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

[Neo Art]

Stop pointing out things he said, he gets mad when you do that.

He's already called me "kid", you might be "girly" or "little miss" or something.

He's probably just amazed that my delicate hands can manage to type without developing nasty callouses on the tips of my fingers.

Quick, rub his shoulders, maybe we can turn him gay!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Absolutist position is absolutist.

Yes, that's a very pretty tautology you have there, but I'm not sure what you intend to demonstrate by it. The fact is, the point is dead on. If someone makes their support for equality contingent upon the less privlidged class kissing their boot, then this person wasn't an ally to begin with and never will be.

Civil rights activists learned that lesson long ago. And that attitude is alive and well today. Hell, I had a guy on NSG less than two months ago state, repeatedly, that I should try being NICER to him if I wanted to convince him care about women's rights.

He continued saying this long after I told him I wasn't particularly interested in that, and the equality movement would be better of simply waiting for him to die, than try and meet whatever conditions were required to gain his hollow token of support.

The intent is, largely, that there are still nuances available, and you don't win many points by refusing to recognize the nuances. Is every nuance valid? No. Should nuances be considered, because we're all human and sometimes we don't want to be pushed into liking the things other people specifically like? Yes.

[Neo Art]

Yes, that's a very pretty tautology you have there, but I'm not sure what you intend to demonstrate by it. The fact is, the point is dead on. If someone makes their support for equality contingent upon the less privlidged class kissing their boot, then this person wasn't an ally to begin with and never will be.

Civil rights activists learned that lesson long ago. And that attitude is alive and well today. Hell, I had a guy on NSG less than two months ago state, repeatedly, that I should try being NICER to him if I wanted to convince him care about women's rights.

He continued saying this long after I told him I wasn't particularly interested in that, and the equality movement would be better of simply waiting for him to die, than try and meet whatever conditions were required to gain his hollow token of support.

The intent is, largely, that there are still nuances available, and you don't win many points by refusing to recognize the nuances. Is every nuance valid? No. Should nuances be considered, because we're all human and sometimes we don't want to be pushed into liking the things other people specifically like? Yes.

Sure, nuance is approached with nuance. There's nothing nuanced in a position of "what's in it for me?" I'm happy to meet people half way. I'm happy to discuss the nuances. What NtaP is discussing is inherently an un-nuanced discussion.

Amusingly enough, that conversation I referenced? Turned out it happened in this very thread:

viewtopic.php?p=11953401#p11953401

[Nadkor]

Yes, that's a very pretty tautology you have there, but I'm not sure what you intend to demonstrate by it. The fact is, the point is dead on. If someone makes their support for equality contingent upon the less privlidged class kissing their boot, then this person wasn't an ally to begin with and never will be.

Civil rights activists learned that lesson long ago. And that attitude is alive and well today. Hell, I had a guy on NSG less than two months ago state, repeatedly, that I should try being NICER to him if I wanted to convince him care about women's rights.

He continued saying this long after I told him I wasn't particularly interested in that, and the equality movement would be better of simply waiting for him to die, than try and meet whatever conditions were required to gain his hollow token of support.

The intent is, largely, that there are still nuances available, and you don't win many points by refusing to recognize the nuances. Is every nuance valid? No. Should nuances be considered, because we're all human and sometimes we don't want to be pushed into liking the things other people specifically like? Yes.

No?

Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who that into it anyway? If someone says "I'll support you if you can do x, y, and z for me so that I like what you're doing" rather than "I'll support you because I believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do" then screw them. They're not interested in what you're trying to achieve; they're interested only in what they can get out of what you're trying to achieve.

It's really not worth wasting the time and energy on them.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The intent is, largely, that there are still nuances available, and you don't win many points by refusing to recognize the nuances. Is every nuance valid? No. Should nuances be considered, because we're all human and sometimes we don't want to be pushed into liking the things other people specifically like? Yes.

Sure, nuance is approached with nuance. There's nothing nuanced in a position of "what's in it for me?" I'm happy to meet people half way. I'm happy to discuss the nuances. What NtaP is discussing is inherently an un-nuanced discussion.

Amusingly enough, that conversation I referenced? Turned out it happened in this very thread:

viewtopic.php?p=11953401#p11953401

Indeed. Which is why I wasn't keying on that point, but the response to it. Dropping a nuclear device on someone who shot a dog is silly, and a rather absolutist way to do things. Many feminists on the internet have a tendency to speak in absolutist terms, when more broad general terms would be more applicable. Not because it soothes idiots feelings, but because it leaves no room for "DOODIE HEAD"-style retorts.

[Chontanania]

There are good reasons and bad reasons not to be a feminist, I want to know who here considers themselves a feminist and who considers themselves not a feminist and why.

I believe that women must have equal rights with men regarding the only right that actually matters: the right to obey your government.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The intent is, largely, that there are still nuances available, and you don't win many points by refusing to recognize the nuances. Is every nuance valid? No. Should nuances be considered, because we're all human and sometimes we don't want to be pushed into liking the things other people specifically like? Yes.

No?

Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who that into it anyway? If someone says "I'll support you if you can do x, y, and z for me so that I like what you're doing" rather than "I'll support you because I believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do" then screw them. They're not interested in what you're trying to achieve; they're interested only in what they can get out of what you're trying to achieve.

It's really not worth wasting the time and energy on them.

Because I support some feminist leanings, and not others? Am I to be, then, forsaken and ignored because I dislike some of what it strives for? That's the point I'm making. When you deal in absolutes, you get the bad showcased with the good.

[Nadkor]

No?

Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who that into it anyway? If someone says "I'll support you if you can do x, y, and z for me so that I like what you're doing" rather than "I'll support you because I believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do" then screw them. They're not interested in what you're trying to achieve; they're interested only in what they can get out of what you're trying to achieve.

It's really not worth wasting the time and energy on them.

Because I support some feminist leanings, and not others? Am I to be, then, forsaken and ignored because I dislike some of what it strives for?

Well, this really isn't remotely what I said.

Feel free to try again.

[Neo Art]

The intent is, largely, that there are still nuances available, and you don't win many points by refusing to recognize the nuances. Is every nuance valid? No. Should nuances be considered, because we're all human and sometimes we don't want to be pushed into liking the things other people specifically like? Yes.

No?

Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who that into it anyway? If someone says "I'll support you if you can do x, y, and z for me so that I like what you're doing" rather than "I'll support you because I believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do" then screw them. They're not interested in what you're trying to achieve; they're interested only in what they can get out of what you're trying to achieve.

It's really not worth wasting the time and energy on them.

I think there's a prevaling and somewhat nonsensical idea that us liberals are supposed to be NICE all the time. Yes sir, no sir, is my nose deep enough for you sir, anything for you sir while I convince you that I'm worth having rights sir?

Fuck that shit.

Hell, even MLK, who was the archtype for american liberal pacivism, advocated activities that were down right CRUEL. Yeah, sure, he abhored violence and would never consider attacking someone.

But he had no problems organizing boycots that would drive you to bankruptcy and force you and your family into poverty.

And let's not even get STARTED on more radical left organizations that, while I don't agree with their methods, we can't deny exist.

[Galloism]

So wait, you have a case that a father was able to reassert his rights after a mother used a safe haven law, by citing a case where a mother used a normal adoption procedure? Your position is that safe haven laws can be overridden by fathers based on a case that has nothing to do with a safe haven law?

Well, I'm convinced.

I'm demonstrating how the rights of the recognised father can be asserted over the claim of potential or actual adoptive parents, adoption typically being the outcome of relinquishment. Feel free to give me a case where a child was relinquished by the mother and the recognised father was not allowed to take custody of the child.

Uh huh. You have yet to prove it. You link didn't say what you think it does.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if the child custody system works as you claim it does, how does giving fathers paper abortion rights somehow improve things for fathers?

Actually, I'm saying either we need to abandon safe haven laws, or, institute a system where the no relinquishing parent can easily obtain custody, or restrict the custodial parent's right to destroy the child's rights to destroying his or her responsibility, not everyone's (along with a system of finding the other parent).

And, since we need to be nonsexist, if you choose the last option, you must make it available to both genders, not just the one you give custody to all the time.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because I support some feminist leanings, and not others? Am I to be, then, forsaken and ignored because I dislike some of what it strives for?

Well, this really isn't remotely what I said.

Feel free to try again.

How is that not what you said? You said "Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who that into it anyway?" Which, while not English-grammar perfect, I took to mean, "Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who aren't into it anyway?" To which I responded with, in essence, "Because broad-base appeal helps egalitarian movements progress when they can't organize against an opposition that they ill define."

[Datura Flats]

I am not a feminist, and I will never be.

That is because the feminists in my country, although they claim to want equality, blackmailed the politicians in my country to pass some very unfair laws against men.

Such as, if a woman can file a case against a man for "looking at her with bad intentions", and the man might get jailed for maximum of 10 years.
A woman can file a case against a man for "touching her clothes" and he will go to jail for a long time.

In Malaysia feminists blackmailed the politicians to pass a law, "If a man calls his wife ugly then he can go to jail".

Naturally, for all of these above laws, only women can file cases against men, men cannot file cases against women under the above laws.

So I finally understood the secret: Feminists actually don't want equality at all. They just use the slogan of equality, so that they can blackmail their opponents (What? You oppose us? That means you don't want equality between men and women! Pig! etc.), and using blackmail, they pass heavily unfair laws against men, for which a lot of men suffer. Because in reality they hate men like a religious hate.

Where are from? Some hoes over there are in need of a serious smacking.

[Samuraikoku]

I would like to think I am. I hope at least I am not sexist.

[Falcania]

Not everybody can be persuaded.

But some people can. I was.

Sure, and that's great. I'm genuinely glad. But people who won't be convinced through "wow, your position is sexist garbage" also won't be convinced through "gosh, I don't agree with you, but that's okay." People who are actually open to changing their positions don't refuse to do so for stupid reasons. No one who really supports the equality of the genders refuses to call himself a feminist because "it has 'fem' right in the name and that makes it sound like I support icky GIRLS!" No one who really opposes racism gets pissed off because "how come black people get to use the n-word and I don't?" No one honestly thinks, "Well, I would support the equal treatment of women, but someone called me a misogynist, so I think women should get paid less than men for the same work now, so there!" If one is committed to bigotry, all the politeness in the world won't sway them, and if one is committed to equality, all the brusqueness in the world won't derail them. If someone refuses to support equality because a feminist (or a LGBT rights activist, or a civil rights activist, etc.) wasn't sufficiently deferential to them, they were never going to be on our side in the first place.

Absolutist position is absolutist.

Yes, that's a very pretty tautology you have there, but I'm not sure what you intend to demonstrate by it. The fact is, the point is dead on. If someone makes their support for equality contingent upon the less privlidged class kissing their boot, then this person wasn't an ally to begin with and never will be.

Civil rights activists learned that lesson long ago. And that attitude is alive and well today. Hell, I had a guy on NSG less than two months ago state, repeatedly, that I should try being NICER to him if I wanted to convince him to care about women's rights.

He continued saying this long after I told him I wasn't particularly interested in that, and the equality movement would be better of simply waiting for him to die, than try and meet whatever conditions were required to gain his hollow token of support.

I'm just suggesting that a good way to make feminism look sensible probably isn't namecalling. Feminism is better than that.

[Nadkor]

Well, this really isn't remotely what I said.

Feel free to try again.

How is that not what you said? You said "Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who that into it anyway?" Which, while not English-grammar perfect, I took to mean, "Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who aren't into it anyway?" To which I responded with, in essence, "Because broad-base appeal helps egalitarian movements progress when they can't organize against an opposition that they ill define."

Well, if you ignore the entire rest of my post then, yes, that's exactly what I said; no more, no less.

However, if you read the rest of the words around that (yes, believe it or not a point can have more than one sentence! A point can even sometimes be made in such a way that it has a relatively broad statement followed by a series of related statements that clarify, qualify, and generally elucidate the opinion being expressed. It's called "writing". I'm sure you'll pick it up some day) you will note that my specific objection (and, if you read what's been written by him, you'll note that Neo Art's point is broadly the same) is to those who demand that egalitarian movements mould themselves around their opinions, views, and desires. The people who decide that movements comprising hundreds of thousands, millions, of supporters should bend their activities to their will or be undeserving of their support.

They do this not because they particularly care about a movement (in fact, it's a pretty strong indicator that they hold little interest in the advancement of its aims), they do this either because they view it with suspicion and think "well, if they're going to maybe get somewhere I'm at least going to get something out of it", or because they view it with outright hostility and think "this way I'll be able to condemn them for not doing x" (see, e.g.: "feminists don't do enough for men's rights, so I can't support them").

The people who do this, the people I was referring to, are fundamentally different to people who say "I wouldn't necessarily call myself a feminist because I don't support all of what you do, but I do support some of it". There is a good argument for engaging with these people on some issues; where interests overlap, or where they find themselves drawn to support a particular campaign. There is little point in attempting to get them to agree with the stuff they don't agree with - either they think what you're doing is right or they don't. Still; these people are useful, and are worth working with, but they must accept that they don't get to set the agenda and the movement shouldn't change to suit them. The people that egalitarian movements should really be reaching out to, though, are those who willingly offer their support because they feel that what that movement is trying to do is the right thing to do. Not those who ask for us to give them something in return. Qualified, conditional, support is barely support at all. There is no point whatsoever in wasting time with people that hold no interest in what the movement is trying to achieve, but will happily make demands of it for their own ends.

Why? Because here's the deal: progressive movements win. Movements that fight for recognition of rights of minorities win. Egalitarian movements win. Every time. It can take decades, but the result is always that those of us who seek recognition of equal rights, or equal treatment, or recognition of a minority group, are always on the winning side. Why waste time trying to convince people to support a movement when they don't believe in what it's trying to do? It's a complete waste of time and energy. If they don't believe that it's the right thing to do they will never believe that it's the right thing to do. If they say "I would support you, but I don't like that you don't do enough for men" then move on. If they say "I would support you, but feminism's for girls" then move on. All we have to do is wait for them to die and in the meantime keep spreading the message to those who are interested in what we're trying to do, even those who don't fully align themselves with the movement but who support some of its goals, and who think that what we're trying to do is the right thing to do. If they say "I like most of what you do, although maybe not x, but I'm happy to accept that I don't get to set the agenda and will support you on the things I like" then you have something to work with.

So, no, what you appear to think I said is not what I said.

[Nadkor]

In fact, to summarise: there are basically three kinds of people

1) Those who support a movement because they think it's the right thing to do

2) Those who support some of what a movement does because they think those things are the right thing to do

3) Those who say that they will support a movement if that movement does what they want (usually either because they don't care but see an opportunity for exploiting its potential success, or because they want to use refusal as a stick with which to beat it)

Guess which one I think isn't work engaging at all with.

[The Emerald Dawn]

How is that not what you said? You said "Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who that into it anyway?" Which, while not English-grammar perfect, I took to mean, "Why bother trying to fit a movement to suit people who aren't into it anyway?" To which I responded with, in essence, "Because broad-base appeal helps egalitarian movements progress when they can't organize against an opposition that they ill define."

Well, if you ignore the entire rest of my post then, yes, that's exactly what I said; no more, no less.

However, if you read the rest of the words around that (yes, believe it or not a point can have more than one sentence! A point can even sometimes be made in such a way that it has a relatively broad statement followed by a series of related statements that clarify, qualify, and generally elucidate the opinion being expressed. It's called "writing". I'm sure you'll pick it up some day) you will note that my specific objection (and, if you read what's been written by him, you'll note that Neo Art's point is broadly the same) is to those who demand that egalitarian movements mould themselves around their opinions, views, and desires. The people who decide that movements comprising hundreds of thousands, millions, of supporters should bend their activities to their will or be undeserving of their support.

They do this not because they particularly care about a movement (in fact, it's a pretty strong indicator that they hold little interest in the advancement of its aims), they do this either because they view it with suspicion and think "well, if they're going to maybe get somewhere I'm at least going to get something out of it", or because they view it with outright hostility and think "this way I'll be able to condemn them for not doing x" (see, e.g.: "feminists don't do enough for men's rights, so I can't support them").

The people who do this, the people I was referring to, are fundamentally different to people who say "I wouldn't necessarily call myself a feminist because I don't support all of what you do, but I do support some of it". There is a good argument for engaging with these people on some issues; where interests overlap, or where they find themselves drawn to support a particular campaign. There is little point in attempting to get them to agree with the stuff they don't agree with - either they think what you're doing is right or they don't. Still; these people are useful, and are worth working with, but they must accept that they don't get to set the agenda and the movement shouldn't change to suit them. The people that egalitarian movements should really be reaching out to, though, are those who willingly offer their support because they feel that what that movement is trying to do is the right thing to do. Not those who ask for us to give them something in return. Qualified, conditional, support is barely support at all. There is no point whatsoever in wasting time with people that hold no interest in what the movement is trying to achieve, but will happily make demands of it for their own ends.

Why? Because here's the deal: progressive movements win. Movements that fight for recognition of rights of minorities win. Egalitarian movements win. Every time. It can take decades, but the result is always that those of us who seek recognition of equal rights, or equal treatment, or recognition of a minority group, are always on the winning side. Why waste time trying to convince people to support a movement when they don't believe in what it's trying to do? It's a complete waste of time and energy. If they don't believe that it's the right thing to do they will never believe that it's the right thing to do. If they say "I would support you, but I don't like that you don't do enough for men" then move on. If they say "I would support you, but feminism's for girls" then move on. All we have to do is wait for them to die and in the meantime keep spreading the message to those who are interested in what we're trying to do, even those who don't fully align themselves with the movement but who support some of its goals, and who think that what we're trying to do is the right thing to do. If they say "I like most of what you do, although maybe not x, but I'm happy to accept that I don't get to set the agenda and will support you on the things I like" then you have something to work with.

So, no, what you appear to think I said is not what I said.

And you seem to be putting words into my mouth, and also confuse pointless snark as wit. You see, you said:

"I'll support you if you can do x, y, and z for me so that I like what you're doing" rather than "I'll support you because I believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do"

This feeds further into my point that your statement seems "Accept what I call Feminism or you are wrong". So, basically, you're deciding that only your interests have any pull.

You say that this fictional person we're discussing is only interested in what they can get out of the situation. Which, strangely, is also what many self-described Feminists want. They being human and all, this is only to be expected.

You're twisting things around in anger (yes, you mad) and then trying to pigeon-hole me into an opinion I don't hold so you can soap-box. Which is fine, to a point, but it isn't helpful.

[Neo Art]

I'm just suggesting that a good way to make feminism look sensible probably isn't namecalling. Feminism is better than that.

After Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman, a conservative jew, to be his VP nominee, he was asked if he thought he'd lose votes by picking a non christian as a potential vice president.

His response was that he didn't think anyone who was going ot not vote for him because he chose to run with a jew was someone who was going to vote for him anyway.

I feel pretty much the same.

[The Emerald Dawn]

In fact, to summarise: there are basically three kinds of people

1) Those who support a movement because they think it's the right thing to do

2) Those who support some of what a movement does because they think those things are the right thing to do

3) Those who say that they will support a movement if that movement does what they want (usually either because they don't care but see an opportunity for exploiting its potential success, or because they want to use refusal as a stick with which to beat it)

Guess which one I think isn't work engaging at all with.

There are also people who think that movements aren't monolithic entities, and are really just collections of people who may hold similar interests or have similar goals. These people think that humans aren't easily stereotyped, and often have unique situations around them that have shaped their worldview. No, not everyone is a special little snowflake just waiting to be discovered. However, not everyone who opposes concepts does so out of fear, paranoia, or hate.

[Neo Art]

Why? Because here's the deal: progressive movements win. Movements that fight for recognition of rights of minorities win. Egalitarian movements win. Every time. It can take decades, but the result is always that those of us who seek recognition of equal rights, or equal treatment, or recognition of a minority group, are always on the winning side. Why waste time trying to convince people to support a movement when they don't believe in what it's trying to do? It's a complete waste of time and energy. If they don't believe that it's the right thing to do they will never believe that it's the right thing to do. If they say "I would support you, but I don't like that you don't do enough for men" then move on. If they say "I would support you, but feminism's for girls" then move on. All we have to do is wait for them to die and in the meantime keep spreading the message to those who are interested in what we're trying to do, even those who don't fully align themselves with the movement but who support some of its goals, and who think that what we're trying to do is the right thing to do. If they say "I like most of what you do, although maybe not x, but I'm happy to accept that I don't get to set the agenda and will support you on the things I like" then you have something to work with.

Aww, now you're just stealing my verbage.

Yes, I think this goes back to this idea that liberalism is supposed to be "nice". There's this, I think, occassional shock, this "what, you're not going to tell me what a great person I am while you kiss my ass, rub my feet, and try to convince me why I shouldn't be mean to those negros? aren't you supposed to be one of those sissy LIBERALS?"

This funny idea that because I believe we should all be decent to one another, that means I am supposed to be nice to you. I don't have to be nice to you and beg ever so sweetly for you to be a person who cares about equality.

I just have to wait for you to die.

Or to be on the losing side sufficiently so that you're essentially marginalized.

[Ifreann]

Sure, and that's great. I'm genuinely glad. But people who won't be convinced through "wow, your position is sexist garbage" also won't be convinced through "gosh, I don't agree with you, but that's okay." People who are actually open to changing their positions don't refuse to do so for stupid reasons. No one who really supports the equality of the genders refuses to call himself a feminist because "it has 'fem' right in the name and that makes it sound like I support icky GIRLS!" No one who really opposes racism gets pissed off because "how come black people get to use the n-word and I don't?" No one honestly thinks, "Well, I would support the equal treatment of women, but someone called me a misogynist, so I think women should get paid less than men for the same work now, so there!" If one is committed to bigotry, all the politeness in the world won't sway them, and if one is committed to equality, all the brusqueness in the world won't derail them. If someone refuses to support equality because a feminist (or a LGBT rights activist, or a civil rights activist, etc.) wasn't sufficiently deferential to them, they were never going to be on our side in the first place.

Yes, that's a very pretty tautology you have there, but I'm not sure what you intend to demonstrate by it. The fact is, the point is dead on. If someone makes their support for equality contingent upon the less privlidged class kissing their boot, then this person wasn't an ally to begin with and never will be.

Civil rights activists learned that lesson long ago. And that attitude is alive and well today. Hell, I had a guy on NSG less than two months ago state, repeatedly, that I should try being NICER to him if I wanted to convince him to care about women's rights.

He continued saying this long after I told him I wasn't particularly interested in that, and the equality movement would be better of simply waiting for him to die, than try and meet whatever conditions were required to gain his hollow token of support.

I'm just suggesting that a good way to make feminism look sensible probably isn't namecalling. Feminism is better than that.

People who'll judge feminism by what two people say on the internet aren't really worth bothering about. Odds are they'll just buy into whatever stereotype of feminism gets presented to them first. Conversely, people who'll insist on getting an accurate view of feminism before deciding what they think of it aren't going to be put off by the odd bit of snark from random internet feminists.

[Falcania]

I'm just suggesting that a good way to make feminism look sensible probably isn't namecalling. Feminism is better than that.

After Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman, a conservative jew, to be his VP nominee, he was asked if he thought he'd lose votes by picking a non christian as a potential vice president.

His response was that he didn't think anyone who was going ot not vote for him because he chose to run with a jew was someone who was going to vote for him anyway.

I feel pretty much the same.

Feminism has a pretty serious problem with being taken seriously. I think jeering doesn't help that.

[Nadkor]

This feeds further into my point that your statement seems "Accept what I call Feminism or you are wrong". So, basically, you're deciding that only your interests have any pull.

You see, what you're doing there is twisting.

What I'm saying is "don't cater to people making their support for feminism conditional on the fulfilment of their demands for what feminism should be"

It's really quite different.

You say that this fictional person we're discussing is only interested in what they can get out of the situation.

I'm saying that someone who makes their support for a movement conditional on that movement doing what they want is more interested in getting what they can than in the movement succeeding, yes.

I'm not sure why you're finding this so difficult.

Which, strangely, is also what many self-described Feminists want. They being human and all, this is only to be expected.

Yes, you see you're missing basically all of the points there.

You're twisting things around in anger (yes, you mad) and then trying to pigeon-hole me into an opinion I don't hold so you can soap-box. Which is fine, to a point, but it isn't helpful.

Aye, I'm sitting here frothing at the mouth because of something on the internet.

But then, it wouldn't be like a woman to keep calm and rational in a debate. Of course.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm just suggesting that a good way to make feminism look sensible probably isn't namecalling. Feminism is better than that.

People who'll judge feminism by what two people say on the internet aren't really worth bothering about. Odds are they'll just buy into whatever stereotype of feminism gets presented to them first. Conversely, people who'll insist on getting an accurate view of feminism before deciding what they think of it aren't going to be put off by the odd bit of snark from random internet feminists.

In today's world, a lot of people get all their information from the interwebs. I'm not saying it's good, I think it is terrifying, but it is. Many, many very vocal self-ascribed Feminists on the internet are full of piss and vinegar, and while I agree with Neo Art in saying that Liberals don't need to be sponges, and can actually display vertebrate tendencies, there's a better line than ridicule for dealing with those you consider uneducated.

Likely a difference of opinion, and a study in personality archetypes, but in the same vein I'm pretty confident that I change a lot of people's minds by being kinder to them than I do by pulling out the NCO-tier sarcasm.

[Neo Art]

After Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman, a conservative jew, to be his VP nominee, he was asked if he thought he'd lose votes by picking a non christian as a potential vice president.

His response was that he didn't think anyone who was going ot not vote for him because he chose to run with a jew was someone who was going to vote for him anyway.

I feel pretty much the same.

Feminism has a pretty serious problem with being taken seriously. I think jeering doesn't help that.

No it doesn't. It has a serious problem being taken seriously amongst people who aren't interested in equality between men and women.

I have no desire to waste breath convincing those people.