Do you consider yourself to be a feminist, and why?

[Forsher]

Feminism is not a movement with a goal of justice or equality. Otherwise feminists would publicly distance themselves from those radical feminist opinions that cross the line instead of backing women over men in every issue possible.
It's a movement with only the goal of advancing women, whether that advancement is just or fair or not. I cannot, and will not, ever support such an ideology.

"A feminist is an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women"

Doesn't say anything about men, though, does it? But then, why should it? It is possible to find quotes on NSG saying "feminism is for men" and "guy gets called for mentioning men's issues on feminist websites and is shocked"... that's the gist of it. Choose any feminist thingy and you will with not much effort find (near) opposing views from "feminists".

I'm not a feminist for the same reason I am not a black supremacist.

Nothing on NSG reveals who the clueless are quite like feminism threads.

Yes, I am a feminist. I know what the word means, so of course I am. Any right thinking person with even the slightest bit of knowledge on the topic should be.

Which definition do you use?

It was also woefully inaccurate.

Because the great Chorizo Choronzon said so.

From what I know of his posting habits, yes.

I would consider that wealth (that is to say, socio-economic status) matters more than gender or ethnicity when it comes to getting anywhere. The problem is when you get certain ethnicities that tend towards the poorer elements of society. The poverty trap (or a form of it) then applies.

Nothing on NSG reveals who the clueless are quite like feminism threads.

Yes, I am a feminist. I know what the word means, so of course I am. Any right thinking person with even the slightest bit of knowledge on the topic should be.

Here's a good example. There is absolutely no difference between this and people who say the same thing about Christianity, Communism, Republicanism--"if you had any brains, you'd agree with me!" However I find feminists are among those ideologues who are for some curious reason the most reluctant to actually explain their position in such a way that appreciates that people who don't necessarily know all there is to know about it as though that's an opportunity.

Think about it this way: whether it is selling products, religion, belief in anything--a blank state or an ignorant person is an opportunity. Think of all the laundry detergent, cola and car commercials. You sell what you have to people who think need it. In face even if what you are 'selling' is charity to people in a war torn country, you personalize it. What you're
actually selling in a way is a soothed conscience. Little Sam or Mary in Uganda needs to be able to go to school--those big eyes beg, and you can feel like a good person for sending them money. I realize this may sound cynical, but if you think about it, it's true.

Feminism totally subverts this. Feminists generally seem to hate to actually explain themselves, make their views sound attractive or appeal to what makes people feel good about agreeing with things. They seem to resent the idea that they should have to. This is the ideological equivalent of going into a store where they only want customers who appreciate what they are selling to begin with, and where they scold away people who come in out of the cold with "Go and research what we have to offer before you come here with your stupid questions!" Now unless you run some amazing high end market stuff, what you're actually doing is alienating potential customers.

I have a quote that I think captures some of the sentiments behind the quoted post quite well. Naturally, I made it.

I may or may not post links. We'll see.

Whether I take the time to do so or not, my statements are true.

What is it that arguing for seemingly feminist views makes posters feel exempt to the idea of your claim, your proof?

Feminism totally subverts this. Feminists generally seem to hate to actually explain themselves, make their views sound attractive or appeal to what makes people feel good about agreeing with things. They seem to resent the idea that they should have to. This is the ideological equivalent of going into a store where they only want customers who appreciate what they are selling to begin with, and where they scold away people who come in out of the cold with "Go and research what we have to offer before you come here with your stupid questions!" Now unless you run some amazing high end market stuff, what you're actually doing is alienating potential customers.

No, I've just been around enough feminism threads on NSG to know that even if I did explain myself I would be assailed by people who insist that Rush Limbaugh's definition and ideas about the "feminist agenda" are accurate portrayals. To put it simply, if you support gender equality and oppose rigid gender roles you are a feminist. Its really that simple. There are varying sub-ideologies within feminism and a lot of internal disagreement- just like any intellectual or academic field. But thats the general gist of it.

Most of the criticism against feminism, like how we view rape in our society, is not actually the fault of feminism. Ideas that men cannot be raped, or that men are by definition aggressors while women are by definition victims is the product patriarchy- something feminism opposes. To blame that on feminism shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the topic, and I don't waste my time discussing things with people who don't know anything about the topic while claiming to be knowledgeable. If you cannot be bothered to gain an understanding of the matter before shooting off your mouth then I don't owe you anything.

A lot of the criticism we see on NSG directed towards feminists (such as youself) revolves around:

• argument, the nature of
• patriarchy, the nature and question of
• sources, and why they are never present
• contradiction, and its application to feminists (and feminist positions) on NSG and in the wider world
• TJ, and the extent that he is a sophist or misogynist.

I support equal rights for both genders. No gender should recieve special treatment.

So...yes, you are a feminist, then?

Two questions need to be applied here.

Firstly, what definition are you using?
Secondly, what is your reponse to the inevitable offering of a different one?

That second question is more interesting.

Feminism is the radical natitoin that women are people too. of course i'm a feminist (a mail feminist btw)

I knew NSG had posties.

I'm a feminist, certainly. Why? Because a woman should be able to work and get paid the same if she needs or chooses. Because male gender roles are just as oppressive. Because allowing each individual member of society to have the best shot at fulfillment, success, health, and happiness results in a healthier and more stable society. And because all oppression is connected.

Clearly, we need to do something with the education system in many (if not all) English speaking nations which are failing boys. Get them into university and stuff like that. Basically, the reverse of what we have just done in education.

Come to think of it, that's a very good argument for why the feminist approach to inequality of the genders doesn't really work. Alternatively, it is a good argument for why we need a better way of measuring "equality of opportunity" right?

You proved nothing, you asserted a lot of things.

Says the guy who listed a bunch assertions (without proof) and problems with patriarchy and blamed it on feminism.

Says the guy who has now developed a reputation for hanging around a thread, making assertations, saying people are wrong and then departing when challenged for sources.

Note, this reputation may be entirely on my part but its basis lies in this threadand more recently, this thread where Choronzon was challenged and then departed.

A large amount of the pay discrepancy comes due to things like the cumulative effect of maternal leave, the fact women are more likely to work part-time and similar factors.

And you highlight more issues. Why can I, as someone with a penis, not get time off to watch after my newborn child? Why are they more likely to work part-time? Because we still force them to be primary care takers and men as primary earners.

And no, that isn't a "large amount" of pay discrepancy, as there are industries in which women have surpassed men while still getting things like maternity leave (advertising and marketing fields, in particular). It doesn't account for women making $0.75 per every $1.00 men make.

Source (for the numbers).

That said, you must control for education. While currently women are more likely to have tertiary qualifications in the past this was definitely not the case. Many women still in the workforce have lesser qualifications or none at all. That will change the pay. One must also account for the nature of work done. If there are more men in higher paid occupations than this is something that would distort that. I believe there is a theory that the manner in which negotiations for pay are conducted also alters how much is paid and the standard female manner isn't so good.

And by the way, some countries do have paterntity leave. Germany strikes me as an example.

I don't know. Which is why this thread is about "feminists" and not the mythical "feminazi".

The authority with which the ignorant assert untruths around here never ceases to amaze me.

Feminazi seems to be the standard term for what used to be called a "rad fem." So, it isn't mythical... not what the thread is after but not mythical.

Continue to ignore what I said and make really weak analogies. Yep, you're clearly interested in learning and educating yopurself.

I do not think you have cited anything, or provided any form of reasonable argument. You have however completely ignored differing views or questions. Its not really helping sway people towards equality.

His brand of equality. By which I refer to his idea of how to get there.

Given it's feminists alone who wave patriarchy around as a wonderful excuse for everything, it's definitely their fault.

Wait, what?

Feminists talk about patriarchy being used to justify degradation of non-heterosexual males, and use it as a concept to fight against. I'm not sure I've ever seen a feminist use "patriarchy" as an excuse for their own poor behavior, nor am I sure how your statement defends feminism being primarily at fault for patriarchy and strict gender roles...

Correction.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts everyone.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts non-conformers.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts women.

On the whole, anyone who is talking about patriarchy is a political-feminist of some kind or dealing with political-feminists of some kind.

I do not think you have cited anything, or provided any form of reasonable argument. You have however completely ignored differing views or questions. Its not really helping sway people towards equality.

This is really basic. Its feminism 101.

If you haven't even delved that far into the topic, you're not worth discussing the matter with.

Convincing people that equality is bad is feminism 101?

Or is it, ignoring opposing viewpoints is feminism 101? (This one I can believe, given the wide variety of definitions of feminism and whatnot around it.)

Being a bit of an old-school gentleman, with high respect for chivalry so I can't say I fit into a feminist label.

That said, I am strong believer that women can be every bit as capable as men, and have every right to pursue their lives as they feel. The fact that in many countries the treatment of women continues to be as if they were second-class citizens is wholly deplorable.

How does showing respect and being polite to another person prevent you from being a feminist? If anything, that is the epitome of feminism.

See?

You get chivalry is inherently anti-feminist and you get this. It doesn't tally.

I'm unsure how the first part logically flows from the first. Believing that " women can be every bit as capable as men, and have every right to pursue their lives as they feel" IS feminism in its most basic definition.

This is NSG, we don't use the basic definition around here. We use Rush Limbaugh's or we make up our own.

Or, better yet, we define feminism as "Not whatever the guy I'm disagreeing with says it is."

So far, it creates maximum contradiction and moral superiority.

Or, we just ignore the point where he mentions his belief in chivalry and being an "old-school gentleman".

Seriously, I mean, the article literally says "According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations.""

Seriously, that's the argument they use "debunking" sexism in the workplace. That's their proof that it DOESN'T exist. "the reason men make more is that they work in high paying "man" jobs like working with computers, not those low paying "women" jobs like saving lives and educating children"

Am I seriously the only person who sees a problem with this?

The problem I see is the insertation of "man" jobs and "women" jobs. These weren't in the bits you quoted.

That said, even within an industry some jobs pay higher than others. For example, a waiter isn't going to get paid as much as the maitre'd.

I am also bored with trawling through the night's backlog so I'll stop here.

[Meryuma]

1. Females who want to participate in combat.
2. You shouldn't be shocked at having to provide a source for a claim that covers the essential nature of all women ever.
3. Not an argument.

1: So normal females can't participate in combat?
2: It's called genetics and hormones.
3: So be it.

1. Not my point. "Normal" is pretty meaningless in this context anyways. What I'm saying is we're not talking about statistically average females, but rather those who would be interested in combat - a group which would be stronger on average than generalized statistics would represent.
2. That's not a source. Do you have a scholarly article written by "genetics and hormones"?

-snip-

Not only have you made a completely inaccurate generalization as to Solanas being accepted within the feminist movement, but you imply baselessly that Neo-Art is defending her.

That isn't what feminists want. Sorry.

Yes it is, look at what they are pushing for, there nothing but a group of women stuck on that time of the month.

Thanks for discrediting yourself. If you really want everyone to be equal, you won't spout dismissive misogynist bullshit like that.

I'm a modernist, or 'equality' feminist. I believe that all individuals should be assessed individually according to their merits alone. Gender, along with other characteristics such as ethnicity, religion etc. should not be taken into consideration and discriminating against individuals on the basis of these characteristics cannot be anything other than irrational.

On the other hand, post-modernist 'gender feminism' is just a load of academic tosh dreamt up by people with too much time on their hands (i.e. the folks who brought us 'gender studies').

That is not how it works! Feminism is not divided along those lines. The significant majority of feminists today want people to be treated as individuals, including those into critical theory and similar ideas.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm unsure what you find inconsistent here. I find less value in what people say about themselves, and more value in judging them by their actions, which, in this case, are the arguments you choose to make when not attempting to tell lies about yourself. There's no particular restriction there. As I said, I am less interested in judging someone by what they say about themselves, and more by their actual actions.

The fact that your actions in this case consist of "making rants rants on the internet about once a week, making up arguments from people who don't exist, and offering to buy women clothing to wear for you" does not, in any way,

... mean anything about my motives which you, oh wise and all-knowing Neo Art, can divine via the use of bird entrails.

Or whatever the fuck means you want to use for justifying "jumping to paranoid delusions about the SECRET MOTIVES of him FOR SAYING THOSE THINGS!!!"

take away from the fact that, despite your protests that your arguments are backed up by evidence, and supported by fact, your behavior is that of the common conspiracy theorist, screaching about aliens.

See, the problem is that they are supported by fact and backed up by evidence. Much more so than others discussing the same topics.

It's not unusual for me to cite a dozen peer-reviewed articles before my opponent decides to introduce a single source of any kind.

Now, here's what you think is so ludicrous that you have to mock it in absurd hyperbole involving grapes: The idea that women might victimize men. The same way that men victimize women, men victimize men, and women victimize women, given the opportunity and the motive, by the way. See, I'm not sexist; that's just you. If I look misogynist to you, it's because you're misandrist.

And I'm sitting here, looking at the CDC study that says I'm right to say what I say about both birth control sabotage and rape. 8.7% of men and 4.8% of women report that a partner tried to cause pregnancy when they didn't want it to happen. 1.1% of men report they were "made to penetrate," i.e., raped, if you're using a sexist definition, in the last year, with four out of five of those only ever being victimized by women. And of course 1.1% of women report being raped in the last year.

Those are the facts of life - as near as they can be determined by the CDC. Plain and simple. This is science. And you say I'm delusional.

I don't spend my life sweating bullets. Contrary to popular claims by GoG, yourself, et cetera, I actually want to have some kids. I've actually mentioned - you can probably find it if you search hard enough - that if I were in the position where a woman grabbed my sperm and bounced, I would be fighting for custody. Hard. Nor am I worried greatly about being raped. I don't go out of my way to pass out drunk in random places, and barring that precaution, there's not much I can do. It's like worrying about being mugged, shot, et cetera - I'm not going to go do anything dumb, but having that shit sprung on me isn't in my control, so there's not much point fretting about that.

So. Which one of us is deluded? The one ascribing unusual intentionality to the decision to correct extant false myths about gender and sexuality on NSG? The one in denial about the fact that women share very nearly the same exact flaws with men? The one in denial about sexism being a double-edged sword that cuts both genders? I think it is indeed you, Neo, so yes to those three.

[Neo Art]

"I'm not delusional, you're delusional!"

Yup, pretty much right on script. I'm surprised you haven't offered to buy me a shirt yet. Or call me, like, Neo Angela and make up something so you can call me an "opponent" and argue with her, I mean me.

I dunno, your fantasies are hard to keep track of.

[Sarkhaan]

Then great for you for finding something that I as a queer male have not. How sad that you won't fight so others might share in your evidently remarkable fortune.

There's a mighty big difference between egalitarianism and feminism, dear.

No, there isn't, cupcake. Check your favorite dictionary.

[Forsher]

There's a mighty big difference between egalitarianism and feminism, dear.

No, there isn't, cupcake. Check your favorite dictionary.

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

a person who advocates or supports the principle of equality for all people

Embarrasingly different if I were you.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

All "sides" of the copious discussion of feminism have been guilty of making unproven assertions while criticizing the other side for making unproven assertions.

There has, however, been a concerted campaign by certain posters to criticize or denigrate feminism and there is a growing hallelujah chorus that seems to accept such criticism with or without proof. At the same time, after years of debating the same points over and over, some posters do not wish to simply let criticisms of feminism go unanswered, but consider it futile to engage in a full-fledged battle of sources.

In sum, with the post below as an example, I assert:

1. Criticisms of feminism and derogatory comments about feminism are increasingly accepted without evidence to support them. And, even when "evidence" is cited, it is rarely critically examined to determine its accuracy.
   
   
2. It is all to easy to make glib dismissals of anyone who defends feminism. Some posters seem to have made a habit of simply attacking any defense of feminism with snark, criticism of typos, demands for sources, substanceless rhetoric, etc., with providing any substantive contributions to a discussion. (This is true, however, of many "defenders" of feminism.) And, as Forsher has done below, one can take past comments by posters out of context to generalize about pro-feminist posters. (Just as one can falsely generalize about feminism.)
   
   
3. In criticizing feminism (which even TJ admits is difficult to generalize about in a meaningful fashion), posters often completely ignore context -- particularly as to time period and the surrounding socio-political circumstances. Statements or actions of feminists in 1848, 1968, the 1970s, the 1980s, and even the 1990s reflect very different realities as to the state of the legal and social status of gender equality/inequality -- particularly as to systematic unfairness towards women slowly evolving towards gender equity with a myriad of effects on the status of men.
   
   
4. A wide range of issues as simply oversimplified in order to make "points." Criminal laws regarding rape, sexual assault, etc., are different in every state of the U.S. They are inherently complex. Family law involving divorce, child custody, child support, spousal support, etc., are different in every state of the U.S. and are very complex. I could go on with almost any of the areas of dispute about the views, actions, or effects of feminists. The point is that a wide range of experts in a wide range of fields spend years -- perhaps entire careers -- devoted to understanding even small portions of distinct issues in these areas. It is way too easy and intellectually dishonest to pick some small aspect of one of these subjects and make accusations about feminists based on a selective "issue" devoid of the greater context.
   
   
5. Although usually staying just within the line against flaming, all "sides" often attack posters and only nominally attack posts.

*snip*

*snip* Yes, I am a feminist. I know what the word means, so of course I am. Any right thinking person with even the slightest bit of knowledge on the topic should be.

Which definition do you use? *snip*

*snip*

Feminism totally subverts this. Feminists generally seem to hate to actually explain themselves, make their views sound attractive or appeal to what makes people feel good about agreeing with things. They seem to resent the idea that they should have to. This is the ideological equivalent of going into a store where they only want customers who appreciate what they are selling to begin with, and where they scold away people who come in out of the cold with "Go and research what we have to offer before you come here with your stupid questions!" Now unless you run some amazing high end market stuff, what you're actually doing is alienating potential customers.

I have a quote that I think captures some of the sentiments behind the quoted post quite well. Naturally, I made it.

What is it that arguing for seemingly feminist views makes posters feel exempt to the idea of your claim, your proof?

No, I've just been around enough feminism threads on NSG to know that even if I did explain myself I would be assailed by people who insist that Rush Limbaugh's definition and ideas about the "feminist agenda" are accurate portrayals. To put it simply, if you support gender equality and oppose rigid gender roles you are a feminist. Its really that simple. There are varying sub-ideologies within feminism and a lot of internal disagreement- just like any intellectual or academic field. But thats the general gist of it.

Most of the criticism against feminism, like how we view rape in our society, is not actually the fault of feminism. Ideas that men cannot be raped, or that men are by definition aggressors while women are by definition victims is the product patriarchy- something feminism opposes. To blame that on feminism shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the topic, and I don't waste my time discussing things with people who don't know anything about the topic while claiming to be knowledgeable. If you cannot be bothered to gain an understanding of the matter before shooting off your mouth then I don't owe you anything.

A lot of the criticism we see on NSG directed towards feminists (such as youself) revolves around:

• argument, the nature of
• patriarchy, the nature and question of
• sources, and why they are never present
• contradiction, and its application to feminists (and feminist positions) on NSG and in the wider world
• TJ, and the extent that he is a sophist or misogynist.

So...yes, you are a feminist, then?

Two questions need to be applied here.

Firstly, what definition are you using?
Secondly, what is your reponse to the inevitable offering of a different one?

That second question is more interesting.

Feminism is the radical natitoin that women are people too. of course i'm a feminist (a mail feminist btw)

I knew NSG had posties.

I'm a feminist, certainly. Why? Because a woman should be able to work and get paid the same if she needs or chooses. Because male gender roles are just as oppressive. Because allowing each individual member of society to have the best shot at fulfillment, success, health, and happiness results in a healthier and more stable society. And because all oppression is connected.

Clearly, we need to do something with the education system in many (if not all) English speaking nations which are failing boys. Get them into university and stuff like that. Basically, the reverse of what we have just done in education.

Come to think of it, that's a very good argument for why the feminist approach to inequality of the genders doesn't really work. Alternatively, it is a good argument for why we need a better way of measuring "equality of opportunity" right?

Says the guy who listed a bunch assertions (without proof) and problems with patriarchy and blamed it on feminism.

Says the guy who has now developed a reputation for hanging around a thread, making assertations, saying people are wrong and then departing when challenged for sources.

Note, this reputation may be entirely on my part but its basis lies in this threadand more recently, this thread where Choronzon was challenged and then departed.

And you highlight more issues. Why can I, as someone with a penis, not get time off to watch after my newborn child? Why are they more likely to work part-time? Because we still force them to be primary care takers and men as primary earners.

And no, that isn't a "large amount" of pay discrepancy, as there are industries in which women have surpassed men while still getting things like maternity leave (advertising and marketing fields, in particular). It doesn't account for women making $0.75 per every $1.00 men make.

Source (for the numbers).

That said, you must control for education. While currently women are more likely to have tertiary qualifications in the past this was definitely not the case. Many women still in the workforce have lesser qualifications or none at all. That will change the pay. One must also account for the nature of work done. If there are more men in higher paid occupations than this is something that would distort that. I believe there is a theory that the manner in which negotiations for pay are conducted also alters how much is paid and the standard female manner isn't so good.

And by the way, some countries do have paterntity leave. Germany strikes me as an example.

The authority with which the ignorant assert untruths around here never ceases to amaze me.

Feminazi seems to be the standard term for what used to be called a "rad fem." So, it isn't mythical... not what the thread is after but not mythical.

I do not think you have cited anything, or provided any form of reasonable argument. You have however completely ignored differing views or questions. Its not really helping sway people towards equality.

His brand of equality. By which I refer to his idea of how to get there.

Wait, what?

Feminists talk about patriarchy being used to justify degradation of non-heterosexual males, and use it as a concept to fight against. I'm not sure I've ever seen a feminist use "patriarchy" as an excuse for their own poor behavior, nor am I sure how your statement defends feminism being primarily at fault for patriarchy and strict gender roles...

Correction.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts everyone.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts non-conformers.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts women.

On the whole, anyone who is talking about patriarchy is a political-feminist of some kind or dealing with political-feminists of some kind.

This is really basic. Its feminism 101.

If you haven't even delved that far into the topic, you're not worth discussing the matter with.

Convincing people that equality is bad is feminism 101?

Or is it, ignoring opposing viewpoints is feminism 101? (This one I can believe, given the wide variety of definitions of feminism and whatnot around it.)

How does showing respect and being polite to another person prevent you from being a feminist? If anything, that is the epitome of feminism.

See?

You get chivalry is inherently anti-feminist and you get this. It doesn't tally.

This is NSG, we don't use the basic definition around here. We use Rush Limbaugh's or we make up our own.

Or, better yet, we define feminism as "Not whatever the guy I'm disagreeing with says it is."

So far, it creates maximum contradiction and moral superiority.

Or, we just ignore the point where he mentions his belief in chivalry and being an "old-school gentleman".

Seriously, I mean, the article literally says "According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations.""

Seriously, that's the argument they use "debunking" sexism in the workplace. That's their proof that it DOESN'T exist. "the reason men make more is that they work in high paying "man" jobs like working with computers, not those low paying "women" jobs like saving lives and educating children"

Am I seriously the only person who sees a problem with this?

The problem I see is the insertation of "man" jobs and "women" jobs. These weren't in the bits you quoted.

That said, even within an industry some jobs pay higher than others. For example, a waiter isn't going to get paid as much as the maitre'd.

I am also bored with trawling through the night's backlog so I'll stop here.

Basically, fuck this noise. Particulary your cute statement (in reponse to one of my flippant posts) that feminists do not provide sources.

1. You admitted in that same thread you do not question an absence of proof or sources from views (like criticisms of feminism you agree with) and (at least in that thread) defend criticisms of feminism without even reading them:

I wouldn't know. I never read the OP... it was too long and I am perfectly happy to read more on more interesting subjects.

You didn't read the OP? What about your demands for proof and sources?

I just assumed I agreed with the stuff in the OP. I wrote something to that effect that I can source on demand.

I read sources when I have to. Generally this is when I disagree with the point they are being used to source. It's not an uncommon behaviour here as far as I can tell (well, I cannot speak of the reading but the replying, yes).

*snip*

Regardless, do you have a source? Why do you not demand a source from TJ?

It's now eight, I'm behind but I can make a quick remark here.

Because I agree with him, or at least have come to agree with him. I've been over this (as in, why points are challenged by sources). If you've read some of my posts where I say I preach about speaking the truth and only being interested in the truth I was stretching the truth... I'm interested in agreeable truths.

*snip*

Here I will address what I mean.

I do want a source. I don't want a source at the same time. Why? Because a source means I have to pay attention to a post that disagrees with mine. If I don't, I've lost and essentially lost a lot of what I've said in my months here as well. The supposed moral high ground is gone as well.

2. When, in another thread (in which you and TJ were participating), I posted (as quoted below) extensive proof that feminism has often and generally been about achieving gender equality, my post was basically ignored. No one has responded substantively or sought to rebut it.

This is misleading at best. Equality has been the express goal of feminism (in the U.S.) for at least 150 years.

Of course, in addition to this thread's ostensible topic about the difficulty in defining those terms, statements about feminism or feminists must be considered in historical and cultural context. Feminists in the U.S. have usually fought primarily for "more rights for women" because women in the U.S. have had less rights than men. Feminists have fought for rights for men at various times -- particiularly in the context of civil rights for minorities -- and even fought against so-called "privileges" for women that were denied men. Also, as more formal equality has been acheived between men and women, feminists increasingly focused on other inequities in society. (Again, this glosses over the wide variety of viewpoints of individual feminists or divisions within feminism.)

Going back more than 150 years to the putative start of "first wave feminism" and tracking forward belies your jaundiced "definition" (whether it is popular or not):

1848 "Seneca Falls" Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions:
Excerpts from Resolution:

Resolved, That all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and therefore of no force or authority.

Resolved, That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.
. . .
Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same tranegressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Resolved, That the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

Resolved, therefore, That, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause, by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth, growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as self-evident falsehood, and at war with the interests of mankind.

Excerpts from Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.
. . .
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States, July 4, 1876 (excerpts):

It was the boast of the founders of the republic, that the rights for which they contended, were the rights of human nature. If these rights are ignored in the case of one half the people, the nation is surely preparing for its own downfall. . . .

And now, at the close of a hundred years, as the hour hand of the great clock that marks the centuries points to 1876, we declare our faith in the principles of self-government; our full equality with man in natural rights; that woman was made first for her own happiness, with the absolute right to herself—to all the opportunities and advantages life affords, for her complete development; and we deny that dogma of the centuries, incorporated in the codes of all nations—that woman was made for man—her best interests, in all cases, to be sacrificed to his will.

We ask of our rulers, at this hour, no special favors, no special privileges, no special legislation. We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all the civil and political rights that belong to citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever.

National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose (excerpts):

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.
. . .
NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.
. . .
WE BELIEVE that the power of American law, and the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to the civil rights of all individuals, must be effectively applied and enforced to isolate and remove patterns of sex discrimination, to ensure equality of opportunity in employment and education, and equality of civil and political rights and responsibilities on behalf of women, as well as for Negroes and other deprived groups.
. . .
WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.
. . .
WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity - - not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes - - but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

Gloria Steinem, "'Women's Liberation' Aims to Free Men, Too," Washington Post, June 7, 1970 (excerpts):

It is a movement that some call "feminist" but should more accurately be called humanist . . .

As Margaret Mead has noted, the only women allowed to be dominant and respectable at the same time are widows. You have to do what society wants you to do, have a husband who dies, and then have power thrust upon you through no fault of your own. The whole thing seems very hard on the men.

Before we go on to other reasons why Women's Liberation Is Men's Liberation, too - - and why this incarnation of the women's movement is inseparable from the larger revolution -- perhaps we should clear the air of a few more myths: the myth that women are biologically inferior, for instance. In fact, an equally good case could be made for the reverse.
. . .
I don't want to prove the superiority of one sex to another: that would only be repeating a male mistake. The truth is that we're just not sure how many of our differences are biological and how many are societal. What we do know is that the differences between the two sexes, like the differences between races, are much less great than the differences to be found within each group.
. . .
Inhumanity to Man

I DON'T WANT to give the impression, though, that we want to join society exactly as it is. I don't think most women want to pick up briefcases and march off to meaningless, depersonalized jobs. Nor do we want to be drafted -- and women certainly should be drafted; even the readers of Seventeen magazine were recently polled as being overwhelmingly in favor of women in national service -- to serve in a war like the one in Indochina.

We want to liberate men from those inhuman roles as well. We want to share the work and responsibility, and to have men share equal responsibility for the children. Probably the ultimate myth is that children must have fulltime mothers, and that liberated women make bad ones. The truth is that most American children seem to be suffering from too much mother and too little father.

Women now spend more time with their homes and families than in any other past or present society we know about. To get beck to the sanity of the agrarian or joint family system, we need free universal day care. With that aid, as in Scandinavian countries, and with laws that permit women equal work and equal pay, man will be relieved of his role as sole breadwinner and stranger to his own children.

No more alimony. Fewer boring wives. Fewer childlike wives. No more so-called "Jewish mothers," who are simply normally ambitious human beings with all their ambitiousness confined to the house. No more wives who fall apart with the first wrinkle because they've been taught that their total identity depends on their outsides No more responsibility for another adult human being who has never been told she is responsible for her own life, and who sooner or later says some version of, "If I hadn't married you, I could have been a star." Women's Liberation really is Men's Liberation, too.

The family system that will emerge is a great subject of anxiety. Probably there will be a variety of choices. Colleague marriages, such as young people have now, with both partners going to law-school or the Peace Corps together, is one alternative. At least they share more than the kitchen and the bedroom. Communes; marriages that are valid for the child-rearing years only -- there are many possibilities.

The point is that Women's Liberation is not destroying the American family. It is trying to build a human compassionate alternative out of its ruins.

Simply Incorruptible

ONE FINAL myth that women are more moral than men. We are not more moral; we are only uncorrupted by power. . . .

The challenge to all of us is to live a revolution, not to die for one. There has been too much killing, and the weapons are now far too terrible. This revolution has to change consciousness, to upset the injustice of our current hierarchy by refusing to honor it. And it must be a life that enforces a new social justice

Because the truth is that none of us can be liberated if other groups are not. Women's Liberation is a bridge between black and white women, but also between the construction workers and the suburbanites, between Mr. Nixon's Silent Majority and the young people it fears. Indeed, there's much more injustice and rage among working-class women than among the much publicized white radicals.

Women are sisters; they have many of the same problems, and they can communicate with each other. "You only get radicalized," as black activists always told us, "on your own thing." Then we make the connection to other injustices in society. The women's movement is an important revolutionary bridge, and we are building It.

Jo Freeman, The Women's Liberation Movement: Its Origin, Structures and Ideas, 1971 (excerpt):

The eradication of sexism and the practices it supports, like those above, is obviously one of the major goals of the women's liberation movement. But it is not enough to destroy a set of values and leave a normative vacuum. They have to be replaced with something. A movement can only begin by declaring its opposition to the status quo. Eventually if it is to succeed, it has to propose an alternative.

I cannot pretend to be even partially definitive about the possible alternatives contemplated by the numerous participants in the women's liberation movement. Yet from the plethora of ideas and visions feminists have thought, discussed and written about, I think there are two basic ideas emerging which express the bulk of their concerns. I call these the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic, but they are not independent of each other and together they mesh into what can only be described as a feminist humanism.

The Egalitarian Ethic means exactly what it says. The sexes are equal; therefore sex roles must go. Our history has proven that institutionalized difference inevitably means inequity and sex role stereotypes have long since become anachronistic. Strongly differentiated sex roles were rooted in the ancient division of labor; their basis has been torn apart by modern technology. Their justification was rooted in the subjection of women to the reproductive cycle. That has already been destroyed by modern pharmacology. The cramped little categories of personality and social function to which we assign people from birth must be broken open so that all people can develop independently, as individuals. This means that there will be an integration of social functions and life styles of men and women as groups until, ideally, one cannot tell anything of relevance about a person's social role by knowing their sex. But this increased similarity of the two groups also means increased options for individuals and increased diversity in the human race. No longer will there be men's work and women's work. No longer will humanity suffer a schizophrenic personality desperately trying to reconcile its "masculine" and "feminine" parts. No longer will marriage be the institution where two half-people come together in hopes of making a whole.

The Liberation Ethic says this is not enough. Not only must the limits of the roles be changed, but their content as well. The Liberation Ethic looks at the kinds of lives currently being led by men as well as women and concludes that both are deplorable and neither are necessary. The social institutions which oppress women as women, also oppress people as people and can be altered to make a more humane existence for all. So much of our society is hung upon the framework of sex role stereotypes and their reciprocal functions that the dismantling of this structure will provide the opportunity for making a more viable life for everyone.

It is important to stress that these two Ethics must work together in tandem. If the first is emphasized over the second, then we have a women's rights movement, not one of women's liberation. To seek only equality, given the current male bias of the social values, is to assume that women want to be like men or that men are worth emulating. It is to demand that women be allowed to participate in society as we know it, to get their piece of the pie, without questioning the extent to which that society is worth participating in. This view is held by some, but most feminists today find it inadequate. Those women who are more personally compatible in what is considered the male role must realize that that role is made possible only by the existence of the female sex role; in other words, only by the subjection of women. Therefore women cannot become equal to men without the destruction of those two interdependent mutually parasitic roles. The failure to realize that the integration of the sex roles and the equality of the sexes will inevitably lead to basic structural change is to fail to seize the opportunity to decide the direction of those changes.

It is just as dangerous to fall into the trap of seeking liberation without due concern for equality. This is the mistake made by many of the left radicals. They find the general human condition to be wretched that they feel everyone should devote their energies to the Millennial Revolution in belief that the liberation of women will follow naturally the liberation of people.

However women have yet to be defined as people, even among the radicals, and it is erroneous to assume their interests are identical to those of men. For women to subsume their concerns once again is to insure that the promise of liberation will be a spurious one. There has yet to be created or conceived by any political or social theorist a revolutionary society in which women were equal to men and their needs duly considered. The sex role structure has never been comprehensively challenged by any male philosopher and the systems they have proposed have all presumed the existence of a sex-role structure to some degree.

Such undue emphasis on the Liberation Ethic has also often led to a sort of Radical Paradox. This is a situation the politicos frequently found themselves in during the early days of the movement. They found repugnant the possibility of pursuing "reformist" issues which might be achieved without altering the basic nature of the system, and thus, they felt, only strengthen the system. However, their search for a sufficiently radical action and/or issue came to naught and they found themselves unable to do anything out of fear that it might be counterrevolutionary. Inactive revolutionaries are a good deal more innocuous than active "reformists."

But even among those who are not rendered impotent, the unilateral pursuit of Liberation can take its toll. Some radical women have been so appalled at the condition of most men, and the possibility of becoming even partially what they are, that they have clung to the security of the role that they know, to wait complacently for the Revolution to liberate everyone. Some men, fearing that role reversal was a goal of the women's liberation movement, have taken a similar position. Both have failed to realize that the abolition of sex roles must be continually incorporated into any radical restructuring of society and thus have failed to explore the possible consequences of such role integration. The goal they advocate may be one of liberation, but it dose not involve women's liberation.

Separated from each other, the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic can be crippling, but together they can be a very powerful force. Separately they speak to limited interests; together they speak to all humanity. Separately, they are but superficial solutions; together they recognize that while sexism oppresses women, it also limits the potentiality of men. Separately, neither will be achieved because their scope does not range far enough; together they provide a vision worthy of our devotion. Separately, these two Ethics do not lead to the liberation of women; together, they also lead to the liberation of men.

Obviously these are not the views of all feminists at all times in history (of even just the U.S.). I think they make clear, however, that equality (or liberation of both men and women) has been a primary goal of feminism in general in the U.S.

Further, feminist organizations in the U.S. have pushed for an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution since 1923 (although not all feminist organizations have always supported the idea or supported the same wording). A version of the Equal Rights Amendment in every Congressional session between 1923 and 1970. With the exception of the brief attempt to pervert the ERA by addition of the Hayden Rider in the early 1950s (which was opposed by feminist groups supporting the ERA), the ERA has always been a strict call for formal equality between men and women.

The original was written by Alice Paul in 1923 and introduced in Congress that same year:

Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Alice Paul revised this in 1943:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

After NOW was formed, endorsed the ERA, and began a major campaign for its passage, this version of the ERA was passed by Congress for ratification by the states:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

To become the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the ERA had to be ratified by 38 states by March 22, 1979. The history gets a bit complicated because there was an attempt (of dubious constitutionality) to extend the deadline for ratification and some states attempted to rescind ratifications they had passed (which was also dubious constitionally). By March 22, 1979, 35 states had raftified the ERA (of which 4 states putatively rescinded). At various times prior to the deadline, at least 1 chamber of the legislature approved the ERA in 9 of the 15 non-ratifying states.

The ERA has been reintroduced in every session of Congress since 1982.

--
Again, exceptions can be found, but do not deny the general "thrust" of the feminist movement has been towards equality.

(edited to avoid quote limits)

[Forsher]

Before I begin I'd like to say I am very pleased to have generated a response... even if it is from Smash and not in a certain thread (although the latter part is the problem). The edit is because I stuffed up the quotes.

All "sides" of the copious discussion of feminism have been guilty of making unproven assertions while criticizing the other side for making unproven assertions.

Now you're getting it.

There has, however, been a concerted campaign by certain posters to criticize or denigrate feminism and there is a growing hallelujah chorus that seems to accept such criticism with or without proof. At the same time, after years of debating the same points over and over, some posters do not wish to simply let criticisms of feminism go unanswered, but consider it futile to engage in a full-fledged battle of sources.

At the moment I can't. The internet is slow but in a few days I would be able to. I try to avoid too much green (not a favoured colour of mine) but if I must.

In sum, with the post below as an example, I assert:

Did you have to use a list? They're a bugger to deal with... maybe I'm too set in my ways. However, I think what I've done will work.

1. Criticisms of feminism and derogatory comments about feminism are increasingly accepted without evidence to support them. And, even when "evidence" is cited, it is rarely critically examined to determine its accuracy.

The same is true of comments in favour of feminism, and as I explained in the other thread, people only contest that which they have cause to contest. Generally, that means if a source agrees with what one is saying one will not critique it.

• It is all to easy to make glib dismissals of anyone who defends feminism. Some posters seem to have made a habit of simply attacking any defense of feminism with snark, criticism of typos, demands for sources, substanceless rhetoric, etc., with providing any substantive contributions to a discussion. (This is true, however, of many "defenders" of feminism.) And, as Forsher has done below, one can take past comments by posters out of context to generalize about pro-feminist posters. (Just as one can falsely generalize about feminism.)

If the post in question is this one then I feel that you have taken its use too personally. When I originally made it I was still annoyed by the lack of response by Choronzon (yes, I do have a "the world is centred around me way of thinking" thanks for asking) to the challenges for sources. It was then and is now a cricticism of a perceived habit common to "seemingly pro-feminist" posters and, like pretty much everything I have written thus far in this thread, made with Choronzon in mind as an example. Your bit before it (which I removed for here as I considered it irrelevant, I was trying to use something I wrote to express another's views) was merely inspiration.

With regards to the habit, it is easiest to fightr fire with fire. It is much harder to create a solid, clear, statement about one's views and ideas of a thing than it is to simply disagree with a partial view of someone else (or a total view of the less informed or interested). This sums up pretty much any thread on feminism in NSG (as I think you are well aware by now). It is no wonder that we find this behaviour. Certainly it has become my modus operandi (fancy term I can't spell with certainty and use entirely to look smarter) to do this. I cannot be bothered thinking properly so I enter threads by disagreeing with someone else. It has become quite rare to find a summary of my position and justifications for anything these days but very easy to find me disagreeing with someone disagreeing with a third party.

• In criticizing feminism (which even TJ admits is difficult to generalize about in a meaningful fashion), posters often completely ignore context -- particularly as to time period and the surrounding socio-political circumstances. Statements or actions of feminists in 1848, 1968, the 1970s, the 1980s, and even the 1990s reflect very different realities as to the state of the legal and social status of gender equality/inequality -- particularly as to systematic unfairness towards women slowly evolving towards gender equity with a myriad of effects on the status of men.

I cannot comment on what period of feminism most of my posts here are on. I would suggest that I don't bother with such because I do not choose the domain for discussion (with one exception). However, I feel it is generally in the now that my personal comments are on.

• A wide range of issues as simply oversimplified in order to make "points." Criminal laws regarding rape, sexual assault, etc., are different in every state of the U.S. They are inherently complex. Family law involving divorce, child custody, child support, spousal support, etc., are different in every state of the U.S. and are very complex. I could go on with almost any of the areas of dispute about the views, actions, or effects of feminists. The point is that a wide range of experts in a wide range of fields spend years -- perhaps entire careers -- devoted to understanding even small portions of distinct issues in these areas. It is way too easy and intellectually dishonest to pick some small aspect of one of these subjects and make accusations about feminists based on a selective "issue" devoid of the greater context.

Probably, however, I don't think that I can possibly be accused of this as I tend to leave laws well alone and try to focus purely on approach. Also, I don't bother reading laws. I remember that rape is interesting in Germany, safe have laws are about being able to dump babies (essentially) and Germany has paternity leave as well because that's pretty much all I need to know. TJ and Galloism among others will deal with definitions.

• Although usually staying just within the line against flaming, all "sides" often attack posters and only nominally attack posts.

I think I strayed too far along the line of this is an issue with Choronzon rather than an issue with posts this time, although, as you may recall from that other thread quite a long post in repsonse to his was ignored by him.

*snip*

Which definition do you use? *snip*

I have a quote that I think captures some of the sentiments behind the quoted post quite well. Naturally, I made it.

A lot of the criticism we see on NSG directed towards feminists (such as youself) revolves around:

• argument, the nature of
• patriarchy, the nature and question of
• sources, and why they are never present
• contradiction, and its application to feminists (and feminist positions) on NSG and in the wider world
• TJ, and the extent that he is a sophist or misogynist.

Two questions need to be applied here.

Firstly, what definition are you using?
Secondly, what is your reponse to the inevitable offering of a different one?

That second question is more interesting.



I knew NSG had posties.



Clearly, we need to do something with the education system in many (if not all) English speaking nations which are failing boys. Get them into university and stuff like that. Basically, the reverse of what we have just done in education.

Come to think of it, that's a very good argument for why the feminist approach to inequality of the genders doesn't really work. Alternatively, it is a good argument for why we need a better way of measuring "equality of opportunity" right?



Says the guy who has now developed a reputation for hanging around a thread, making assertations, saying people are wrong and then departing when challenged for sources.

Note, this reputation may be entirely on my part but its basis lies in this threadand more recently, this thread where Choronzon was challenged and then departed.



Source (for the numbers).

That said, you must control for education. While currently women are more likely to have tertiary qualifications in the past this was definitely not the case. Many women still in the workforce have lesser qualifications or none at all. That will change the pay. One must also account for the nature of work done. If there are more men in higher paid occupations than this is something that would distort that. I believe there is a theory that the manner in which negotiations for pay are conducted also alters how much is paid and the standard female manner isn't so good.

And by the way, some countries do have paterntity leave. Germany strikes me as an example.



Feminazi seems to be the standard term for what used to be called a "rad fem." So, it isn't mythical... not what the thread is after but not mythical.



His brand of equality. By which I refer to his idea of how to get there.



Correction.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts everyone.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts non-conformers.

Some feminists say patriarchy hurts women.

On the whole, anyone who is talking about patriarchy is a political-feminist of some kind or dealing with political-feminists of some kind.



Convincing people that equality is bad is feminism 101?

Or is it, ignoring opposing viewpoints is feminism 101? (This one I can believe, given the wide variety of definitions of feminism and whatnot around it.)



See?

You get chivalry is inherently anti-feminist and you get this. It doesn't tally.



Or, better yet, we define feminism as "Not whatever the guy I'm disagreeing with says it is."

So far, it creates maximum contradiction and moral superiority.

Or, we just ignore the point where he mentions his belief in chivalry and being an "old-school gentleman".



The problem I see is the insertation of "man" jobs and "women" jobs. These weren't in the bits you quoted.

That said, even within an industry some jobs pay higher than others. For example, a waiter isn't going to get paid as much as the maitre'd.

I am also bored with trawling through the night's backlog so I'll stop here.

Basically, fuck this noise. Particulary your cute statement (in reponse to one of my flippant posts) that feminists do not provide sources.

Oh come on, you ignored what I consider to be the most interesting component of that post (the list, hypocrite am I? yes, yes, I am, in case you want to know). As I have explained, it was used to express in my words the sentiments I picked up in another post. I like the quote, I feel that it sounds good (memorable) and has the alarmist qualities that one would deisre in a though provoking statement.

1. You admitted in that same thread you do not question an absence of proof or sources from views (like criticisms of feminism you agree with) and (at least in that thread) defend criticisms of feminism without even reading them:

If I am guilty of anything it is a willingness to defend my own statements. This is pretty much the base issue I have with anyone who doesn't. I've even figured out a way of making sure that I don't have pages of posts in threads (instead I make one massive post).

In fact, I've repeated the same argument, really, in this very reply. The reason being it is correct. No-one is 100% spot on with sources, not me, not you, not TJ, not Nadkor, not Arch, certainly not Yoot or FST, or anyone I ever cited as an example of different posting behaviours. I never did explain how I did post in that thread but I think you've got that now. I've put the source for this in spoilers since it's cluttering stuff up. I would commend you for its use but it just looks above and beyond the call of duty in the light of this reply.

I just assumed I agreed with the stuff in the OP. I wrote something to that effect that I can source on demand.

I read sources when I have to. Generally this is when I disagree with the point they are being used to source. It's not an uncommon behaviour here as far as I can tell (well, I cannot speak of the reading but the replying, yes).

*snip*



It's now eight, I'm behind but I can make a quick remark here.

Because I agree with him, or at least have come to agree with him. I've been over this (as in, why points are challenged by sources). If you've read some of my posts where I say I preach about speaking the truth and only being interested in the truth I was stretching the truth... I'm interested in agreeable truths.

*snip*

Here I will address what I mean.

I do want a source. I don't want a source at the same time. Why? Because a source means I have to pay attention to a post that disagrees with mine. If I don't, I've lost and essentially lost a lot of what I've said in my months here as well. The supposed moral high ground is gone as well.

2. When, in another thread (in which you and TJ were participating), I posted (as quoted below) extensive proof that feminism has often and generally been about achieving gender equality, my post was basically ignored. No one has responded substantively or sought to rebut it.

It's very long, most of it you didn't write and it was in reply to something someone who wasn't me wrote. Also, to be perfectly honest, I looked at it and thought, "Someone else will get that." It also makes mention to the distant past of feminism and last I checked I agree with feminism back then... my issue is where the approach will go in the now.

That first point is why it is now in a spoiler. Tell you what, I will make a reply to it, just not when the now is 4:03am, okay?

This is misleading at best. Equality has been the express goal of feminism (in the U.S.) for at least 150 years.

Of course, in addition to this thread's ostensible topic about the difficulty in defining those terms, statements about feminism or feminists must be considered in historical and cultural context. Feminists in the U.S. have usually fought primarily for "more rights for women" because women in the U.S. have had less rights than men. Feminists have fought for rights for men at various times -- particiularly in the context of civil rights for minorities -- and even fought against so-called "privileges" for women that were denied men. Also, as more formal equality has been acheived between men and women, feminists increasingly focused on other inequities in society. (Again, this glosses over the wide variety of viewpoints of individual feminists or divisions within feminism.)

Going back more than 150 years to the putative start of "first wave feminism" and tracking forward belies your jaundiced "definition" (whether it is popular or not):

1848 "Seneca Falls" Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions:
Excerpts from Resolution:

Resolved, That all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and therefore of no force or authority.

Resolved, That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.
. . .
Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same tranegressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Resolved, That the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

Resolved, therefore, That, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause, by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth, growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as self-evident falsehood, and at war with the interests of mankind.

Excerpts from Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.
. . .
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States, July 4, 1876 (excerpts):

It was the boast of the founders of the republic, that the rights for which they contended, were the rights of human nature. If these rights are ignored in the case of one half the people, the nation is surely preparing for its own downfall. . . .

And now, at the close of a hundred years, as the hour hand of the great clock that marks the centuries points to 1876, we declare our faith in the principles of self-government; our full equality with man in natural rights; that woman was made first for her own happiness, with the absolute right to herself—to all the opportunities and advantages life affords, for her complete development; and we deny that dogma of the centuries, incorporated in the codes of all nations—that woman was made for man—her best interests, in all cases, to be sacrificed to his will.

We ask of our rulers, at this hour, no special favors, no special privileges, no special legislation. We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all the civil and political rights that belong to citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever.

National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose (excerpts):

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.
. . .
NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.
. . .
WE BELIEVE that the power of American law, and the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to the civil rights of all individuals, must be effectively applied and enforced to isolate and remove patterns of sex discrimination, to ensure equality of opportunity in employment and education, and equality of civil and political rights and responsibilities on behalf of women, as well as for Negroes and other deprived groups.
. . .
WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.
. . .
WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity - - not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes - - but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

Gloria Steinem, "'Women's Liberation' Aims to Free Men, Too," Washington Post, June 7, 1970 (excerpts):

It is a movement that some call "feminist" but should more accurately be called humanist . . .

As Margaret Mead has noted, the only women allowed to be dominant and respectable at the same time are widows. You have to do what society wants you to do, have a husband who dies, and then have power thrust upon you through no fault of your own. The whole thing seems very hard on the men.

Before we go on to other reasons why Women's Liberation Is Men's Liberation, too - - and why this incarnation of the women's movement is inseparable from the larger revolution -- perhaps we should clear the air of a few more myths: the myth that women are biologically inferior, for instance. In fact, an equally good case could be made for the reverse.
. . .
I don't want to prove the superiority of one sex to another: that would only be repeating a male mistake. The truth is that we're just not sure how many of our differences are biological and how many are societal. What we do know is that the differences between the two sexes, like the differences between races, are much less great than the differences to be found within each group.
. . .
Inhumanity to Man

I DON'T WANT to give the impression, though, that we want to join society exactly as it is. I don't think most women want to pick up briefcases and march off to meaningless, depersonalized jobs. Nor do we want to be drafted -- and women certainly should be drafted; even the readers of Seventeen magazine were recently polled as being overwhelmingly in favor of women in national service -- to serve in a war like the one in Indochina.

We want to liberate men from those inhuman roles as well. We want to share the work and responsibility, and to have men share equal responsibility for the children. Probably the ultimate myth is that children must have fulltime mothers, and that liberated women make bad ones. The truth is that most American children seem to be suffering from too much mother and too little father.

Women now spend more time with their homes and families than in any other past or present society we know about. To get beck to the sanity of the agrarian or joint family system, we need free universal day care. With that aid, as in Scandinavian countries, and with laws that permit women equal work and equal pay, man will be relieved of his role as sole breadwinner and stranger to his own children.

No more alimony. Fewer boring wives. Fewer childlike wives. No more so-called "Jewish mothers," who are simply normally ambitious human beings with all their ambitiousness confined to the house. No more wives who fall apart with the first wrinkle because they've been taught that their total identity depends on their outsides No more responsibility for another adult human being who has never been told she is responsible for her own life, and who sooner or later says some version of, "If I hadn't married you, I could have been a star." Women's Liberation really is Men's Liberation, too.

The family system that will emerge is a great subject of anxiety. Probably there will be a variety of choices. Colleague marriages, such as young people have now, with both partners going to law-school or the Peace Corps together, is one alternative. At least they share more than the kitchen and the bedroom. Communes; marriages that are valid for the child-rearing years only -- there are many possibilities.

The point is that Women's Liberation is not destroying the American family. It is trying to build a human compassionate alternative out of its ruins.

Simply Incorruptible

ONE FINAL myth that women are more moral than men. We are not more moral; we are only uncorrupted by power. . . .

The challenge to all of us is to live a revolution, not to die for one. There has been too much killing, and the weapons are now far too terrible. This revolution has to change consciousness, to upset the injustice of our current hierarchy by refusing to honor it. And it must be a life that enforces a new social justice

Because the truth is that none of us can be liberated if other groups are not. Women's Liberation is a bridge between black and white women, but also between the construction workers and the suburbanites, between Mr. Nixon's Silent Majority and the young people it fears. Indeed, there's much more injustice and rage among working-class women than among the much publicized white radicals.

Women are sisters; they have many of the same problems, and they can communicate with each other. "You only get radicalized," as black activists always told us, "on your own thing." Then we make the connection to other injustices in society. The women's movement is an important revolutionary bridge, and we are building It.

Jo Freeman, The Women's Liberation Movement: Its Origin, Structures and Ideas, 1971 (excerpt):

The eradication of sexism and the practices it supports, like those above, is obviously one of the major goals of the women's liberation movement. But it is not enough to destroy a set of values and leave a normative vacuum. They have to be replaced with something. A movement can only begin by declaring its opposition to the status quo. Eventually if it is to succeed, it has to propose an alternative.

I cannot pretend to be even partially definitive about the possible alternatives contemplated by the numerous participants in the women's liberation movement. Yet from the plethora of ideas and visions feminists have thought, discussed and written about, I think there are two basic ideas emerging which express the bulk of their concerns. I call these the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic, but they are not independent of each other and together they mesh into what can only be described as a feminist humanism.

The Egalitarian Ethic means exactly what it says. The sexes are equal; therefore sex roles must go. Our history has proven that institutionalized difference inevitably means inequity and sex role stereotypes have long since become anachronistic. Strongly differentiated sex roles were rooted in the ancient division of labor; their basis has been torn apart by modern technology. Their justification was rooted in the subjection of women to the reproductive cycle. That has already been destroyed by modern pharmacology. The cramped little categories of personality and social function to which we assign people from birth must be broken open so that all people can develop independently, as individuals. This means that there will be an integration of social functions and life styles of men and women as groups until, ideally, one cannot tell anything of relevance about a person's social role by knowing their sex. But this increased similarity of the two groups also means increased options for individuals and increased diversity in the human race. No longer will there be men's work and women's work. No longer will humanity suffer a schizophrenic personality desperately trying to reconcile its "masculine" and "feminine" parts. No longer will marriage be the institution where two half-people come together in hopes of making a whole.

The Liberation Ethic says this is not enough. Not only must the limits of the roles be changed, but their content as well. The Liberation Ethic looks at the kinds of lives currently being led by men as well as women and concludes that both are deplorable and neither are necessary. The social institutions which oppress women as women, also oppress people as people and can be altered to make a more humane existence for all. So much of our society is hung upon the framework of sex role stereotypes and their reciprocal functions that the dismantling of this structure will provide the opportunity for making a more viable life for everyone.

It is important to stress that these two Ethics must work together in tandem. If the first is emphasized over the second, then we have a women's rights movement, not one of women's liberation. To seek only equality, given the current male bias of the social values, is to assume that women want to be like men or that men are worth emulating. It is to demand that women be allowed to participate in society as we know it, to get their piece of the pie, without questioning the extent to which that society is worth participating in. This view is held by some, but most feminists today find it inadequate. Those women who are more personally compatible in what is considered the male role must realize that that role is made possible only by the existence of the female sex role; in other words, only by the subjection of women. Therefore women cannot become equal to men without the destruction of those two interdependent mutually parasitic roles. The failure to realize that the integration of the sex roles and the equality of the sexes will inevitably lead to basic structural change is to fail to seize the opportunity to decide the direction of those changes.

It is just as dangerous to fall into the trap of seeking liberation without due concern for equality. This is the mistake made by many of the left radicals. They find the general human condition to be wretched that they feel everyone should devote their energies to the Millennial Revolution in belief that the liberation of women will follow naturally the liberation of people.

However women have yet to be defined as people, even among the radicals, and it is erroneous to assume their interests are identical to those of men. For women to subsume their concerns once again is to insure that the promise of liberation will be a spurious one. There has yet to be created or conceived by any political or social theorist a revolutionary society in which women were equal to men and their needs duly considered. The sex role structure has never been comprehensively challenged by any male philosopher and the systems they have proposed have all presumed the existence of a sex-role structure to some degree.

Such undue emphasis on the Liberation Ethic has also often led to a sort of Radical Paradox. This is a situation the politicos frequently found themselves in during the early days of the movement. They found repugnant the possibility of pursuing "reformist" issues which might be achieved without altering the basic nature of the system, and thus, they felt, only strengthen the system. However, their search for a sufficiently radical action and/or issue came to naught and they found themselves unable to do anything out of fear that it might be counterrevolutionary. Inactive revolutionaries are a good deal more innocuous than active "reformists."

But even among those who are not rendered impotent, the unilateral pursuit of Liberation can take its toll. Some radical women have been so appalled at the condition of most men, and the possibility of becoming even partially what they are, that they have clung to the security of the role that they know, to wait complacently for the Revolution to liberate everyone. Some men, fearing that role reversal was a goal of the women's liberation movement, have taken a similar position. Both have failed to realize that the abolition of sex roles must be continually incorporated into any radical restructuring of society and thus have failed to explore the possible consequences of such role integration. The goal they advocate may be one of liberation, but it dose not involve women's liberation.

Separated from each other, the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic can be crippling, but together they can be a very powerful force. Separately they speak to limited interests; together they speak to all humanity. Separately, they are but superficial solutions; together they recognize that while sexism oppresses women, it also limits the potentiality of men. Separately, neither will be achieved because their scope does not range far enough; together they provide a vision worthy of our devotion. Separately, these two Ethics do not lead to the liberation of women; together, they also lead to the liberation of men.

Obviously these are not the views of all feminists at all times in history (of even just the U.S.). I think they make clear, however, that equality (or liberation of both men and women) has been a primary goal of feminism in general in the U.S.

Further, feminist organizations in the U.S. have pushed for an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution since 1923 (although not all feminist organizations have always supported the idea or supported the same wording). A version of the Equal Rights Amendment in every Congressional session between 1923 and 1970. With the exception of the brief attempt to pervert the ERA by addition of the Hayden Rider in the early 1950s (which was opposed by feminist groups supporting the ERA), the ERA has always been a strict call for formal equality between men and women.

The original was written by Alice Paul in 1923 and introduced in Congress that same year:

Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Alice Paul revised this in 1943:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

After NOW was formed, endorsed the ERA, and began a major campaign for its passage, this version of the ERA was passed by Congress for ratification by the states:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

To become the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the ERA had to be ratified by 38 states by March 22, 1979. The history gets a bit complicated because there was an attempt (of dubious constitutionality) to extend the deadline for ratification and some states attempted to rescind ratifications they had passed (which was also dubious constitionally). By March 22, 1979, 35 states had raftified the ERA (of which 4 states putatively rescinded). At various times prior to the deadline, at least 1 chamber of the legislature approved the ERA in 9 of the 15 non-ratifying states.

The ERA has been reintroduced in every session of Congress since 1982.

--
Again, exceptions can be found, but do not deny the general "thrust" of the feminist movement has been towards equality.

(edited to avoid quote limits)

[Kemalist]

Yes, as a male, I consider myself to be a state feminist who often participate in rallies and protests for their struggle. I believe that women are the pioneers of the modern social revolutions and a symbol of republican patriotism (in a French manner).

[New Edom]

@I want to Smash Them All

Frankly I wish that more people would quote whole sources. I feel it is not too much to ask when I express skepticism about an ideology for people to offer convincing arguments. The assertion that I should somehow want to convince myself that feminism is good merely makes me shrug my shoulders; I've met too many people who were obnoxious, rude, uncooperative and unyielding who also called themselves feminists to not be skeptical of it. There are a number of statements in what you quoted that actually answer my questions.

I've used the analogy before of an atheist talking to a deist; sometimes people come to disagreement through mistreatment of those who espouse a particular ideology. While your post was ignored before, quoting such first hand information can be invaluable in bridging gaps of understanding.

One of the things that is particularly striking in it is this part:

But even among those who are not rendered impotent, the unilateral pursuit of Liberation can take its toll. Some radical women have been so appalled at the condition of most men, and the possibility of becoming even partially what they are, that they have clung to the security of the role that they know, to wait complacently for the Revolution to liberate everyone. Some men, fearing that role reversal was a goal of the women's liberation movement, have taken a similar position. Both have failed to realize that the abolition of sex roles must be continually incorporated into any radical restructuring of society and thus have failed to explore the possible consequences of such role integration. The goal they advocate may be one of liberation, but it does not involve women's liberation.

Separated from each other, the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic can be crippling, but together they can be a very powerful force. Separately they speak to limited interests; together they speak to all humanity. Separately, they are but superficial solutions; together they recognize that while sexism oppresses women, it also limits the potentiality of men. Separately, neither will be achieved because their scope does not range far enough; together they provide a vision worthy of our devotion. Separately, these two Ethics do not lead to the liberation of women; together, they also lead to the liberation of men.

I have to say that this is the kind of thing that SHOULD be said when feminists are trying to be convincing and explain why there are problems with the execution of feminist ideas. Whether it is agreed with or not, it goes beyond the defensive into making clear why feminism proposes that its ideas are good for everyone.

You could liken this to a statement from a Christian about Christian attacks on other faiths, historically and in the present, by stating that: "The true message of Christianity is compassion, but many Christians get caught up in concerns about demonstrating their own righteousness above that of others and become utterly distracted from the original message of Christ." Whether you agree with this statement or not, it at least addresses the concerns without merely being angry with them.

[Central Slavia]

I want to smash them all reminds me a lot of certain church lackeys going on about how easy it's to dismiss faith as superstition these days.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

Before I begin I'd like to say I am very pleased to have generated a response... even if it is from Smash and not in a certain thread (although the latter part is the problem).

I am NOT gravely offended at this comment!

Perpare to defend thyself in a duel with pistols at dawn on the morrow! Um, dawn my time is earlier than I like to get up. Maybe noonish? Oh, plus I do not know what time (or even day) that would be your time. Plus I do not think we can duel with pistols over this series of tubes and I do not want to fly to where you are to be shot at and possibly killed (and I assume you feel the same about coming here and, likely, about being possibly killed. Logistical nightmare. Perhaps we can say we dueled and not actually do it? We could say we each suffered serious gunshot wounds but survived and our honor is intact. Perhaps saying we both suffered from splinters from the ancient pistols would be more realistic . . .

All "sides" of the copious discussion of feminism have been guilty of making unproven assertions while criticizing the other side for making unproven assertions.

Now you're getting it.

There has, however, been a concerted campaign by certain posters to criticize or denigrate feminism and there is a growing hallelujah chorus that seems to accept such criticism with or without proof. At the same time, after years of debating the same points over and over, some posters do not wish to simply let criticisms of feminism go unanswered, but consider it futile to engage in a full-fledged battle of sources.

At the moment I can't. The internet is slow but in a few days I would be able to. I try to avoid too much green (not a favoured colour of mine) but if I must.

In sum, with the post below as an example, I assert:

Did you have to use a list? They're a bugger to deal with... maybe I'm too set in my ways. However, I think what I've done will work.

1. Criticisms of feminism and derogatory comments about feminism are increasingly accepted without evidence to support them. And, even when "evidence" is cited, it is rarely critically examined to determine its accuracy.

The same is true of comments in favour of feminism, and as I explained in the other thread, people only contest that which they have cause to contest. Generally, that means if a source agrees with what one is saying one will not critique it.

• It is all to easy to make glib dismissals of anyone who defends feminism. Some posters seem to have made a habit of simply attacking any defense of feminism with snark, criticism of typos, demands for sources, substanceless rhetoric, etc., with providing any substantive contributions to a discussion. (This is true, however, of many "defenders" of feminism.) And, as Forsher has done below, one can take past comments by posters out of context to generalize about pro-feminist posters. (Just as one can falsely generalize about feminism.)

1. I should have made clear that (other than my umbradge about one statement) I did not intend any of my post as specific to Forsher. I do not believe Forsher is generally any more guilty of the things I criticize than, for example, I am.

2. We seem to be largely on the same page. My focus tends to be myopic in defense of feminism, but you are correct that most of what I said applies to all/both "sides" of the issues. Also, I would assert that much of what I am critiquing applies to NSG in general. In fact, they are ubiquitous in NSG and may be an inherent part of NSG culture.

If the post in question is this one then I feel that you have taken its use too personally.

When I originally made it I was still annoyed by the lack of response by Choronzon (yes, I do have a "the world is centred around me way of thinking" thanks for asking) to the challenges for sources. It was then and is now a cricticism of a perceived habit common to "seemingly pro-feminist" posters and, like pretty much everything I have written thus far in this thread, made with Choronzon in mind as an example. Your bit before it (which I removed for here as I considered it irrelevant, I was trying to use something I wrote to express another's views) was merely inspiration.

1. I admit, of course, to taking the snark a bit personally (I was human last time I checked), but my main objection was and continues to be that the generalization about feminists is unfair and inaccurate.

2. I do wish to be clear that, in the context of the thread, the comment was part of a perfectly fair criticism of my having made some bold assertions and then flippantly refusing to provide evidence. Although I think my later posts in that thread got more substantive, I still have not sourced those particular assertions and I have since abandoned the thread for at least now (for various reasons).

*snip* No-one is 100% spot on with sources, not me, not you, not TJ, not Nadkor, not Arch, certainly not Yoot or FST, or anyone I ever cited as an example of different posting behaviours. *snip*

Agreed. We all make mistakes. (Although some of us seem more willing to admit them than others. (Yes, that is a bit of a direct cheap-shot. ).)

2. When, in another thread (in which you and TJ were participating), I posted (as quoted below) extensive proof that feminism has often and generally been about achieving gender equality, my post was basically ignored. No one has responded substantively or sought to rebut it.

It's very long, most of it you didn't write

and it was in reply to something someone who wasn't me wrote. Also, to be perfectly honest, I looked at it and thought, "Someone else will get that."

Um. The post was long because it was trying to rebut the notion that feminism has never been about gender equality and because I quoted original sources at length. The latter is also why I "didn't write" "most of it." The very things you object to should generally be virtues.

See, this is a problem (common to NSG) of selective focus. NSG posters often challenge viewpoints one disagrees with to provide sources, but often complain when sources are provided and about long posts.

It also makes mention to the distant past of feminism and last I checked I agree with feminism back then... my issue is where the approach will go in the now.

That is nice. I am not familiar enough with a wide enough range of your posts to comment on your practices. But you know full well that references to the past of feminism are commonly used to "bash" feminism. Also some of these same sources have been miscontrued in threads "bashing" feminism.

Tell you what, I will make a reply to it, just not when the now is 4:03am, okay?*snip*

You can if want. My point was not to complain that I had not recieved much response or prompt you to make one. My point was simply an example of substantive post in defense of feminism do at least sometimes get made and sometimes simply ignored. (Again, I recognize this is true regarding criticism of feminism and NSG discussions in general.)

[I Want to Smash Them All]

I want to smash them all reminds me a lot of certain church lackeys going on about how easy it's to dismiss faith as superstition these days.

1. You can call me "Smash."

2. I am not sure I care to read an explanation, but your comment makes little sense to me (particularly in context of what I actually posted). (Nonetheless, see my statements to Forsher about being gravely offended, pistols at dawn . . . yadda, yadda, yadda.)

[Tahar Joblis]

"I'm not delusional, you're delusional!"

Yup, pretty much right on script. I'm surprised you haven't offered to buy me a shirt yet. Or call me, like, Neo Angela and make up something so you can call me an "opponent" and argue with her, I mean me.

I dunno, your fantasies are hard to keep track of.

When you have a material argument that actually addresses my material claims, rather than a set of poorly-reasoned ad hominem attacks, get back to me. In the mean time, my assorted "fantasies" here on NSG are backed up by statistics from the HHS, CDC, BEA, BLS, CBO, et cetera, so as far as I'm concerned, your presumptions about my motivations are worthless bullshit.

I say that men are raped by women at a non-trivial rate, I say that cutting taxes on the rich has conspicuously failed to stimulate economic growth, I say that patchwork privatized health care is more expensive and gets worse results than universal public health care, and I do it all because I worship at the altar of banal empiricism. You can call any or all of these fantasies, but it won't get you anywhere.

[Frisivisia]

Anyone who claims to not like feminism is either a bigot or cannot grasp what feminism is.

[Pope Joan]

I have studied feminism and am in favor of equal economic and educational opportunity.

I call all my female students "Ms.", that just seems appropriate.

I do oppose abortion as a means of birth control.

I would vote for a woman for President but not Secretary Clinton.

Kirsten Gillibrand would make a fine candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-93QxCf2f4o

[Forsher]

Before I begin I'd like to say I am very pleased to have generated a response... even if it is from Smash and not in a certain thread (although the latter part is the problem).

I am NOT gravely offended at this comment!

Perpare to defend thyself in a duel with pistols at dawn on the morrow! Um, dawn my time is earlier than I like to get up. Maybe noonish? Oh, plus I do not know what time (or even day) that would be your time. Plus I do not think we can duel with pistols over this series of tubes and I do not want to fly to where you are to be shot at and possibly killed (and I assume you feel the same about coming here and, likely, about being possibly killed. Logistical nightmare. Perhaps we can say we dueled and not actually do it? We could say we each suffered serious gunshot wounds but survived and our honor is intact. Perhaps saying we both suffered from splinters from the ancient pistols would be more realistic . . .

Yes, of course. I hate splinters.

Now you're getting it.



At the moment I can't. The internet is slow but in a few days I would be able to. I try to avoid too much green (not a favoured colour of mine) but if I must.



Did you have to use a list? They're a bugger to deal with... maybe I'm too set in my ways. However, I think what I've done will work.



The same is true of comments in favour of feminism, and as I explained in the other thread, people only contest that which they have cause to contest. Generally, that means if a source agrees with what one is saying one will not critique it.

1. I should have made clear that (other than my umbradge about one statement) I did not intend any of my post as specific to Forsher. I do not believe Forsher is generally any more guilty of the things I criticize than, for example, I am.

Fair enough.

2. We seem to be largely on the same page. My focus tends to be myopic in defense of feminism, but you are correct that most of what I said applies to all/both "sides" of the issues. Also, I would assert that much of what I am critiquing applies to NSG in general. In fact, they are ubiquitous in NSG and may be an inherent part of NSG culture.

I would definitely agree with you there. It is similar to the "you're wrong" manner of posting. Just generalise the statements and there would be a good OP with the discussion point of debating style.

If the post in question is this one then I feel that you have taken its use too personally.

When I originally made it I was still annoyed by the lack of response by Choronzon (yes, I do have a "the world is centred around me way of thinking" thanks for asking) to the challenges for sources. It was then and is now a cricticism of a perceived habit common to "seemingly pro-feminist" posters and, like pretty much everything I have written thus far in this thread, made with Choronzon in mind as an example. Your bit before it (which I removed for here as I considered it irrelevant, I was trying to use something I wrote to express another's views) was merely inspiration.

1. I admit, of course, to taking the snark a bit personally (I was human last time I checked), but my main objection was and continues to be that the generalization about feminists is unfair and inaccurate.

In that thread, at that time, it made sense. In response to the post I quoted when introducing it here I feel that it made sense as an alternative explanation for some of the sentiments. However, as a whole, it doesn't really apply. One sees, for example, yourself posting sources all the time in recent weeks.

2. I do wish to be clear that, in the context of the thread, the comment was part of a perfectly fair criticism of my having made some bold assertions and then flippantly refusing to provide evidence. Although I think my later posts in that thread got more substantive, I still have not sourced those particular assertions and I have since abandoned the thread for at least now (for various reasons).

There is a definite contrast between your starting style and ending style.

*snip* No-one is 100% spot on with sources, not me, not you, not TJ, not Nadkor, not Arch, certainly not Yoot or FST, or anyone I ever cited as an example of different posting behaviours. *snip*

Agreed. We all make mistakes. (Although some of us seem more willing to admit them than others. (Yes, that is a bit of a direct cheap-shot. ).)

Never forget an opportunity to emphasise one's having the moral highground over one's opposition, especially if it is establishing it.

It's very long, most of it you didn't write

and it was in reply to something someone who wasn't me wrote. Also, to be perfectly honest, I looked at it and thought, "Someone else will get that."

Um. The post was long because it was trying to rebut the notion that feminism has never been about gender equality and because I quoted original sources at length. The latter is also why I "didn't write" "most of it." The very things you object to should generally be virtues.

See, this is a problem (common to NSG) of selective focus. NSG posters often challenge viewpoints one disagrees with to provide sources, but often complain when sources are provided and about long posts.

I think I spoke of the problem with sources in the other thread.

Here I will address what I mean.

I do want a source. I don't want a source at the same time. Why? Because a source means I have to pay attention to a post that disagrees with mine. If I don't, I've lost and essentially lost a lot of what I've said in my months here as well. The supposed moral high ground is gone as well.

It also makes mention to the distant past of feminism and last I checked I agree with feminism back then... my issue is where the approach will go in the now.

That is nice. I am not familiar enough with a wide enough range of your posts to comment on your practices. But you know full well that references to the past of feminism are commonly used to "bash" feminism. Also some of these same sources have been miscontrued in threads "bashing" feminism.

Brilliant... I regularly provide sources that establish a majority of feminists dream about marching pink elephants.

Tell you what, I will make a reply to it, just not when the now is 4:03am, okay?*snip*

You can if want. My point was not to complain that I had not recieved much response or prompt you to make one. My point was simply an example of substantive post in defense of feminism do at least sometimes get made and sometimes simply ignored. (Again, I recognize this is true regarding criticism of feminism and NSG discussions in general.)

Too long; didn't read as a wide variety of uses.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I don't. The term has become somewhat corrupted, so I'd never refer to myself as one, even though I support the general principle.

[Kingsley Bedford]

"being violent"?

Are there roving bands of militant feminists out there I hadn't heard about?

Pussy Riot is one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

Pussy Riot are militant? Do you work for Putin? Because you sure sound like it!

Pussy Riot are political activists who use performances to get their message out. Sure they made a protest that probably should never have happened (they could've done it outside the cathedral) but they aren't that radical. They have been given that title by Putin and his regime.

[Kingsley Bedford]

It's about women being more disadvantaged, not putting greater sympathy on them or whatever.



Do you really think they're just too lazy to?



They have a militant attitude, but I haven't heard of them committing acts of violence.

They destroyed some churches and 3 of their members went to jail for it, I believe.

They did not destroy the churches.

They attempted to perform a "punk prayer" in Moscow's Christ The Savior Cathedral. They managed to storm into the church and perform on the church's alter (a place where women are apparently forbidden to go) for a minute before being removed by security.

They later uploaded a video of the "punk prayer" which reportedly asked the virgin mary to rid Russia of Vladimir Putin and protested against the church's involvement in Russian politics. The video went viral and caused outrage from many Russian Orthodox believers which led to 3 of the band's members (Nadezdha Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina & Yekaterina Samutsevich) being arrested and charged with hooliganism and religious hatred for which they were sentenced to 2 yrs in a penal colony.

Samutsevich appealed and was released on probation. Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina's sentences were upheld and are currently serving sentences in penal colonies.

The entire case was Putin trying to silence those who oppose him. It was a show trial. The girls never had any intentions of insulting religion, their protest was purely political. Putin just didn't like the fact that someone was trying to get rid of him. He is scared of Pussy Riot.

[Kingsley Bedford]

Why don't you read a single news source, rather than relying on what you "believe"?

http://rt.com/politics/sacrilege-law-ch ... hment-272/

You quote Russia today for such things?
Why don't you look at it from an honest perspective. Russia today is clearly following the governments strict rules on what media can say. And their opinions have always been ridiculous.

The only group that has destroyed religious symbols has been the Ukrainian group FEMEN who destroyed a cross in Kyiv with a chainsaw as a protest.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I have some feminist tendencies, but am not involved in any feminist organizations because the organizations are in the habit of fighting ghosts. I also find many civil rights groups, not only feminist ones, get too caught up categorizing and grouping people to figure out who's "disadvantaged."

[Tropical Isles]

no. I believe in gender equality.

[The united Free People of the North]

Only so far as that it make men and women equal and promotes egalitarianism. It should also be the case that when men have less rights or ever could, then they would need to be brought up to the same level as women. In both cases once equal, standards and rights for both should rise together. That is the moral position.

[CVT Temp]

Technically, I am one. However, because I don't like the psychology of identifying with groups, I choose not to label myself as one.