by Tahar Joblis » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:17 pm
by Forsher » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:42 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:A passionate minority coming to a larger group that struggles with having as many volunteers as they'd like, and struggles at reaching the larger population as well as they'd like to can come to exercise a disproportionate amount of power.
I've come to realize that the organized feminist movement - feminist lobbying groups, internet feminists, "professional feminists" who make their money producing feminist media for consumption, et cetera - has been having much the same problem. To be feminist does not and never has required that you hate men, or view women as superior to men.
But if you're misandrist, feminism is attractive, for the same reasons that the Republican party is attractive to white nationalists: They may not be fond of your real agenda, but they can advance policies in your interests. They have ideas you like. On the organizational level, feminist groups work for women's perceived interests - and only for women's perceived interests.
...
And today, the feminist movement has a problem that few self-identified feminists seem willing to acknowledge. It is not a novel problem; not a strange problem; not a unique problem. But it is a problem nonetheless.
by EnragedMaldivians » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:50 pm
by Forsher » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:57 pm
EnragedMaldivians wrote:I think at this point the feminists really should just collectively apologise for the myriad of ways in which they have constantly failed Tahar Joblis.
by EnragedMaldivians » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:02 pm
Forsher wrote:EnragedMaldivians wrote:I think at this point the feminists really should just collectively apologise for the myriad of ways in which they have constantly failed Tahar Joblis.
As I say quite often, which feminists under what definition? A dictionary's? (Which dictionary?) Yours? NOW's? (I think that's right.) Ashmoria's? (Linked in the OP.)
There's no single definition which is probably due to the umbrella term feminism being applied to a huge variety of people and organisations.
by Neo Art » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:13 pm
EnragedMaldivians wrote:I think at this point the feminists really should just collectively apologise for the myriad of ways in which they have constantly failed Tahar Joblis.
by The Steel Magnolia » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:14 pm
by Tahar Joblis » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:18 pm
EnragedMaldivians wrote:I think at this point the feminists really should just collectively apologise for the myriad of ways in which they have constantly failed Tahar Joblis.
by Tahar Joblis » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:21 pm
Neo Art wrote:[assorted ad hominems]
by Tahar Joblis » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:36 pm
Forsher wrote:I'll be completely honest, what you're saying could be clearer.Tahar Joblis wrote:A passionate minority coming to a larger group that struggles with having as many volunteers as they'd like, and struggles at reaching the larger population as well as they'd like to can come to exercise a disproportionate amount of power.
I've come to realize that the organized feminist movement - feminist lobbying groups, internet feminists, "professional feminists" who make their money producing feminist media for consumption, et cetera - has been having much the same problem. To be feminist does not and never has required that you hate men, or view women as superior to men.
But if you're misandrist, feminism is attractive, for the same reasons that the Republican party is attractive to white nationalists: They may not be fond of your real agenda, but they can advance policies in your interests. They have ideas you like. On the organizational level, feminist groups work for women's perceived interests - and only for women's perceived interests.
...
And today, the feminist movement has a problem that few self-identified feminists seem willing to acknowledge. It is not a novel problem; not a strange problem; not a unique problem. But it is a problem nonetheless.
I think I would be correct to say that the main point that you are making is mostly contained in these four paragraphs and that would be "radicalisation" if you will. Because extreme groups (let's call them feminazis) find elements of feminism favourable and because feminism is an established group the feminazis latch on. And if, so the argument goes, feminism uses that support it runs the risk of turning out like your example (the Republican Party).
I would agree if that's the case. Whatever anyone has to say about what should be the case, extreme elements are going to be more memorable and so colour the popular perception. Naturally, that means that extreme elements are more important.
Now, feminism has a further problem. Even if what I called feminazis were categorically rejected, they're probably still going to try and latch on anyway. Call it success by association. Much the same thing happens with "far-right" which tends to make people think of Nazis.
by Nadkor » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:39 pm
This post was made by Tahar Joblis who is currently on your ignore list.
by Tahar Joblis » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:47 pm
Nadkor wrote:I clicked on this thread thinking "no, this even for him is too much, surely"
Then I saw this, in place of the OP:This post was made by Tahar Joblis who is currently on your ignore list.
And I lol'd. I actually did.
Turns out it wasn't too much.
Nice to know that no matter how limited you think someone is they will constantly strive to outdo your expectations.
Strive on, TJ, strive on.
by Ashmoria » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:53 pm
by Forsher » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:57 pm
EnragedMaldivians wrote:Forsher wrote:
As I say quite often, which feminists under what definition? A dictionary's? (Which dictionary?) Yours? NOW's? (I think that's right.) Ashmoria's? (Linked in the OP.)
There's no single definition which is probably due to the umbrella term feminism being applied to a huge variety of people and organisations.
Given his constant excoriation of 'the feminists' for not living up to his standards, not having his priorities and not paying attention to the things he thinks they should pay attention to, I would say that all of them, encompassing every definition, whether correct or incorrect, have failed him. Poor guy.
encompassing every definition, whether correct or incorrect
The Steel Magnolia wrote:You know, I really should have stopped when I saw your avatar.
Tahar Joblis wrote:Forsher wrote:I'll be completely honest, what you're saying could be clearer.
I think I would be correct to say that the main point that you are making is mostly contained in these four paragraphs and that would be "radicalisation" if you will. Because extreme groups (let's call them feminazis) find elements of feminism favourable and because feminism is an established group the feminazis latch on. And if, so the argument goes, feminism uses that support it runs the risk of turning out like your example (the Republican Party).
I would agree if that's the case. Whatever anyone has to say about what should be the case, extreme elements are going to be more memorable and so colour the popular perception. Naturally, that means that extreme elements are more important.
Now, feminism has a further problem. Even if what I called feminazis were categorically rejected, they're probably still going to try and latch on anyway. Call it success by association. Much the same thing happens with "far-right" which tends to make people think of Nazis.
Well, the "further problem" is pretty much insoluble in a free society.
Hateful extremists will try to latch onto your organization if it looks like it can be used to further their aims. The tricky part is making sure they don't go anywhere near the reins of power, and making sure people know that your organization disapproves of them.
This is very difficult if you openly invited them in, as with Reagan and evangelicals; but even talking on the informal level, it's not as difficult as it might seem at first. A single formal organization can expel people; feminism can't take away a Feminism Membership Card or anything.
Yet, as I've said, it's been relatively easy for modern feminism to successfully disown Warren Farrell, in spite of some fairly direct ties between Farrell and feminist organizations prior to his divergence from the feminist mainstream into the forbidden realm of asking #whataboutthemenz; and even conservative women who attempt to affiliate themselves as feminist have a great deal of difficulty having that affiliation accepted by the public, because the balance of effort by less controversially self-identified "feminists" is towards excluding them from the label.
Nadkor wrote:I clicked on this thread thinking "no, this even for him is too much, surely"
Then I saw this, in place of the OP:This post was made by Tahar Joblis who is currently on your ignore list.
And I lol'd. I actually did.
Turns out it wasn't too much.
Nice to know that no matter how limited you think someone is they will constantly strive to outdo your expectations.
Strive on, TJ, strive on.
Ashmoria wrote:to make your case that the feminist movement has been taken over by extremists you need to show that current feminist leaders are misandrists. a few examples from the past dont show the same progression as the republican party has had.
by Nadkor » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:06 pm
Forsher wrote:Nadkor wrote:I clicked on this thread thinking "no, this even for him is too much, surely"
Then I saw this, in place of the OP:
And I lol'd. I actually did.
Turns out it wasn't too much.
Nice to know that no matter how limited you think someone is they will constantly strive to outdo your expectations.
Strive on, TJ, strive on.
You would be aware that the point, as I've read it, is the difficulty with separating the sane from the insane; or, more accurately, getting rid of the insane from being considered anything like the sane?
by Quebec and Atlantic Canada » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:06 pm
by Ashmoria » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:07 pm
Forsher wrote: I agree with this. However, I also think that feminism is being increasingly viewed as more extreme than mainstream feminism actually is (because of the association of what I term feminazis). Would you agree with that?
by EnragedMaldivians » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:11 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:EnragedMaldivians wrote:I think at this point the feminists really should just collectively apologise for the myriad of ways in which they have constantly failed Tahar Joblis.
I'm only disappointed in some feminists. Some, I think, are quite positive influences on society today.
And others... well, I never expected anything good at all to come from "feminist" Sarah Palin, so it's really hard for her to disappoint me even if I hold a negative opinion of her.
I am disappointed in the movement as a whole as it appears to be presently behaving; I am certainly disappointed in some of NSG's so-called "feminists" for adopting anti-equality positions. I have used the label of "feminist" for myself, and am fairly self-satisfied.
So. Would you defend people referring to Valerie Solanas as a hero? How about referring to Lorena Bobbit as a hero?
David Duke? Nathaniel Bedford Forrest? Dworkin? There's a certain point where, if you don't want hateful types to affiliate themselves, even heavily influence, your movement, you need to engage in some significant self-policing; you need to reach the point where you can label various figures - current or historical - as not cool, even if they happen to have associated themselves with something resembling your cause
by Forsher » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:17 pm
Nadkor wrote:Forsher wrote:
You would be aware that the point, as I've read it, is the difficulty with separating the sane from the insane; or, more accurately, getting rid of the insane from being considered anything like the sane?
For me the point seems to be more like "okay so some feminists might actually be sane (might), but there's so many mental ones and I don't see any of you 'sane' feminists having a go at them so it's entirely your fault if I mix you all up together and address feminism as a whole as if the mental ones spoke for all of you" dressed up as something to do with Ron Paul/Republicans.
Why does it seem like that to me? Because that's what it is.
Tahar Joblis wrote:Feminists do criticize each other; but they have not effectively policed themselves.
For me the point seems to be more like "okay so some feminists might actually be sane (might), but there's so many mental ones and I don't seeanyenough of you 'sane' feminists having a go at them so it's entirely your fault if I mix you all up together and address feminism as a whole as if the mental ones spoke for all of you" dressed up as something to do with Ron Paul/Republicans.
Ashmoria wrote:Forsher wrote: I agree with this. However, I also think that feminism is being increasingly viewed as more extreme than mainstream feminism actually is (because of the association of what I term feminazis). Would you agree with that?
2 thoughts:
1) the feminazi thing is used by ....well lets just call them blowhards because i doubt they want to keep women from acheivements...blowhards who use it as a way to discredit the movement as a whole. for example rush limbaugh who, if he did not coin the term himself has at least brought it to public notice, cherry picks a few outrageous quotes from throughout the ages and uses them over and over again to make it seem as if all feminists are extremists.
2) feminism has been so amazingly successful in my lifetime that it is hard to remember where we started 50 years ago. that makes it seem like feminism is only interested in extreme agendas because it cant be as simple as "equal pay for equal work" --everyone is in favor of that.
by Ashmoria » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:25 pm
Forsher wrote:Ashmoria wrote:
2 thoughts:
1) the feminazi thing is used by ....well lets just call them blowhards because i doubt they want to keep women from acheivements...blowhards who use it as a way to discredit the movement as a whole. for example rush limbaugh who, if he did not coin the term himself has at least brought it to public notice, cherry picks a few outrageous quotes from throughout the ages and uses them over and over again to make it seem as if all feminists are extremists.
Oh... really? I've been using it like so:
Feminazi, noun, person who dresses misandrist views up as (or mixed in with) feminists positions.
What would you suggest I use instead, misandrists pretending to be feminists?2) feminism has been so amazingly successful in my lifetime that it is hard to remember where we started 50 years ago. that makes it seem like feminism is only interested in extreme agendas because it cant be as simple as "equal pay for equal work" --everyone is in favor of that.
So, feminism is a victim of its own success? It has now reached a point where it has to really try hard to convince people that what's being discussed is actually an inequality?
by Death Metal » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:26 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:The Republican Party has a major problem on this hands. It begins with "Ron" and ends with "-ormfront.org."
by Nadkor » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:29 pm
Forsher wrote:However, I personally feel it's still a little off. If mine makes what he says too reasonable than yours makes it too unreasonable; this would be due to our differing views. You love feminism, I disagree with its approach (I made a thread on that as some of you may recall).
by Forsher » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:30 pm
Ashmoria wrote:Forsher wrote:
Oh... really? I've been using it like so:
Feminazi, noun, person who dresses misandrist views up as (or mixed in with) feminists positions.
What would you suggest I use instead, misandrists pretending to be feminists?
So, feminism is a victim of its own success? It has now reached a point where it has to really try hard to convince people that what's being discussed is actually an inequality?
i dont think you should use "feminazi" at all. it is a meaningless pejorative. if you want to point out that a particular feminist seems to be more interested in dissing men than fighting for equality i think it is a stronger point of you say it that way.
yeah, if you ask the average young woman "are you a feminist" she is likely to say "no". but if you ask her if she thinks that women should decide their own fates, take any job they are qualified for, have children or not as they prefer, etc they will all say "yes"
by Forsher » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:31 pm
Nadkor wrote:Forsher wrote:However, I personally feel it's still a little off. If mine makes what he says too reasonable than yours makes it too unreasonable; this would be due to our differing views. You love feminism, I disagree with its approach (I made a thread on that as some of you may recall).
I love feminism?
Well, yes. Of course I do. Because of feminism I can do crazy things like vote, go to university, get a job....
by Tsaraine » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:33 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Eahland, Ethel mermania, Ifreann, Simonia, Statesburg, Suriyanakhon, The Holy Therns, The Jamesian Republic, Valyxias
Advertisement