Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: "Victorian Feminism"

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 02:22 AM
    Subrace
    The Other Seedline
    Location
    Granby Dookey of Lindstedtia
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Politics
    No-bless O'Bleeg
    Posts
    811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post "Victorian Feminism"

    This deserves its own thread, as I have been meaning to discuss "Victorian feminism" with the mixed-up mamzers who accuse me of advocating it.

    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=35017&page=2

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Interesting that Carrigan, a feminist of sorts (perhaps in the Victorian sense, I'm not sure) enjoys destroying the illusions that are the foundations for male chivalry (what's left of it) which can serve well to the advantage of women, as compared in cultures where women aren't held on pedestals (er, Islam, for example?)
    As I have told you previously, I do not identify as a "feminist." This is because identifying oneself as a "feminist" nowadays automatically brands one -- for lack of a more rudimentary term -- what you'd call a "Victorian feminist." Perchance you misread a snide comment of mine concerning "Victorian feminism," as I also noted earlier.


    "Male chivalry" offers "advantages" only to weak women who are willing to play up their "victim" status to gain superficial "power." It is a hindrance for strong, self-reliant women who are not satisfied with concessions made out of pity.

    Relentless conditioning to be a perpetual victim is hardly "empowering." The all-women-as-victims-who-need-constant-protection mentality lies at the heart of victim (or "Victorian," if you prefer) feminist "liberation" (liberated to be what? Rape victims and nothing but. Hah, an unintentional rhyme) and garden-variety male chauvinism.

    Additionally, "male chivalry" and victim feminism presuppose the treatment of all women as equals -- another aspect in which these supposed opposites intersect.

    Societies in which women, as a class, are mistreated are not the ones in which "male chivalry" is alien (it'd interest you to know that chivalry, in its proper medieval sense, is a concept heavy in Arab influence) but the ones in which -- avec ou sans "pedestal" -- women are treated as a class.

    A fine line separates the belief that every woman should be treated as a "lady" and the belief that every woman should be treated as a slave.

    A "healthy society" (to use a phrase that doubtlessly resonates with many people here) is one in which it is recognized that common whores, "breeding stock" and capable women differ from each other -- and that each category has its place.


    Does anyone still think I am a "Victorian feminist"? If so, let me know. To the detriment of my opinion of humanity, it won't be the first time this accusation has been thrown at me.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 at 12:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    Quote Originally Posted by Abby Normal
    Relentless conditioning to be a perpetual victim is hardly "empowering." The all-women-as-victims-who-need-constant-protection mentality lies at the heart of victim (or "Victorian," if you prefer) feminist "liberation"
    On the other hand, this idea that women must be independent and not protected has resulted in a great increase in crime against women.
    I can only conclude that many men are thinking 'well if they don't want to be protected, then they don't deserve protection, so we might as well do what we like with them'.
    When people become more brutish, the physically weaker will certainly lose, and not many people would argue that women are stronger than men.

    In other words, if women don't want physical protection, then they will ultimately be treated as slaves.

    Does anyone still think I am a "Victorian feminist"?
    What do you mean by that term? I would understand it to mean the feminism which involves men holding women in reverence and awe (I'm intentionally exaggerating here, but I think that's essentially what it is), as if goddesses which shouldn't be touched, for fear of breaking them; but that women should be devoted mothers and husbands, and very intelligent, capable of outwitting men in political discussions etc.

    I think it is fundamentally the same as modern feminism in the sense that women are treated as if they have more worth than men; the difference is that modern feminism treats women as if they can do anything men can do, even physically demanding things. Modern feminists have, in trying to be men, only succeeded in losing any feminine virtues they might have had, rather than gaining the intended masculinity (i.e. they've degraded themselves). I'm also inclined to think (and I've heard this from others too) that women actually exercised more power in the older feminism than in the modern, the latter of which was intended to 'liberate' them more.

    There seems to have been a recent trend back to the older sort, as women realise that they've been conned, and that the modern variety goes very much against their nature, what they are clearly designed for.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Imperator X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 4th, 2009 @ 02:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Subrace
    Nordid/Atlantid.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Looking
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Hindu - Shakta
    Posts
    794
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    Victorian Feminism? Do you mean like Dunce caps and paddling?
    SVMDEVSSVMCAESARSVMCAELVMETINFERNVM

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 02:22 AM
    Subrace
    The Other Seedline
    Location
    Granby Dookey of Lindstedtia
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Politics
    No-bless O'Bleeg
    Posts
    811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    I mean, like, what's known among more enlightened circles as "Radical-Cultural" (and often just "Cultural") feminism. "Victorian feminism" by any other name smells as fucked up.

  5. #5
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 5th, 2012 @ 07:07 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Metropolis
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    6,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    Quote Originally Posted by Abby Normal
    I mean, like, what's known among more enlightened circles as "Radical-Cultural" (and often just "Cultural") feminism. "Victorian feminism" by any other name smells as fucked up.
    Why can't females be content with the role nature gave them?

    Haven't seen you around lately. What brings you back?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 02:22 AM
    Subrace
    The Other Seedline
    Location
    Granby Dookey of Lindstedtia
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Politics
    No-bless O'Bleeg
    Posts
    811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    'Lo again, NorPal.

    Don't be so certain that "nature" (as opposed to, say, your self-serving worldview) "gave" all females the "role" to which you refer.

    I left 'cause I was exasperated with what passed as "debating" you people, and now I'm back to vent - and with a vengeance.

  7. #7
    Senior Member CountBloodSpawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 18th, 2006 @ 01:29 AM
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    northeast
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    dark sith lord
    Politics
    National-Socialism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    233
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    there is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to stretch her wings,go to college and accomplish a great career for herself, just the same there is also nothing wrong with a woman hooking up with a sweetheart and raising a great family either

    a woman who can balance both of these things is the ultimate ideal

  8. #8
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Smile Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    "Male chivalry" offers "advantages" only to weak women who are willing to play up their "victim" status to gain superficial "power." It is a hindrance for strong, self-reliant women who are not satisfied with concessions made out of pity.
    You equate self-reliance with strength? You're going to be in for a shock if you ever have a family. Chivalry in its purest form is not about concessions being made out of pity.... its a form of caring and respect.... of believing in something bigger than oneself.

    I see self-reliance and being "hard" as weakness.... it takes great strength to allow oneself to be vulnerable and submissive. It takes great strength to be soft and not break if someone tries to take advantage in a negative way. But I view it this way.....

    Hard = brittle... easily broken.
    Soft = flexible.... never breaks, only bends.

    Softness by nature is stronger, and more resilient. This is women's true nature I believe.

    A fine line separates the belief that every woman should be treated as a "lady" and the belief that every woman should be treated as a slave.
    Yes. That's why women shouldn't attempt to "earn" respect and being thought of as a lady.... we should command it. Its our right.


    A "healthy society" (to use a phrase that doubtlessly resonates with many people here) is one in which it is recognized that common whores, "breeding stock" and capable women differ from each other -- and that each category has its place.
    Imo, a healthy society takes care of its own.... therefore there would be no whores or "breeding stock". Only unique women, who are part of the team. Whores are only hurting, self-destructive women after all.... and need guidance and healing.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Imperator X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 4th, 2009 @ 02:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Subrace
    Nordid/Atlantid.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Looking
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Hindu - Shakta
    Posts
    794
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: "Victorian Feminism"

    It's like that parable in the Tao Te Ching, which states that the mighty imposing mountain will eventually be worn away by the constant, and resilient flowing water. The latter of which is a feminine element.






    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    You equate self-reliance with strength? You're going to be in for a shock if you ever have a family. Chivalry in its purest form is not about concessions being made out of pity.... its a form of caring and respect.... of believing in something bigger than oneself.

    I see self-reliance and being "hard" as weakness.... it takes great strength to allow oneself to be vulnerable and submissive. It takes great strength to be soft and not break if someone tries to take advantage in a negative way. But I view it this way.....

    Hard = brittle... easily broken.
    Soft = flexible.... never breaks, only bends.

    Softness by nature is stronger, and more resilient. This is women's true nature I believe.

    Yes. That's why women shouldn't attempt to "earn" respect and being thought of as a lady.... we should command it. Its our right.


    Imo, a healthy society takes care of its own.... therefore there would be no whores or "breeding stock". Only unique women, who are part of the team. Whores are only hurting, self-destructive women after all.... and need guidance and healing.
    SVMDEVSSVMCAESARSVMCAELVMETINFERNVM

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 272
    Last Post: Thursday, May 16th, 2019, 06:37 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, June 16th, 2018, 01:02 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Sunday, June 3rd, 2018, 07:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •