Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

edit2: thinking about it, didn't MLK want equal justice for all American citizens? so i assume he would be against discriminating against white people, so if there were disadvantages to being white he would want to help those disadvantaged white people 

 

I can imagine some Dishonored past-america where the south was a black-hating hatefest while the north was a white-hating hatefest.  In that fantasy america, then MLK would probably have been adamant about equality for both races.

 

Similarly, if we lived in a world where some societies were harmfully patriarchal and some were harmfully matriarchal, we might have a broader gender equality movement.  However because that is a false picture of the world, because as far as I know all human societies are patriarchal to varying degrees of harm, we don't have a broad gender equality movement; one gender is already way more equal than the other.  This is why the movement is called feminism, and focuses on women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right, I give up. I had hope you would come around but I just don't see it happening at this point. Just please know that there are some very intelligent people in here giving you incredibly good reasons for supporting feminism and you are responding with very unintelligent answers and ignorant stances.

 

No hard feelings man but I'm out.

well, i think you are overconfident of your own intelligence, and ignorant of your ignorance.

but yeah, no hard feelings 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i think you are overconfident of your own intelligence, and ignorant of your ignorance.

but yeah, no hard feelings 

 

The unbelievable irony and arrogance of that statement, coming from someone who has been lucky enough to have a dozen people explain feminism to him over a dozen pages with incredible patience and hope, makes me think that I should probably give up, too.

 

If you want, thestalkinghead, you should start a different thread about Feminism 101, where you can hash out with better people than me exactly what feminism is and isn't. I'd prefer this thread stay open for feminists to talk with each other about their own thoughts and issues without having the very basis of their ideology repeatedly and carelessly (from my point of view, of course) questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i think you are overconfident of your own intelligence, and ignorant of your ignorance.

but yeah, no hard feelings 

Man that was uncalled for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: i wouldn't say that ignoring mens issues was a half baked reason

Feminism, generally speaking, doesn't ignore men's issues so much as consider them a subset of the same problems that necessitate feminism in the first place. I'm certain there are some hard-liners out there who refuse to believe that men have any disadvantages compared to women, but I think in the overall trend of the movement as a whole right now that is not the case. It seems like you're saying that because there are a few people who call themselves feminists who disregard that sexism also affects men, that is a good reason to avoid self-identifying as feminist.

 

Well, it's not. There are serious fucking problems out there, and if you're not willing to put any effort into solving them because you might be associated with those people... well, I hope you prefer being associated with the hateful throngs of misogynerds, because in the gaming world as it is now that seems to be the dichotomy.

 

I am not a fan of the term feminism for reasons I mentioned before, and feel uncomfortable in using the term, but I overwhelmingly agree with its aims. Cherrypicking examples of problems that also emerge from sexism that feminism may or may not, depending on who you ask, also address, is just a shameless dodge of the issue -- the issue being that, for fuck's sake, a lot of women are scared to speak up or participate because of being threatened with rape and murder. And you're waffling around about 'what if colleges discriminate against men now? They might not but they also might and what if they do? Won't someone think of the men!??'

 

Jesus. I can only hope you grow out of this shit someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even though i have made my position clear, the automatic assumption from saying i'm not part of the feminist movement means i'm a "mysoginerd" yeah i really want to be a feminist now, you are all clearly not ignorant bigots 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that that's what you got from what I said.

 

The actual point is, there's a conflict right now between those who want to support women and those who want to silence them. But declining to be one of the former, you are ceding to the latter by default.

 

You aren't trying to make an informed decision. You're just running away from something that makes you uncomfortable. Your views of feminism have been repeatedly shown to be misguided and unfounded, and yet you persist in cherry picking edge cases to make it seem like your reservations are justified. Your reservations are not justified. You are willing to let real people suffer because you are afraid of having a semantic label applied to you that might also be applied to people whom you find a little strident or a movement that you think is too narrow in its aims. You are not willing to work with those who seek to end sexism because they're concerned first and foremost with those who have lost the most and who have the most yet to lose from sexism. You would rather save no one than save only those most in need. It is a terrifying and gross viewpoint, and I can only hope that someday you grow enough to see why.

 

The thing is, I even agree with some of what you're saying. I identify as humanist before feminist but, feminism being that branch of humanism which is concerned with the systemic depredation of women, that makes me a feminist as well by default. I agree that everyone needs help, that this needs to be a more egalitarian world over all, that there are serious problems of, not only sexism, but racial tensions and transphobia and homosexual persecution that need to be addressed. The problem is bigger than feminism -- but feminism is one of the movements, albeit one of many, that needs to exist to fight that problem.

 

Do you see how fucking insane it is that, when the world is on fire, you cast aspersions on those who fight the fires, just and only because they first fight the fires at home, the fires they know best, the fires which will haunt their nightmares and render them incapable of fighting the greater conflagration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see how fucking insane it is that, when the world is on fire, you cast aspersions on those who fight the fires, just and only because they first fight the fires at home, the fires they know best, the fires which will haunt their nightmares and render them incapable of fighting the greater conflagration?

Dang. That's a great metaphor.

 

Also, Jesus Christ, tsh. Get your shit together, man. I've been mostly silent throughout all this, but you need to stop being such a coward and just Be A Feminist. It won't hurt you, I promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw, I wasn't done with the defence force fitness requirements!

 

Because let me assure you, the defence force thinks long and hard about exactly what their requirements are and what are reasonable and unreasonable expectations from its personnel. It is, in a very real sense, their core function. What they have found is that, in an age where melee combat is incredibly uncommon and bombs are significantly more deadly than weapon fire, raw strength is less important, and less likely to save lives, than it was assumed. So long as they're able to perform the requirements of their job, and they have the endurance required to be effective, this is sufficient.

 

Apropos of the defence forces,

. It certainly informed my own personal feminism: the standard you walk by is the standard you accept.

 

Which is why it's a little bit bullshit to be deathly concerned over how women only play three sets of tennis when men play five, but not, say, the massive international network of sex slavery, or the systemic dehumanisation of rape victims (who are usually, but not always, women) in favour of those accused, and even convicted, of rape (who are usually, but not always, men). The standard you walk by is the standard you accept, and the claim that women hold privileges over men is to walk past the overwhelming evidence that this is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minister [Jo Swinson] said she would "absolutely" call herself a feminist without hesitation, just days after David Cameron, the prime minister, said he did not know whether he was. Several days later, Cameron corrected himself, saying he was a feminist if it meant "equal rights for women".

 

Swinson said she was "sad when you hear people don't want to call themselves a feminist, whether they're a bloke or a teenage girl, who thinks the word has negative connotations".

 

She added: "We should be encouraging people to be happy to declare themselves as feminists. And I think in some sections of the media there is a tendency to associate feminism with bra-burning extremism. But it's about very mainstream views about women's role in society.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/04/women-male-colleagues-earn-minister

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that that's what you got from what I said.

 

The actual point is, there's a conflict right now between those who want to support women and those who want to silence them. But declining to be one of the former, you are ceding to the latter by default.

 

You aren't trying to make an informed decision. You're just running away from something that makes you uncomfortable. Your views of feminism have been repeatedly shown to be misguided and unfounded, and yet you persist in cherry picking edge cases to make it seem like your reservations are justified. Your reservations are not justified. You are willing to let real people suffer because you are afraid of having a semantic label applied to you that might also be applied to people whom you find a little strident or a movement that you think is too narrow in its aims. You are not willing to work with those who seek to end sexism because they're concerned first and foremost with those who have lost the most and who have the most yet to lose from sexism. You would rather save no one than save only those most in need. It is a terrifying and gross viewpoint, and I can only hope that someday you grow enough to see why.

 

The thing is, I even agree with some of what you're saying. I identify as humanist before feminist but, feminism being that branch of humanism which is concerned with the systemic depredation of women, that makes me a feminist as well by default. I agree that everyone needs help, that this needs to be a more egalitarian world over all, that there are serious problems of, not only sexism, but racial tensions and transphobia and homosexual persecution that need to be addressed. The problem is bigger than feminism -- but feminism is one of the movements, albeit one of many, that needs to exist to fight that problem.

 

Do you see how fucking insane it is that, when the world is on fire, you cast aspersions on those who fight the fires, just and only because they first fight the fires at home, the fires they know best, the fires which will haunt their nightmares and render them incapable of fighting the greater conflagration?

 

"The actual point is, there's a conflict right now between those who want to support women and those who want to silence them. But declining to be one of the former, you are ceding to the latter by default." 

 

no you don't have to be one or the other

 

let me put it this way, if i were to start a movement to end world poverty, but only help blonde haired blue eyed people, you may agree with my goal of ending world poverty, but not support that i am only doing it for certain people, this doesn't mean that you would rather have poverty, it just means you disagree with the way the movement is only helping some people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I started a movement that was aimed at helping poor British people, you would disagree with the movement because the movement didn't expressly aim to help poor people everywhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I started a movement that was aimed at helping poor British people, you would disagree with the movement because the movement didn't expressly aim to help poor people everywhere?

if it were a worldwide movement and not a charity, i and i assume many other people would be asking, why not all poor people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's lots of reasons you might choose to focus efforts on British people and not people everywhere. For example, you might feel more strongly identified with British people. You might feel that British people are suffering in a particularly intense way. You might feel that helping British people is more effective than trying to fight poverty abroad. You might feel that helping one's local community is more important than helping people you do not know. There are all sorts of good reasons to pick one cause (and not some other causes), and that's fine. 

 

The same is true of feminism. You might feel more strongly identified with women than with men. You might feel that women suffer more than men do. You might feel that the problems faced by women are more important than the problems faced by men. You might feel that helping women is more like to improve matters than helping men. You might simply personally get more out of helping women than helping men. 
 

I feel like the essence of your argument is that it is somehow wrong to help one group and not another. But I don't see why that should be. No one has unlimited time or effort to put into a cause. It's OK to put that time and effort into one cause and not another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's lots of reasons you might choose to focus efforts on British people and not people everywhere. For example, you might feel more strongly identified with British people. You might feel that British people are suffering in a particularly intense way. You might feel that helping British people is more effective than trying to fight poverty abroad. You might feel that helping one's local community is more important than helping people you do not know. There are all sorts of good reasons to pick one cause (and not some other causes), and that's fine. 

 

The same is true of feminism. You might feel more strongly identified with women than with men. You might feel that women suffer more than men do. You might feel that the problems faced by women are more important than the problems faced by men. You might feel that helping women is more like to improve matters than helping men. You might simply personally get more out of helping women than helping men. 

 

I feel like the essence of your argument is that it is somehow wrong to help one group and not another. But I don't see why that should be. No one has unlimited time or effort to put into a cause. It's OK to put that time and effort into one cause and not another. 

well i may support many of the goals of that movement, but i wouldn't call myself a Britishpovertyist (or whatever it was called) on the principle that it was unfair to focus a worldwide movement on just british people 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 it was unfair to focus a worldwide movement on just british people 

 

It is not unfair to focus on one problem instead of another problem. If focusing on a problem was unfair, then all social movements would be unfair because all social movements necessarily focus on some social ills and not other social ills. E.g. it would be unfair for a movement to fight cancer and not fight AIDS; it would be unfair to fight poverty and not fight illness; it would be unfair to campaign for blood donation but not kidney donation; etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a feminist doesn't exclude other causes.

 

if that is the case then how many feminist are also part of the men's rights movement?

thinking of that, i could actually get behind the feminist and men's rights collaborative movement (or whatever such a thing would be called) 

 

It is not unfair to focus on one problem instead of another problem. If focusing on a problem was unfair, then all social movements would be unfair because all social movements necessarily focus on some social ills and not other social ills. E.g. it would be unfair for a movement to fight cancer and not fight AIDS; it would be unfair to fight poverty and not fight illness; it would be unfair to campaign for blood donation but not kidney donation; etc.

 

that isn't the same, it would be the same for a movement to fight cancer in women not men, to fight AIDS in women not men, to fight poverty for women not men etc. equality among the sexes are not two separate things they are part of each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if that is the case then how many feminist are also part of the men's rights movement?

thinking of that, i could actually get behind the feminist and men's rights collaborative movement (or whatever such a thing would be called)

There actually is a thing called the Men's Rights Movement, its members being MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) but it turns out they are largely shitlords who hate women. Your basic problem in this thread is that you don't seem to understand social movements as social movements. You're only able to deal with a weird combination of abstract ideas and social movements, where you refuse to support an abstract idea because of the bad things that can be ascribed to a social movement and you refuse to support a social movement unless you can support its most closely linked abstract ideal.

The first issue is that you refuse to be a feminist in the abstract idea sense because women and the people who support them have somewhere done something bad ever. This is a joke - feminists don't support everything that has ever been done in the name of women, even certain ostensibly feminist things, because feminism is a broad term that encompasses people who have different ideas about what ought to be done. This shouldn't stop anyone from being a feminist any more than Malcolm X should stop anyone from being a civil rights activist, even granting that they don't like Malcolm X.

The second issue is that you fail to realize that feminism as a social movement is crucial to securing equal rights for everyone, which you claim to agree with. You think that you can only call yourself a supporter of equal rights, not a supporter of rights for women, because somehow the only social movements that are acceptable are the universal ones. This is blatantly false - it's possible to fix things on a small scale without denying that other things on a large scale also need fixing.

This is where the MRA stuff kicks in. Men's rights as an abstract ideal is totally fine, and of course I (and everyone else in this thread) support men's rights. Why wouldn't we? There's not much of a point in saying it, but sure, we're all in favor of men's rights.

On the other hand, though, the actual social movements behind men's rights groups right now are mostly toxic. They're awful. Does this mean we have to be against men's rights? Obviously not... all it means is that we don't want to join these social movements and throw our weight behind them. Nothing wrong with that. That's how life works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 all it means is that we don't want to join these social movements and throw our weight behind them. Nothing wrong with that. That's how life works.

well, we seem to agree on something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbe-fucking-lievable. This is like the fourth or fifth time someone has tried to reason with you, at length, and you have quoted one line of their post out of context and retorted as though it were representative of the whole. More often than not, you seem to even misinterpret that line, whether willfully or not. You're not listening. At all.

 

Fuck it. You are obviously, obviously more interested in defending your position than in actually hearing what people are saying and parsing it into your worldview. This is garbage. I'm done. Maybe I can communicate with you again at some point in the future, when you've demonstrated some capacity for actually hearing and interpreting the stances of others, developed a little bit of goddamn empathy, developed beyond this shallow guise of open-mindedness concealing a circle of self-justifying rhetoric.

 

I tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×