matriarchy described by Bachofen, confirm the existence of an egalitarian society based on primitive communism and matrilinearity. Not a matriarchy, but a collection of clans united by ties of kinship where the descent line is for a mother. These historians acknowledge the important role of women in this culture, referring to the cult of the Mother Goddess and archaeological findings depict that. In addition, there are traces of the sacredness of the female figure in these civilizations also in myths, as pointed out Robert Graves and Marija Gimbutas, and it is clear that at some point the male gods are imposed on those women in society is because the switching from matriarchy to patriarchy. The feminist perspective matriarchy is interpreted as an expression of harmony and equality, as women are by their nature tend spontaneous expression of abundance and to give wisely. The reference to the golden age is obvious, but I think it is more logical to link to this myth of the egalitarian society that the matrilineal true matriarchy. The
matriarchy that we often talk about many followers of the Goddess, emphasizing the positive aspects from the company founded on monotheistic cults of male divinities, can not be a society like that of a golden age. It can not be so for the simple reason that implies the dominance of one sex, female, on the other, thus generating inequality. And I believe that the decline of the matrilineal society based on primitive communism is consequent upon their failure to internal balance between man and women. In fact it is true that the woman in the Neolithic, having active role in agriculture and in the administration of household goods, oat a dominant social role, but this can not be completely positive. Surely, this feature has created some fatal flaws in that society, then exacerbated by the passage of the nomadic civilization in the stable. The woman has created a role of power in a given environment, the family farm, leaving the freedom of human action in other areas. On the one hand it is natural, because the man-woman is different biologically and psychologically. His brain is bigger, even if only slightly, because it has developed more reflective skills and report those instinctive man. In short, man is the most practical thing for hunting and fishing, women are more emotional and industrious, and ready to forge ties and to take care of things and people. Expressing total spontaneity in these natural inclinations, without laws that protect the interests of everyone in the same way the modern state, has created a situation of apparent equilibrium. At the beginning is fine, the men come together and affinity for natural sociability, but in the long evolution undermines the balance. If you do not know you adapt, you're finished. A people does not live forever on agriculture and livestock, or you can move continuously. It is also normal for the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people, in this case women, end up generating the disparity between the various families. That certainly will not if they were always quiet. Conflicts between clans are not unusual thing. Every human being is different and has different needs, while belonging to a common ancestry and culture. Some gap is always created. Then they make new discoveries and increase diversity. The myths to clearly show that initially the woman is considered sacred because the bearer of life. There are stories where women give birth has swallowed a fly or the touch of the wind. All this leads to a weakening of society egalitarian because of the lack of relevance of the male and the excessive importance given to women. Instead of enhancing their diversity, to grow in harmony and fullness, is flattened to a single model the whole civilization. The good about the base of the primitive egalitarian society soon began to waver. In the same religion of the Mother Goddess is a progressive enslavement of the male god against his wife, giving rise to the cults in which man-god lover served as a priestess to the goddess and as a sacrificial offering. At the origin was not. The real primordial religion, followed by eclectic Wicca, see the complementary value of the God and Goddess into a single entity. An egalitarian society existed at the beginning, but the absence of laws that protect both males and females and the same evolutionary process has meant that this model of justice to degenerate matriarchy in the short and then it was finally defeated in patriarchy.
Patriarchy as a model of Indo-European society is certainly not wrong of matriarchy. If everything in society dominated by women focuses on their role, precluding a true free evolutionary growth of both sexes, in that it focuses on the rule of man has opposite problem. It promotes freedom selfishly at the expense of the weakest. People are treated as goods and rights are given on the basis of wealth and power. But this applies not only to men. Even women provided with its own property can establish itself in the society at the expense of others. In Celtic culture and those of strain Nordic women have always retained considerable autonomy, provided, however, that he had a certain social role and power of his property. Among the Germans, for example, that before adopting the Roman administrative system practiced primitive communism, the woman is estimated to be very covenant to be a faithful wife. There is no trace of the famous family of convenience, that is based on marriage influenced by socio-economic needs. This
of legal marriage as the heritage of private property and patriarchy is another thing I want to dispel their feminism. Without a doubt the top men and women are paired in a very free, even with the formation of the first families. But just as one says of the texts of the documents I used for the benefit of matriarchy, marriage in the egalitarian society creates a bond of affection and kinship recognized by clan and used to join multiple clans. The statement made with intent to deny a legal marriage is precisely the effect opposite. However, the marriage was born in primitive society, including die egalitarian and matriarchal, we must come together as a family and build relationships within it. Reports certainly governed by the laws of the clan and religious cults. In fact, the clans have their own political structure, in contrast to what was thought in the past. Are not equivalent to the state, but they have rules. The management of these is usually based on the parent. Matriarchy in this figure is the matriarch, usually the older woman. With regard to the need of religious marriage, the same myths about the Goddess are the sacred marriage between the god and goddess of fertility and rituals involving prostitution sacred. From all this it follows that the social and religious marriage as a bond is a prerogative of civilization and that has always been defined by rules, which apply within the same family of organizations. For the matriarchy rules are decided by women, for men pratriarcato. In both cases, preclude one or the other sex to develop each according to his characteristics, but in harmony. In egalitarian matrilineal society tends to dominate the uniformity of the characters and the flattening of the differences in the patriarchal society dominated by the authority of the man most rich and powerful. In both cases, the freedom, the real one is suffocated. Because every individual is deprived the opportunity to grow as it wishes in respect of the other.
I have nothing to add to the rebuttal. Revisions are based on my logic, but even supporters of the rest of matriarchy have made their case in part from historical sources. As for me I tried to be as honest as possible. One thing I must add in conclusion. An egalitarian society such as feminist and Marxist us we had unfortunately. The former Soviet Union, beyond the ideological and political positions, an example to keep in mind. The example of how a good theory is ideological and used to form a company that did not allow the free creation of the individual, but forced him to adapt to a single model. A model considered just and absolute by people motivated by the best intentions. Passionate people to the communist cause and the poor conditions of workers, but unfortunately no common sense. The same is true for all other schemes that have attempted to create a perfect society and paradise according to their own ideals. Humans are similar but are expressed differently and have different needs. You can not expect that share everything as if nothing had happened, destroying their individuality, as it is wrong not to hamper freedom when no other basic rights. To ensure the peaceful coexistence of different people state exists, as I said in the post on the Kantian moral law. A nation that can not be egalitarian, ethical absolutist, but must allow the woman and man to enjoy the inalienable rights of human beings.
This unfortunately is not always the case, as in the case of the subjugation of women by men. The true feminists, who have asked for equal opportunities between women and men, should not be forgotten and all women should be grateful to him from my heart. But we must not forget that if you are able to obtain the main results is due to the State which has amended the law and monitoring of its implementation, with all its flaws. There is still much to work with, but no State shall come into anarchy and total return the disparities even more than before. In addition, the fault of the little attention paid to the working woman and family who also is the bad feminists attacked the ideology of those who did not want to admit the differences between men and women. A diversity that makes women unique and special and perfect as is. A woman who truly wish to realize a man does not need to pretend and use their body deciding the rules of sale.
In conclusion, I recommend to all those that illuminate the immense heard of feminism, to pay attention to take it as gospel ideology. So as to believe all the doctrines who advocate the free and happy society par excellence.
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVbn8qlMisMA2RFHDwx.; _ylu = = X3oDMTExZ281dWU3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG 11rmm0su6/EXP = 1286292583 / ** http% 3A / / it.wikipedia.org / wiki / Feminism
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVSS8qlMqegAv51HDwx.; _ylu = = X3oDMTEya3ZjMGdhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMjQEY29sbwN1a2wEdnRpZAMEbANXUzE-/SIG 13af3h7nk/EXP = 1286292498 / ** http% 3A / / annamariamangia.splinder.com/post/22205884 / Abortion 2Bnel%%% 2Bpensiero 2Bfemminis
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVbn8qlMisMA5xFHDwx.; _ylu = = X3oDMTExNTd1cWNnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG 121kidmsb/EXP = 1286292583 / ** http% 3A / / ita.anarchopedia.org / anarcho-feminism
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVbn8qlMisMA6xFHDwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTEycTF0bG8xBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTAEY29sbwN1a2wEdnRpZAMEbANXUzE-/SIG=11qmu4n57/EXP=1286292583/**http%3A//ita.anarchopedia.org/femminismo
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVRY86lMPv8Asi5HDwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTExZ281dWU3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=11sia5fvl/EXP=1286292696/**http%3A//it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarcato
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVRY86lMPv8AtC5HDwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTExMzE5c2gxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=12bs1qdht/EXP=1286292696/**http%3A//cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/italia/donne07.htm
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVRY86lMPv8Ati5HDwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTExbnE3c3ZvBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=125fa8v5q/EXP=1286292696/**http%3A//questionemaschile.forumfree.it/%3Ft=887461
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVRY86lMPv8AvC5HDwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTExcXM3dGdtBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=12dnh3j5v/EXP=1286292696/**http%3A//www.homolaicus.com/storia/antica/matriarcato/8.htm
http://it.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVTg86lMWgEB_TNHDwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTEydHM2NG04BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTgEY29sbwN1a2wEdnRpZAMEbANXUzE-/SIG=12qm39dvd/EXP=1286292832/**http%3A//ninomalgeri.blogspot.com/2009/12/il-matriarcato-e-internet.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment