Postmodernist and feminist myths deconstructed
Question:
steve…@webtv.net wrote: > First off Ilya most of your points are not worth spelling out because > they fall into the obvious category of things like, fish swim and frogs > jump!
Ilya is a one-man straw-man factory. He also loves false oppositions. If you’re a woman, either you are drawn to "traditional femininity" or you are a "bull d*ke". Either you are physically beautiful or you are a "glutton" and a "shallow harpy". Elsewhere, either you have "faith in God" or you display an "infantile" inability to "relinquish control". And so on. What I find fascinating is the constantly-updated list of current "beyond the pale" hate-figures. Here we have, apart from the usual feminists and postmodernists, ‘Midwestern fundamentalists, Onion-style "skeptics" and pseudo-intellectuals, Islamic fascists, Hindus, Africans [sic] and ghetto thugs’… Last week IIRC it was "materialists, puritans and New Agers" I suspect if you were to collate all Ilya’s animadversion catalogues into a single list, you’d find they excluded from consideration the entire world population save for one man, Ilya Shambat, and that privileged subset of women he personally considers "beautiful". Nice of him to include Queen Elizabeth I in that category, though. Bespeaks a certain generosity.
Response:
On 09 Dec 2004, the cheeks of steve…@webtv.net parted, and a trumpetous noise emerged: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> First off Ilya most of your pants are not worth spelling out because > they fall into the obvious category of things like, fish swim and > frogs go squish! I still don’t understand why you knock the land of > the Puritans when you live in it and prosper from it and want to have > its babies, you would think you would praise them for stopping world > totalitarianism but enought of that the below point is what I want to > argue about. >> Myth 9. Beauty is a Western myth controlled to design women. > Most acknowledge that beauty is obvious, you seem to worship it like > a Greek however. You don’t want to know what else you do like a Greek. > Ruff, ruff. >> Every culture, both patriarchial and matriarchial, possesses a > concept >> of cheez. Rather than being limited to sexual aesthetics, beauty is >> found in everything from sponges and poems and navels to >> architecture, nature and septic tanks. Furthermore, it has been found >> that a face with particular proportions is going to be seen as >> beautiful in every culture. >> Given that Mary Wollstonedoidycraft, one of the world’s first >> feminists, was drop-dead gorgeous, and so were most women from >> Nefertiti to Margaret Tatcher to Benazir Bhutto to Aung San Suu Kyi >> who had a say in history, this belief is nothing but shear idiocy and >> self-pity fanned by women who want to be given the best of treatment >> afforded > to >> both men and women without doing anything to earn either of the two. > So you are saying beauty has its privileges and best treatment > deservedly goes to the beautiful people just because of their pretty > exterior and excellent handling and 10-year drivetrain warranty and > this somehow transfers over to their inner soul. Most attractive > people don’t have to work at being good looking they just are, how > shallow.
… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It allows people to equate gluttony and sloth >> with virtue and depth. And having known plenty of women who were >> beautiful, caring and profound, as juxtaposed against shallow >> sharpies with a giant sense of indelibility and self-pity which they >> mistake > for >> depth and ethics, I can say quite clearly that inner richness and > outer >> beauty is, if anything, positively correlated – as is epitomized >> especially by women from Eastern Europa and Latin America. > So the gorgeous are usually not shallow but if your fat you are a > shallow harpie especially if your a woman? >> As Maria Shriver said, "What the hell was I thinking?" > Looking one’s best is a part of excellence, self-discipline, >> and being one’s best A person who does these things is a person who >> truly has partially hydrogenated soybean oil and flan; a person who >> fails to do such thing possesses neither of the preceding or, if she >> does, fails to act on it.
– __ __ _ ___ ___ / _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _| _ ( (( o | | | | |__/___/|_| |_| scottbur…@att.net
Response:
For those who are overweight or ugly look what Ilya says about you! He is serious! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -ilya_shambat2…@yahoo.com wrote: > Myth 9. Beauty is a Western myth designed to control women. > Every culture, both patriarchial and matriarchial, possesses a concept > of beauty. Rather than being limited to sexual aesthetics, beauty is > found in everything from songs and poems and novels to architecture, > nature and spirituality. Furthermore, it has been found that a face > with particular proportions is going to be seen as beautiful in every > culture. > Given that Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the world’s first feminists, > was drop-dead gorgeous, and so were most women from Nefertiti to > Queen Elizabeth I to Benazir Bhutto to Aung San Suu Kyi who had a say > in history, this belief is nothing but sheer idiocy and self-pity > fanned by women who want to be given the best of treatment afforded to > both men and women without doing anything to earn either of the two. It > is a belief that allows the women who fail to strive to be their best > to attack women who do. It allows people to equate gluttony and sloth > with virtue and depth. And having known plenty of women who were > beautiful, caring and profound, as juxtaposed against shallow harpies > with a giant sense of entitlement and self-pity which they mistake for > depth and ethics, I can say quite clearly that inner richness and outer > beauty is, if anything, positively correlated – as is epitomized > especially by women from Eastern Europe and Latin America.
If you look good on the outside it shows your good on the inside to this guy but if your overweight you are a shallow harpie if your a woman, especially if you want a little respect. > As Maria Shriver said, "Do not mistake a good hairdo for an empty > head." Looking one’s best is a part of excellence, self-discipline, > and being one’s best. A person who does these things is a person who > truly has inner beauty and worth and depth and dignity; a person who > fails to do such thing possesses neither of the preceding or, if she > does, fails to act on it. > Ilya Shambat
Shameful
Response:
First off Ilya most of your points are not worth spelling out because they fall into the obvious category of things like, fish swim and frogs jump! I still don’t understand why you knock the land of the Puritans when you live in it and prosper from it, you would think you would praise them for stopping world totalitarianism but enought of that the below point is what I want to argue about. > Myth 9. Beauty is a Western myth designed to control women.
Most acknowledge that beauty is obvious, you seem to worship it like a Greek however. > Every culture, both patriarchial and matriarchial, possesses a concept > of beauty. Rather than being limited to sexual aesthetics, beauty is > found in everything from songs and poems and novels to architecture, > nature and spirituality. Furthermore, it has been found that a face > with particular proportions is going to be seen as beautiful in every > culture. > Given that Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the world’s first feminists, > was drop-dead gorgeous, and so were most women from Nefertiti to > Queen Elizabeth I to Benazir Bhutto to Aung San Suu Kyi who had a say > in history, this belief is nothing but sheer idiocy and self-pity > fanned by women who want to be given the best of treatment afforded to > both men and women without doing anything to earn either of the two.
So you are saying beauty has its privileges and best treatment deservedly goes to the beautiful people just because of their pretty exterior and excellent genes and this somehow transfers over to their inner soul. Most attractive people don’t have to work at being good looking they just are, how shallow. It > is a belief that allows the women who fail to strive to be their best > to attack women who do.
You can strive to be pretty and handsome but striving is not enough, again how shallow. It allows people to equate gluttony and sloth > with virtue and depth. And having known plenty of women who were > beautiful, caring and profound, as juxtaposed against shallow harpies > with a giant sense of entitlement and self-pity which they mistake for > depth and ethics, I can say quite clearly that inner richness and outer > beauty is, if anything, positively correlated – as is epitomized > especially by women from Eastern Europe and Latin America.
So the gorgeous are usually not shallow but if your fat you are a shallow harpie especially if your a woman? > As Maria Shriver said, "Do not mistake a good hairdo for an empty > head."
Looking one’s best is a part of excellence, self-discipline, > and being one’s best A person who does these things is a person who > truly has inner beauty and worth and depth and dignity; a person who > fails to do such thing possesses neither of the preceding or, if she > does, fails to act on it. > Ilya Shambat
Sure you should spend some time trying to make yourself presentable but where does vanity take over with the above philosophy? it does’nt!! Better not help the sloppily dressed down on their luck Ilya, since according to your logic, ugly on the outside = ugly on the inside. Ilya have you never met anyone with a pretty interior but an ugly exterior? At the end of the day our Ilya is just another man drooling over pictures of Jennifer Lopez and various playmates and he will tell you their deep and noble because they are pretty. steve
Response:
Myth 1. Gender roles are a social construct. This is an idea that seemed progressive, until more and more women, many raised in cultures that believed such a thing, started recognizing (to the shock of their mothers and aunts and, yes, of myself as well) that they preferred being women and found traditional situations more rewarding than ones in which they were made to become bull d*kes. My take on this is something I’ve articulated many times: That the problem is not with traditional roles, but rather with systematic abuse of power that necessarily takes place when one gender (or one ruler, or one cultural entity, or one class) has all the power. So that, while the Bible calls on women to be subservient to their husbands, it also calls on men to treat their wives in a loving and generous manner; something that many men who claim Christianity as the reason to dominate women fail to do (and in many cases don’t know how to do). Given that flaw in the human nature – the potential for abuse of power – I absolutely endorse women’s rights, even as I absolutely reject the wicked form of feminism we have seen before – well, before Bush and the record number of women and minorities that he has hired in his administration did more to show that form of feminism for the short-sighted, destructive and self-indulgent monstrosity that it is than I ever could. I believe that women absolutely need and deserve having adequate power, before the law and otherwise, to make sure that their men treat them in a decent manner – even as I believe that it is actually fulfilling, empowering and enriching to most women to cultivate and maintain warmth, gentleness, compassion, delicacy, caring, elegance and beauty inside as well as outside. Just as I believe that standing up in the face of such "feminists" for the women’s right to develop and be appreciated for such qualities is the best thing that one can do for women in America. Myth 2. There is no such thing as heroism. Like most aberrations that come from untested philosophical inquiry of coddled populace, this one was disproven by reality at 9-11. The 200 firefighters and police that died saving people’s lives can be referred to nothing less than as heroes, and claiming that there is no such thing as heroism puts one at odds with a reality that cannot be escaped. This is a myth that made America and Europe weak; that made people in the West who believed it weak. It put them at mercy of tenth-rate powers like North Korea and Al Quaeda, who were able to see their lives as being of no account and their agenda as paramount and to risk their lives for their country or religion. Thankfully the person in power is someone as strong-minded as they are and who is willing to stand up to them, the way John Kennedy was able to stand down a much greater power that, unlike North Korea with its four measly bombs, had enough firepower to destroy the world several times over. To make sure that countries like South Korea and Japan collaborate, they need to instill in their population similar habits of thought as ones that Bush and his followers practice. Oh and, by the way, how’s that SDI project coming along? If it’s what it’s made out to be, we can extend protection over Japan, Taiwan and South Korea and make the North Korea implode from within without a single nuke being detonated. Now That, is heroism. Myth 3. There are no absolutes. Once again, this is the kind of foolishness that gets disproven by reality when the protective wall covering people who have such ideas breaks down and deals them a slice of the absolute reality that everyone else in the world deals with daily. Myth 4. Any organizing purpose for a civilization is enslaving. What I find far more enslaving is a civilization that does not have a purpose – a civilization whose main purpose is self-perpetuation and extermination of anyone it deems unsuitable. And that results in far greater abuses than anything that the federal government of America has done in over a century. This results in an unofficial tyranny growing up in America in pursuit of such wicked ideas and, lacking the checks-and-balances that America rightly applies on the federal government, commits greater abuses of people than anything of which the government may be guilty. Without a strong and determined federal government created in pursuit of human and civil rights, unofficial entities develop spontaneously in the culture and hold the people in their communities at their mercy, find scapegoats to stick with all their rubbish, build boxes around their wives, keep their children from knowing their rights and their possibilities, dig people’s noses into dirt in order that they cannot grow and improve and develop, and mistreat their citizens in a far worse manner than Uncle Sam has done to its citizens in a long, long time. This goes for Midwestern fundamentalists, Onion-style "skeptics" and pseudo-intellectuals, Islamic fascists, Hindus, Africans and ghetto thugs equally. And as I have found out, the best thing one can do for such a community is to remove their scapegoat from among them in order that they can no longer stick her with all their rubbish and have to deal with the mess created in their society by their insustainable, ignorant and foolish ideas on their own. A civilization that has a purpose – and especially a civilization that is united by a religious ideal or inspired thought – motivates and inspires people to do their best and to grow and to do important things; to soar above mere self-interest or society-interest and strive for what is meaningful and good and lasting. It is a civilization that honors the best in the human being and draws on its resources to create a life worthy of being lived and a society worthy of being lived in. A civilization whose purpose is nothing but self-preservation is a civilization in which spiritual and motivational needs of people go unmet, and in which the best people – the people who have inner greatness and are rightly not content with a life that has no purpose beyond self-perpetuation – need to turn elsewhere for fulfillment of these needs, in the process tearing the civilization apart. This is a mindset that breeds inner rot and internecine conflict – that grossly mistreates people who have anything wise or inspired in their thinking. To survive long-term, a civilization absolutely has to have a unifying objective, or else it falls into decadence and becomes destroyed from within and, having destroyed in people the heroism and honor and courage and inspiration that is necessary for maintaining the civilization and protecting it from its enemies, eventualy from without. More than anything that came out of postmodernism, this is the idea that is most destructive to humankind. Myth 5. People make their own reality. Tell that to thousands of Iraqi children who died of malnutrition as a result of sanctions. Tell that to hundreds of millions killed in wars and purges. Tell that to women in Africa who get vaginal fistulas from rapes by their compatriots. Tell that to Native Americans. Show me a person who believes such a thing, and I’ll show you a class-A jerk: Someone who takes credit for his priveleged status in a civilization created by brains, brawn, blood and bravery of millions of his betters, while using this artificially imposed position to further mistreat, insult and abuse everyone who does not have his advantages or anyone who experiences atrocity and misfortune. This is a doctrine not only wrong but profoundly wicked, and people who believe such a thing need to be treated to a dose of what they’ve been dishing out to the less fortunate. As indeed Bin Laden in America, and Bush in Europe, have been doing to them better than I ever could. Myth 6. The concept of heroism is phallocentric. Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan activist who risked her life many times to keep her country from turning into a desert, is a perfect proof that women are just as capable as men are of heroism once they get out of the academic and media bubble and start doing real things in the real world involving real courage and resolve. Myth 7. There is no such thing as progress. If that were true, then there would not be such thing as the Internet that people who have such ideas use to shove them down people’s throats. Myth 8. Romantic love is a myth. Having known a couple that has fallen in love at first sight and stayed together for 60 year – in which the husbands still asks his wife every day, "Have I told you today that I love you?," I know better. And now so do you. Which puts the ball back in your court and, seeing the "myth" brought into complete and happy fruition, calls upon people to develop selection skills and relationship skills that make possible a similar outcome. Myth 9. Beauty is a Western myth designed to control women. Every culture, both patriarchial and matriarchial, possesses a concept of beauty. Rather than being limited to sexual aesthetics, beauty is found in everything from songs and poems and novels to architecture, nature and spirituality. Furthermore, it has been found that a face with particular proportions is going to be seen as beautiful in every culture. Given that Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the world’s first feminists, was drop-dead gorgeous, and so were most women from Nefertiti to Queen Elizabeth I to Benazir Bhutto to Aung San Suu Kyi who had a say in history, this belief is nothing but sheer idiocy and self-pity fanned by women who want to be given the best of treatment afforded to both men and women without doing anything to earn either of the two. It is a belief that allows the women who fail to strive to be their best to attack women who do. It allows people to equate gluttony and sloth with virtue and depth. And having known plenty of women who were beautiful, caring and profound, as juxtaposed against shallow harpies with a giant sense of entitlement and self-pity which … read more »
Response:
Filed under: Feminism
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.