Feminism

[thestalkinghead]

i just said that maybe it was a separate discussion 

[thestalkinghead]

To be honest I haven't come across this tone issue you're pointing out.  I don't think I've really seen it anywhere, including this thread.

well maybe it's a perspective thing, if you totally agree with something it's hard to see it from someone elses perspective, religious extremists probably think they are they are being totally reasonable and that people who disagree with them are just being concern trolls, when they might actually agree with them but not their approach 

[osmosisch]

[Expletive deleted]

[Sententia]

I agree that it's about perspective, but I don't think mine is the illusory one.  It seems to me that people who haven't encountered feminism feel that because feminists are saying not being a feminist is a bad thing, that they're under attack, when in reality the situation hasn't been fully grasped; feminism hasn't been fully understood by them.  Feminists are going to have to keep saying not being a feminist is a bad thing because that's how change happens, and people who are not feminists are just going to have to get over their offended perspective.  It's a necessity in this argument for us feminists to continue saying not being a feminist is a bad thing.  I mean we can word that mission statement differently so it's not as direct but it will always remain the core point of any feminist perspective, which may be uncomfortable for some people to internalize.

[thestalkinghead]

I agree that it's about perspective, but I don't think mine is the illusory one.  It seems to me that people who haven't encountered feminism feel that because feminists are saying not being a feminist is a bad thing, that they're under attack, when in reality the situation hasn't been fully grasped; feminism hasn't been fully understood by them.  Feminists are going to have to keep saying not being a feminist is a bad thing because that's how change happens, and people who are not feminists are just going to have to get over their offended perspective.  It's a necessity in this argument for us feminists to continue saying not being a feminist is a bad thing.  I mean we can word that mission statement differently so it's not as direct but it will always remain the core point of any feminist perspective, which may be uncomfortable for some people to internalize.

but if you have come to the conclusion that women should be held in equal regard as men without feminism, saying "you are a bad person if you aren't a feminist" sounds alot like "if you aren't a christian you are a bad person"

 

why do i have to be a feminist to think women are equal to men? ("you are automatically a feminist if...." statements annoy me)

 

maybe i am just arguing for independent ethics there, but i think insulting people will automatically put people on the defensive, so feminists should try not to insult people if they actually want to be listened to and taken seriously 

[osmosisch]

- You should be a christian if you believe that Christianity is true

- You should be a feminist if you believe men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

[Malice Song]

But look at the last three pages of the thread. I've gotten a lot out of the last three pages, but I can see how some of the people here could get tired of having all of their arguements responded to with "I am not being angry, you are, Mr. Angry pants."

I could get just as much out of the last three pages if it was in a separate thread, and then when someone explains the difference between sex and gender, we can continue the discussion. If someone else insists on responding with a call for a more civil tone, we can link them to the other thread.

After looking at the last three pages, can you see why that might be valuable?

 

Well just look at what happens here right now in the company of people I'd assume are all very much on board with the goal. Maybe the notion is not only very much worth addressing, but also an important part of the topic.

[Sententia]

why do i have to be a feminist to think women are equal to men?

 

Because that's literally the entire definition of feminism.  It's literally a word that means that exact sentence and nothing more or less.

[osmosisch]

Because that's literally the entire definition of feminism.  It's literally a word that means that exact sentence and nothing more or less.

No, weren't you paying attention, there's all these alleged people who are like 'gender should be erased yo' and they're angry all the time.

[clyde]

thestalkinghead, in my fan-fic version of this thread you were the most prominent Feminist the world ever knew, but after a traumatic accident you became its most outspoken dissenter.  Using your intimate understanding of the many challenges and inherent qualities of Feminist argument, you made your way onto the internet-forums to demonstrate the most subtle and covert methods of derailment you had witnessed on the throne. 

I'm still working on the ending, I'm thinking that you should pull some ICP shit and announce that the Dark Carnival is actually Christian evangelism (but you know, whatever the Feminist version of that is).

[Brannigan]

thestalkinghead, in my fan-fic version of this thread you were the most prominent Feminist the world ever knew, but after a traumatic accident you became its most outspoken dissenter.  Using your intimate understanding of the many challenges and inherent qualities of Feminist argument, you made your way onto the internet-forums to demonstrate the most subtle and covert methods of derailment you had witnessed on the throne. 

I'm still working on the ending, I'm thinking that you should pull some ICP shit and announce that the Dark Carnival is actually Christian evangelism (but you know, whatever the Feminist version of that is).

Huggalo fo life yo.

[thestalkinghead]

Because that's literally the entire definition of feminism.  It's literally a word that means that exact sentence and nothing more or less.

but it could also be part of humanism or rationalism or many other philosophical views and i wouldn't say i was one of them either

[osmosisch]

It's true that feminism can be seen as a subset of other rational/egalitarian -isms. Why does this matter to you?

[Sententia]

Sure, but the difference is that humanism has a broader definition which happens to include the sentence "men and women are to be regarded equally".  Feminism is a word that means literally only that one sentence, no more and no less.  If a person fits into that description they are a feminist, regardless of whether they even know the term or if they're an alien from another planet which also happens to have two genders or whatever.

[thestalkinghead]

It's true that feminism can be seen as a subset of other rational/egalitarian -isms. Why does this matter to you?

 

 

Sure, but the difference is that humanism has a broader definition which happens to include the sentence "men and women are to be regarded equally".  Feminism is a word that means literally only that one sentence, no more and no less.  If a person fits into that description they are a feminist, regardless of whether they even know the term or if they're an alien from another planet which also happens to have two genders or whatever.

 

i guess it's because feminism includes the movement and the people within the movement as well as just the pure definition of the word, i could totally agree with the definition but not everything within the movement

 

edit: sort of like how i could say i agree with some things in the mens rights movement, like equal rights for parents and equal maternity leave etc. but i wouldn't say i was one of them because i have heard a lot of bad things about them

[osmosisch]

Feminism does not include the movement, that would be 'the feminist movement.' Which consists of a bunch of people that interpret the core principle of feminism in lots of different ways. As people are wont to do. That does not change the core principle and definition, as stated.

[thestalkinghead]

well i suppose i should say "i am a feminist, but not part of the feminist movement"

[BigJKO]

I think you should try saying that in a less angry tone.

[Roderick]

Good! Discussion ended! This has only been somewhat frustration and tedious.

[thestalkinghead]

I think you should try saying that in a less angry tone.

how would you suggest i present my position in an less angry tone? i would be happy to hear some constructive criticism about how i could get my point across without initiating a defensive position from the people i am talking to

[osmosisch]

I don't think your tone is angry at all, dunno where that idea comes from. Frustratingly obtuse, yes, but that's hardly a tone thing.

[BigJKO]

I Was Only Kidding! Really, I can't see how anything at all in the last pages can be considered angry..

 

However, I think all this tonal discussion got in the way of a more serious point you were making earlier about biological differences. I'm actually interesting in hearing yours and others' opinions about this and why you think feminism doesn't take biological difference into account.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't feminists fighting for 'substantive equality', meaning taking into consideration the differences between the sexes in order to avoid discrimination against women?

[thestalkinghead]

well, if we are saying that not everybody in the feminist movement has exactly the same approach or goals for feminism, there are certain groups within the umbrella of feminism that would suggest the the ultimate goal of feminism is total androgyny and the eradication of gender, and i just think that is an impossible goal, and any kind of enforcement of that goal would only benefit whoevers natural behaviour is more androgynous or whatever gender is decided to be the more neutral one (because i believe that a lot of behavior is biologically driven).  

 

obviously this discussion has made it clear that not all of the feminist movement has this idea or goal, but i think this approach of asking men to act less like men (my definition of acting like a man does not include belittling or discriminating women) is like asking gay people not to be gay.

 

edit: yeah, substantive equality sounds like the best approach to equality 

[osmosisch]

there are certain groups within the umbrella of feminism that would suggest the the ultimate goal of feminism is total androgyny and the eradication of gender

You keep saying this, but you have yet to show that this is a significant enough fraction to even be worth discussing in the first place. It's a massive derail over nothing, that only serves to make you look antifeminist, frankly.

[Sententia]

I Was Only Kidding! Really, I can't see how anything at all in the last pages can be considered angry..

 

However, I think all this tonal discussion got in the way of a more serious point you were making earlier about biological differences. I'm actually interesting in hearing yours and others' opinions about this and why you think feminism doesn't take biological difference into account.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't feminists fighting for 'substantive equality', meaning taking into consideration the differences between the sexes in order to avoid discrimination against women?

 

The thing is I'm not sure where gender discrimination would be appropriate, because there's enough variation that even the statistically significant differences between men and women are not consistent enough to legislate by, or for example plan teaching lessons around.  Some women and men learn differently, and from the macro view there is a significant enough difference to consider, but each individual person is capable of such a broad spread that it doesn't make sense for us to differentiate by gender.