RE: More Thoughts on Women, Oppression and Porn
I have two issues with her proposed test. The first is that it seems to suggest that "power" is something given by others or granted by society. It's not! Power is something that is assumed. Power results from one "owning" oneself completely. Power is inherent to the individual and is either exercised or abandoned by choice.
I really could hardly disagree more on this point. As an individual outside of the context provided by society, any person has almost no power beyond their direct physical capacity to manipulate the world around them.
It is society and not ourselves that grants any degree of meaningful power -that is social currency. It seems absurd on its face to suggest that power is an innate feature of a person rather than something bestowed by society; it is a direct contradiction of the core of feminist and Marxist theory.
Do politicians end up in positions of power because they are intrinsically powerful? Or is it because they understand how to game the incentive structure enforced by society in order to maximize personal gain?
It is obviously the latter, if the efforts of the ruling class to maintain power ceased, hierarchical domination of society by that class would end soon thereafter since they have no intrinsic power, but rather leverage their social power to maintain control.
In much the same sense that politicians dominate society with the incentive structures in place, so too has the patriarchy dominated both men and women by enforcing the ideals of masculinity and femininity which have done great harm to us all. To suggest that gender relations can be reduced to our evolutionary context is to deny the social context which we are all living through this very instant.
I believe that "power" in this case, was meant to refer specifically and perhaps only to the female sex appeal discussed early in the article. To recap, the ogled woman should be perceived to have power over the ogler. Ogled women who admit that they are in a powerful position in relation to oglers can be said to own that specific power. I don't think the author's intention was to reduce the absolute meaning of the word "power," but only to refer to a certain type that is often misunderstood. The social currency wielded by politicians and based on built reputation simply isn't the sort of power being referred to here.
If, solely in the situation 'female sex appeal', a person, the ogler, is demonstrating their power, how are we expecting the ogled to demonstrate their authority in the situation? Or, how should they respond to emphasize their power in the situation if their desired outcome is to have the ogler stop because the ogled is uncomfortable?
Nobody is entitled to a lack of discomfort.
You demonstrate your power the same way that a desirable engineer who is being pursued by an employer demonstrates his/her power. You name your "price" and accept the offer, or you decline the offer and walk away. Either way, you are in control.
By "naming your price", I don't necessarily mean truly selling sex, so please don't go there. I simplify mean getting something valuable in return for the attention you are receiving. There are a million ways to do that. The make-up tutorial here on Steemit is a recent example of one creative and effective way. Do you blame her for exploiting her got given assets to get upvotes? If so, do you blame Michael Jordan for exploiting his? If not, what's the qualitative difference between the two? In my view, there is none.
This is a great question for @sean-king, who will answer it better than I can. One ad I happened to see on youtube showed a female photographer who began taking pictures of the cat-callers. I don't think that's a great example of owning power, though. I'd describe that more as turning the tables. I will say that I relate to being uncomfortable with that kind of attention and have had some pretty far fetched experiences, even as a child, where I felt I was hated when it turned out I just stood out in a provocative way that wasn't my fault. Coming to view that as power instead of feeling victimized is one of the best things a person can do for their self-esteem, I believe. Just refuse to think of it as them making you uncomfortable. You are captivating. You are enchanting.
"Power can be taken, but not given. The process of the taking is empowerment in itself." --Gloria Steinem
In making this statement, Gloria was repeating a common aphorism, and it's an aphorism for a reason--because it's true.
You seem to confuse power with leadership or influence. Power confers leadership and influence. Leadership and influence do not confer power. One cannot be a leader without first being powerful--without first having the physical and mental constitution capable of sustaining the burdens of leadership.
Power is ultimately about self-mastery. Anyone who has mastered the self is powerful. So much so that the empowered hermit master is a mythical archetype--Jesus, Buddha, Yoda, Obi Wan Kenobi, etc.
So, society doesn't grant power. Society only grants leadership. And except for corrupt systems, it grants leadership only to the powerful--those who have mastered their self.
The "societal context" of which you speak is itself a result of the "evolutionary context" of which I speak. Take some away from studying feminism and Marx and read up on evolutionary biology. You'll be astounded by its findings, and by how well-supported they are.
Whether and how they choose to use or exploit this power is a differen story
@sean-king says,
Leadership IS power. Power is not a property of a person, it is a feature that arises as a result of social context.
I understand evolutionary biology and I don't believe it in any way contradicts feminism or Marxism, nor do I see why anybody else would. Like @veralynn said:
I could hardly have stated it better myself. One of the things that makes human beings so extraordinary is that we have transcended the state of nature and no longer must depend on our sexuality or physical prowess as a hunter/gatherer to survive, and our social interactions ought to, and should reflect that. We aren't cave-people anymore, and it is time to act like it.
Because you believe that power comes from others, you will never have said power, and you will never be a leader, my friend. Leadership is to power. Leadership is the result of exercising power.
That is fine with me, I'm an anarchist. I seek neither to rule nor to be ruled. It is hierarchy itself which has poisoned society.
Read up on the latest scientific studies regarding free will, or rather the absence thereof. We are definitely slaves to the unconscious. The only debate among scientists these days on this subject centers around whether we are completely under the control of the unconscious, or just mostly so.
This is incredibly important. We are not slaves to the subconscious.
Yes, we are, you are a monkey, 99% of your brain is a monkey's brain,
only a fraction of it holds what you would call, your intellectual self.
You just dont like to see that. You prefer to see yourself as something way above a monkey,
when in reality you arent. The only reason you make the FP is because feminazi number one in the house @stellabelle supports your "work". Deal with it
Dear lord, thank you for this reply.