Replacing "Feminism"

[Sarkhaan]

You assume that everyone who misunderstands the term is "confused" and not confused. In doing so, one will alienate many possible supporters by implying that they are acting militantly, or at the very least in poor faith. One will then not clearly explain the terms and situations in what you claim is a "clear and simple" problem, leaving the other person still confused, and now insulted.

Now THAT is how we win over hearts and minds, amirite?

You ever hear of a 'concern troll'?

In the course of this thread, you have compared my argument to 4th grade melodrama and trolling, yet you haven't managed to actually get my argument correct. I'm impressed, particularly, by your hostility towards me on this subject, as you have tended to be one of the more rational members around here, and someone I would have liked to have had an actual conversation with, rather than just having insults lobbed in my general direction.

The idea is to pretend to be all about 'the cause' but then create 'concern,' to sew in this idea that things just aren't right...

Things AREN'T right. That's the point. Fighting for female equality is bullshit in a system in which men are also oppressed and forced into roles they don't choose. Why would we want to improve the level of a field slave to that of a house slave?

I'm sorry, but you can cry to the winds about this idea that if we just changed the name, if we just gave the men a block to play with too (and I'm saying this as a dude), then it would all be just fine, but it just stinks of concern trolling.

My argument has not, is not, and will not be "if we JUST changed the name". A name change is the ONE change I mentioned in this thread to give it direction and slow it from becoming a debate about all of feminism. S

Frankly, I'm just not that willing to admit to being that stupid. I'm not that willing to admit to being that fucking needy that when trying to correct years of patriarchal society that you have to pat me on the head and say, "Don't worry...we'll fix the problems it causes for you, too, you delicate little flower." Maybe instead of wringing our hands and chasing our tail waiting for those who oppose this to change their tune from 'what about men?' to 'too much equality' or whatever other nonsense that we then have to re-re-brand we should stand up for ourselves and our own sense of personal intellect and go, "Excuse me, I'm not that stupid and quit trying to pretend that I am."

So because you're a man, you don't need anyone to look out for you. Life is shiny and happy for men. It's all Shengri-La up in this bitch.

Just because the experiences of men under patriarchy is like losing a finger compared to women losing an arm (and transgender women having both arms chopped off by those two groups) does not mean that they are not significant serious issues that need to be dealt with.

Do words have meaning? Yes. Where does that meaning come from?

If we have a frequent and constant clash of meanings that results in behavior from feminists like that displayed in this thread, is the term being used the most effective, accurate, and precise one we could be using, or is it actually getting in the way of big conversations?

I'm glad that you are above being manipulated by language. You seem to have managed to get to a level no other human has: that of language being metaphorical in nature. Language structures our thoughts.

[Choronzon]

You know, for someone lamenting that everyone gets his argument wrong you sure as shit can't get anyone else's arguments right.

[Sarkhaan]

I think rather than changing or replacing feminism people should learn what the fuck it actually is and educate themselves, rather than repeat the talking points and definitions laid down by such knowledgeable champions of women's rights like Rush Limbaugh.

And given that that isn't happening, what is the responsibility of feminists in controlling the movement? to throw their hands up and scream "MYSOGYNIST!"? To say "you aren't worth my time"?

[Choronzon]

I think rather than changing or replacing feminism people should learn what the fuck it actually is and educate themselves, rather than repeat the talking points and definitions laid down by such knowledgeable champions of women's rights like Rush Limbaugh.

And given that that isn't happening, what is the responsibility of feminists in controlling the movement? to throw their hands up and scream "MYSOGYNIST!"? To say "you aren't worth my time"?

Yep, that is exactly what I said.

Exactly.

[Nadkor]

I'm glad feminists are convinced that we can win without gaining any new allies.

No one has said that.

What has been said is that we don't need to change the name to appease people who wouldn't join anyway, and that there has been a strategic, concentrated effort by certain kinds of people (In America we call them "Republicans") to make feminism a dirty word. There has been a deliberate attempt by some to make sure that when people think of the word "feminism" the only associations they make are all the negative ones. Because some people are terrified of what feminism represents. What it actually represents, not what they try to make it out to be either through political opportunism or ignorance.

In short I, and many others, refuse to discuss feminism on misogynist's terms. The solution is education, not acquiescence.

This very much.

You know, Sarkhaan, if you really want to spend your time placating people who have no interest in supporting feminism regardless of how many concessions you give to them then feel free. If that's how you want to spend your time then that's fine. More power to you.

The rest of us will get on with trying to do something constructive.

[Nadkor]

You know, for someone lamenting that everyone gets his argument wrong you sure as shit can't get anyone else's arguments right.

At this point I'm pretty much going to delegate most of the rest of my posts in this thread to Choronzon.

[Ashmoria]

how many feminist organizations are you a member of and why aren't you bringing this question up there instead of here where it is useless?

Planned Parenthood, ACLU. Fundraised for both on the streets, and still give money to both organizations. Sadly, I am limited in funds, but there are a few others I'm considering giving to when I cancel my Environment California donation.

But I wasn't aware that what made one a "feminist" was joining a feminist organization. How sad for all those people who fought before there were such organizations that they weren't "real" feminists.

Why am I not bringing it up there? Because it isn't a fully fleshed out idea, nor do I have the time nor resources to bring it up to them.

Why am I bringing it up here? Because it is a topic I had interest in and wanted to debate. Why do we bring up anything here?

you seem to think that you have a right to decide how people who are active in feminism ought to call themselves. you don't.

if YOU don't want to call yourself feminist feel free to call yourself whatever you like. other feminists will make that decision for themselves. wanting to capitulate to rush Limbaugh's multi decade attack on all feminism as extremists seems to be more appealing to you than it does to other feminists.

[Sarkhaan]

And again, I argue that the "confusion" is not "confusion". It is confusion. Same as how one might call a black person "African-American", when they are indeed Haitian. That person could take the snippy "HOW DARE YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!" attitude that many have taken in this thread, convinced in their self-righteousness that they are truly enlightened and such a dullard is unworthy of their time. But then, no one learns anything, and both feel more strongly about their opinions.

Except that's really an unapplicable comparison. You can't just grab things that people might get wrong and go, "SEE!?! It's the same thing!"

Congrats on getting stuck on a poor analogy and missing the point. Well done.

Why is anyone who doesn't understand the term inherently someone deserving of your derision?

Because being directly obtuse is an annoying way to pretend to have an argument. When someone asks, "Why is it called feminism when it's about gender equality?" it's just not that hard to go, "Well look, it's two parties. Which one is unequal?" When you can trace most of the "but men have problems too!" issues as side effects of the patriarchy, unintended or otherwise, it becomes clear why it's called what it is. It's identifying the problem. I don't need the pat on the head to tell me I get to play too. I'm not that fragile.

No, it's not that hard. But read this thread again. How many people said just that? None. The ones who did said it in a manner such as "*facepalm*" or "*slams head against brick wall*". For something so "simple", not a single person has managed to respectfully say exactly what you just said until now. And it was STILL in the context of an overall rude post.
The problem with "identifying the problem" is that it is missing a huge part of the problem. It's a part of the problem that was not a part of feminism in the first and second waves. The movement has advanced, become more inclusive, and yet the language has not shifted to reflect this. The word STILL points to the feminine issues, and does not make mention of the detrimental effects patriarchy has on men.

Also, to repeatedly claim that as a man you don't need to be pat on the head and that you aren't fragile gives the impression that you think women do.

It's hard to make friends and win battles with that attitude.

I have yet to be convinced that the architects of this confusion have any intention of being 'friends.' That's the thing, you or anyone else has yet to sell me that this 'confusion' is anything but made up.

I have. I said it in the post you responded to. You choose not to believe me off your own assumptions about me. I'm active in the queer and feminist movements. We see the confusion in Taylor Swift and Katy Perry and Carla Bruni and Marissa Mayer.

If these things happened in a vacuum, maybe you'd have a point, but they don't.

Except that sentence started with "If I understand your argument". I'm not sure how a sentence that starts with that phrase leads to you ascribing that argument to me...

The concept, not the issue itself. Different things.

I'd argue that the concept is more complex that you claim. But please, since it hasn't been discussed, what is the "clear" and "easy to understand" concept?[/quote]
What part is confusing you?[/quote]
If it is simple to explain, just have at it.

[Sarkhaan]

And given that that isn't happening, what is the responsibility of feminists in controlling the movement? to throw their hands up and scream "MYSOGYNIST!"? To say "you aren't worth my time"?

Yep, that is exactly what I said.

Exactly.

For fucks sake...

I wasn't claiming that was your argument. I was asking a question: What is the responsibility of feminists in controlling the movement?

[Choronzon]

Yep, that is exactly what I said.

Exactly.

For fucks sake...

I wasn't claiming that was your argument. I was asking a question: What is the responsibility of feminists in controlling the movement?

Education.

I said it right there in the post you quoted originally.

[Cannot think of a name]

You ever hear of a 'concern troll'?

In the course of this thread, you have compared my argument to 4th grade melodrama and trolling, yet you haven't managed to actually get my argument correct. I'm impressed, particularly, by your hostility towards me on this subject, as you have tended to be one of the more rational members around here, and someone I would have liked to have had an actual conversation with, rather than just having insults lobbed in my general direction.

I am being inelegant in my execution fueled mostly by exasperation. I'll grant that, and in so perhaps I've come off as calling you that instead of your argument, which I still maintain is juvenile whether or not I respect the person who holds it. For any personal offense, I apologize, but I'm not going to water down my opinion of the notion itself just because it comes from someone I like.

The idea is to pretend to be all about 'the cause' but then create 'concern,' to sew in this idea that things just aren't right...

Things AREN'T right. That's the point. Fighting for female equality is bullshit in a system in which men are also oppressed and forced into roles they don't choose. Why would we want to improve the level of a field slave to that of a house slave?

Because that's an overly emotional reach of an example. To say that men are house slaves to females field slaves is to trivialize the inequities that exist between the two genders in an attempt to appease a crowd that is not at all interested in fair brokership. The reality is that the inequalities are inequal and recognizing that fact allows us to focus our solutions where they would be the most effective.

I'm sorry, but you can cry to the winds about this idea that if we just changed the name, if we just gave the men a block to play with too (and I'm saying this as a dude), then it would all be just fine, but it just stinks of concern trolling.

My argument has not, is not, and will not be "if we JUST changed the name". A name change is the ONE change I mentioned in this thread to give it direction and slow it from becoming a debate about all of feminism. S

You're talking about 'redefining it' so that it fits better with the opposition, instead of just realizing that's what it is...opposition. You're throwing them in the briar patch and still thinking it's your idea.

Frankly, I'm just not that willing to admit to being that stupid. I'm not that willing to admit to being that fucking needy that when trying to correct years of patriarchal society that you have to pat me on the head and say, "Don't worry...we'll fix the problems it causes for you, too, you delicate little flower." Maybe instead of wringing our hands and chasing our tail waiting for those who oppose this to change their tune from 'what about men?' to 'too much equality' or whatever other nonsense that we then have to re-re-brand we should stand up for ourselves and our own sense of personal intellect and go, "Excuse me, I'm not that stupid and quit trying to pretend that I am."

So because you're a man, you don't need anyone to look out for you. Life is shiny and happy for men. It's all Shengri-La up in this bitch.

Not at all what I said. You keep doing this. It's really stalling the conversation.

Just because the experiences of men under patriarchy is like losing a finger compared to women losing an arm (and transgender women having both arms chopped off by those two groups) does not mean that they are not significant serious issues that need to be dealt with.

Certainly. But identifying the root cause is the first step in fixing the problem, not making sure that everyone feels like they're just as victimized as everyone else before we can do shit.

Do words have meaning? Yes. Where does that meaning come from?

If you keep letting the opposition define you then they can keep you constantly reshuffling and never actually get anything done because you're too busy wringing your hands worried that someone somewhere might pretend to not understand.

If we have a frequent and constant clash of meanings that results in behavior from feminists like that displayed in this thread, is the term being used the most effective, accurate, and precise one we could be using, or is it actually getting in the way of big conversations?

Your right, it can get in the way of the conversation. Now ask yourself, who would want that to happen? And do you think that if you change the name they will stop? You know the answer, someone already gave you examples from other languages that don't use a gender specific name.

I'm glad that you are above being manipulated by language.

Didn't say that.

You seem to have managed to get to a level no other human has: that of language being metaphorical in nature. Language structures our thoughts.

Never argued that it didn't. Not buying your premise is not the same as not believing in language. Sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke.

[Sarkhaan]

No one has said that.

What has been said is that we don't need to change the name to appease people who wouldn't join anyway, and that there has been a strategic, concentrated effort by certain kinds of people (In America we call them "Republicans") to make feminism a dirty word. There has been a deliberate attempt by some to make sure that when people think of the word "feminism" the only associations they make are all the negative ones. Because some people are terrified of what feminism represents. What it actually represents, not what they try to make it out to be either through political opportunism or ignorance.

In short I, and many others, refuse to discuss feminism on misogynist's terms. The solution is education, not acquiescence.

This very much.

You know, Sarkhaan, if you really want to spend your time placating people who have no interest in supporting feminism regardless of how many concessions you give to them then feel free. If that's how you want to spend your time then that's fine. More power to you.

The rest of us will get on with trying to do something constructive.

When did I become a misogynist?

I don't see a name change as a concession: I see it as aligning the language with the broader aims of a movement in its 3rd form. It isn't placating, and actually, many outwardly support the goals of the movement, but shy away from the term. Why is this happening? How can feminism be strengthened? How, after nearly a century, can we still be claiming "It's an education issue!", and refuse to even consider a change? Why is it assumed that any change must be on a misogynist's terms?

[Nadkor]

This very much.

You know, Sarkhaan, if you really want to spend your time placating people who have no interest in supporting feminism regardless of how many concessions you give to them then feel free. If that's how you want to spend your time then that's fine. More power to you.

The rest of us will get on with trying to do something constructive.

When did I become a misogynist?

When did I say you were? I've seen you reply with this, or variations thereof, to a few people so far, and largely to posts that haven't said anything of the sort.

You have a strange way of interpreting things.

[Choronzon]

When did I become a misogynist?

I haven't called you one, unless you're one of those people out there who are spreading the lie that feminism is for sex hating harpies out to castrate men (both figuratively and literally).

Are you? No? Then nothing to worry about.

I don't see a name change as a concession: I see it as aligning the language with the broader aims of a movement in its 3rd form.

The goal is to destroy patriarchy.

Really, I'm not seeing how the current name doesn't work for that.

It isn't placating, and actually, many outwardly support the goals of the movement, but shy away from the term.

Which is their own ignorance. A new name wont change that.

You're also assuming that the usual suspects wouldn't continue to smear the movement regardless of what name it goes under.

You should not assume that.

Why is this happening?

Because people are stupid, lazy and continue to be conned by spin doctors. The solution is education. Not capitulation.

How can feminism be strengthened?

Well, I am in favor of making some sort of course on gender equality and feminist theory mandatory for students.

But I'm a horrible big government socialist.

How, after nearly a century, can we still be claiming "It's an education issue!", and refuse to even consider a change?

No one is refusing to consider change.

Its just that anyone educated sees the name as a non-issue, and knows that "replacing" it wont make the problems go away, nor will it silence attacks.

Why is it assumed that any change must be on a misogynist's terms?

Not all change must be. But this change would be.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm glad feminists are convinced that we can win without gaining any new allies.

No one has said that.

What has been said is that we don't need to change the name to appease people who wouldn't join anyway, and that there has been a strategic, concentrated effort by certain kinds of people (In America we call them "Republicans") to make feminism a dirty word. There has been a deliberate attempt by some to make sure that when people think of the word "feminism" the only associations they make are all the negative ones. Because some people are terrified of what feminism represents. What it actually represents, not what they try to make it out to be either through political opportunism or ignorance.

In short I, and many others, refuse to discuss feminism on misogynist's terms. The solution is education, not acquiescence.

And yet, oddly, I am neither misogynist nor friendly to the Republican Party, am not the least bit ignorant of feminism, and am telling you that feminism, as a movement, acts for and upon women's interests, rather the interests of gender equality.

This is perfectly OK when those interests happen to coincide; but as you yourself are a perfect demonstration of, the exclusive focus on issues that are perceived as affecting women negatively means that there are a large number of gender equity issues that feminism has not made any progress towards addressing lately, and is highly unlikely to make any progress towards addressing in the future. This includes:

1. Boys falling behind in the educational system.
2. Men being pushed out of the teaching profession.
3. Women dominating secretarial fields, nursing, etc.
4. Men having a virtual monopoly on really shitty jobs that pose a hazard to life and limb.
5. Negative stereotyping of fathers and men in general in the media.
6. Widespread anti-male / pro-female discrimination within the criminal justice system.
7. Child custody going nearly universally to women in divorce.
8. The social safety net catches women and lets men fall through.
9. People act on their own initiative to protect women, but not men. (Some examples: 1 2 3.)
10. Silencing of male voices on gender equity issues.

Feminism has not addressed these problems; even with, say, #3, feminism has largely only tried to work on the converse problem, to work to open other career options to women, and addressing the basic problem that pro-female hiring discrimination in female-dominated fields channels women into those jobs would do a lot to bring more women into "male" fields.

Feminism will not address these problems unless feminism changes.

And some of these problems, feminism has created (#10), contributed to (#2), or obstructed progress in (#7, though if we go back far enough, first wave feminism is implicated in the creation and maintenance of the current status quo of handing custody to women in divorce). The one feminism has done the most to address is #4, though little of that lately; and even with women being allowed to become coal miners and the like, feminists of today are profoundly uninterested in getting more women into coal mining, garbage collection, deep sea fishing, and other non-high-status male jobs; when it comes to inequality within the workforce, feminism's collective attention is focused on the single issue of high-status male jobs (STEM jobs, management positions, executive positions, etc).

[Choronzon]

And yet, oddly, I am neither misogynist

If only your posting history, this post included, validated that statement.

EDIT: I keep hoping that one day you'll realize that all the problems you ascribe to feminism are the result of patriarchy, which feminism seeks to eliminate, and so they are actually trying to help men. I know that its foolish of me to assume that such a point will ever sink in, but I tell myself that anyway.

[Gravlen]

It is? This is news to me.

I don't think they're doing "just fine" on women's rights, either, mind you. Part of why I was thinking about a re-branding.

I don't think rebranding is possible. They'll call us feminazis regardless.

Or Equalnazis.

[Nailed to the Perch]

This very much.

You know, Sarkhaan, if you really want to spend your time placating people who have no interest in supporting feminism regardless of how many concessions you give to them then feel free. If that's how you want to spend your time then that's fine. More power to you.

The rest of us will get on with trying to do something constructive.

When did I become a misogynist?

I don't see a name change as a concession: I see it as aligning the language with the broader aims of a movement in its 3rd form. It isn't placating, and actually, many outwardly support the goals of the movement, but shy away from the term. Why is this happening? How can feminism be strengthened? How, after nearly a century, can we still be claiming "It's an education issue!", and refuse to even consider a change? Why is it assumed that any change must be on a misogynist's terms?

Because, fundamentally, the reason "feminist" is a dirty word in some circles is because misogynists have made a deliberate and concerted effort to turn "feminist" into a dirty word. There is nothing inherent to the word that makes it problematic - the name simply acknowledges, as you acknowledge, that the balance of power between men and women is still tilted hard in one direction (which does not, obviously, mean, that everything is always hunky-dory on the other side). I cannot see any "rebranding" of feminism as doing anything other than at best accomplishing nothing and at worst, and more likely, being taken as a concession that "yes, feminism really HAS gone too far!" I do not doubt for a fraction of an instant that, if somehow a global "rebranding" succeeded and all feminists started referring to ourselves as "gender equalists" or something, we would quickly start being called "gendernazis" (or maybe "equanazis," who knows), and the exact same bullshit characterization of feminists as man-hating bra-burning harpies would just turn into "those gender-equanazis are all man-hating bra-burning harpies." The only difference is that those people would get to add, "they basically admitted they hated men when they tried to fool us by taking 'fem' out of the name!" I can't see a way in which that could possibly help.

[Nailed to the Perch]

I don't think rebranding is possible. They'll call us feminazis regardless.

Or Equalnazis.

Freaking ninja penguins...

[Gravlen]

You know, in Norway the fight has been about likestilling since at least the 70's, and in Sweden it's been about jämställdhet since the start of the 70's. In Denmark it's been about ligestilling since the 60's. All of these terms translate into (gender) equality.

So this would be where your thoughts would lead us, would it not? A focus on equality, equal treatment and protection regardless of gender identity etc.? And while on the one hand we see the Scandinavian countries at the head of the curve when it comes to gender equality, on the other hand we see people complaining about how "gender equality has gone too far" and how it should be scaled back in certain areas. They say this with a straight face.

So I guess my point is, what's in a name? When you look at the people complaining about feminism and the focus on equal right from the perspective of a woman, do you honestly think they'll be won over by a name change? Or do you think they'll join the group of people thinking women are getting to be too equal?

Words shape how we think. The images you conjure for "feminist", as well as all of the oppositional images you conjure, during dual coding of language directly influence your understanding of the concept. When an emphasis is placed on one gender, it does influence our interpretation of the word, and does place that gender in opposition to the other. The very fact that femi- is placed in opposition to masc- is a major issue in winning over supporters.

So would you say that the main reason the Scandinavian countries manage to score high on gender equality is that they call it "gender equality"?

How should we deal with the people who claim that gender equality spends too much time on issues pertaining to women? Could the people complaining on how there's "too much equality" be won over if we no longer call it "gender equality"?

[Sarkhaan]

In the course of this thread, you have compared my argument to 4th grade melodrama and trolling, yet you haven't managed to actually get my argument correct. I'm impressed, particularly, by your hostility towards me on this subject, as you have tended to be one of the more rational members around here, and someone I would have liked to have had an actual conversation with, rather than just having insults lobbed in my general direction.

I am being inelegant in my execution fueled mostly by exasperation.

You called it 4th grade melodrama before my second post in this thread. If you are exasperated, step away. I certainly won't miss the accusations.

I'll grant that, and in so perhaps I've come off as calling you that instead of your argument, which I still maintain is juvenile whether or not I respect the person who holds it. For any personal offense, I apologize, but I'm not going to water down my opinion of the notion itself just because it comes from someone I like.

Could you please explain to me why this is juvenile? You and others in this thread have tossed around accusations like this, but not a single person has take the time to clearly and calmly spell out that argument without making massive assumptions about my person, my charater, or my beliefs.

Then, this IS NSG...

The idea is to pretend to be all about 'the cause' but then create 'concern,' to sew in this idea that things just aren't right...

Things AREN'T right. That's the point. Fighting for female equality is bullshit in a system in which men are also oppressed and forced into roles they don't choose. Why would we want to improve the level of a field slave to that of a house slave?

Because that's an overly emotional reach of an example. To say that men are house slaves to females field slaves is to trivialize the inequities that exist between the two genders in an attempt to appease a crowd that is not at all interested in fair brokership. The reality is that the inequalities are inequal and recognizing that fact allows us to focus our solutions where they would be the most effective.[/quote]It does trivialize the inequities between the two genders, but for reason. To phrase it otherwise places the burden of the inequities upon one gender or another, rather than to depict both genders as victims. To quote Howard Zinn: "My point is not to grieve for the victims and denounce the executioners. Those tears, that anger, cast into the past, deplete our moral energy for the present. And the lines are not always clear. In the long run, the oppressor is also a victim. In the short run (and so far, human history has consisted only of short runs), the victims, themselves desperate and tained with the culture that oppresses them, turn on other victims....I will try not to overlook the cruelties that victims infliuct on one another as they are jammed together in the boxcars of the system. I don't want to romanticize them. But I do remember (in rough paraphrase) a statement I once read: "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is"

Men are oppressed under our system. Are there greater inequities that women face? Hell yes. Does that mean we shouldn't focus on actual equality, rather than having women become more like men? Does that mean we should be callous to a little boy, sobbing because his parents won't let him go as a princess, as we rise up against the ignorant parents who won't get their daughter a superman costume?

Is the damage done to the individual any different, just because there is a societal prescient and consciousness?

My argument has not, is not, and will not be "if we JUST changed the name". A name change is the ONE change I mentioned in this thread to give it direction and slow it from becoming a debate about all of feminism. S

You're talking about 'redefining it' so that it fits better with the opposition, instead of just realizing that's what it is...opposition. You're throwing them in the briar patch and still thinking it's your idea.

I am? Where am I talking about "redefining" feminism?
I said I would like to see it merged into a greater civil justice movement that fights for equity regardless of race, creed, gender, sex, sexuality, etc. That isn't redefining, that's a call for a great social uprising.

No. I'm not. I'm seeking to stop calling them the opposition, since that puts us in a battle over differences, rather than a discussion seeking commonality. Do I think everyone can be won over? No. Do I think many with concerns could be? Yes. Do I think feminism actually lines up with the movements stated goals? No. Would I like to fix this issue? Yes.

Frankly, I'm just not that willing to admit to being that stupid. I'm not that willing to admit to being that fucking needy that when trying to correct years of patriarchal society that you have to pat me on the head and say, "Don't worry...we'll fix the problems it causes for you, too, you delicate little flower." Maybe instead of wringing our hands and chasing our tail waiting for those who oppose this to change their tune from 'what about men?' to 'too much equality' or whatever other nonsense that we then have to re-re-brand we should stand up for ourselves and our own sense of personal intellect and go, "Excuse me, I'm not that stupid and quit trying to pretend that I am."

So because you're a man, you don't need anyone to look out for you. Life is shiny and happy for men. It's all Shengri-La up in this bitch.

Not at all what I said. You keep doing this. It's really stalling the conversation.[/quote]What is "this"?

Just because the experiences of men under patriarchy is like losing a finger compared to women losing an arm (and transgender women having both arms chopped off by those two groups) does not mean that they are not significant serious issues that need to be dealt with.

Certainly. But identifying the root cause is the first step in fixing the problem, not making sure that everyone feels like they're just as victimized as everyone else before we can do shit.

Until people realize how they, themselves, are personally victimized in a system, they will be reluctant to fight at best, and will be antagonists at worst. The root cause has been identified. The word still points to part of the result, rather than the entirety of the problem.

Do words have meaning? Yes. Where does that meaning come from?

If you keep letting the opposition define you then they can keep you constantly reshuffling and never actually get anything done because you're too busy wringing your hands worried that someone somewhere might pretend to not understand.

And if you label yourself poorly, you'll attract either the wrong allies, or not all of the allies you could have had.

If we have a frequent and constant clash of meanings that results in behavior from feminists like that displayed in this thread, is the term being used the most effective, accurate, and precise one we could be using, or is it actually getting in the way of big conversations?

Your right, it can get in the way of the conversation. Now ask yourself, who would want that to happen? And do you think that if you change the name they will stop? You know the answer, someone already gave you examples from other languages that don't use a gender specific name.

I didn't say it would make it go away. I said it would possibly make it better.
Who wanted it to happen in this thread? Evidently, you, Nadkor, Choronzon, and the many others who made the choice to approach this thread in a way that was not discussion.
You think it's the opposition that would want the conversation to be as alienating a possible. They don't need to. We feminists, evidently, do it to themselves.

I'm glad that you are above being manipulated by language.

Didn't say that.

You seem to have managed to get to a level no other human has: that of language being metaphorical in nature. Language structures our thoughts.

Never argued that it didn't. Not buying your premise is not the same as not believing in language. Sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke.

[/quote]Which premise are you not buying?

[Sarkhaan]

When did I become a misogynist?

When did I say you were? I've seen you reply with this, or variations thereof, to a few people so far, and largely to posts that haven't said anything of the sort.

You have a strange way of interpreting things.

Read both posts I quoted. If it wasn't you that called me a misogynist, then it might have been the other person I was quoting.

[Choronzon]

When did I say you were? I've seen you reply with this, or variations thereof, to a few people so far, and largely to posts that haven't said anything of the sort.

You have a strange way of interpreting things.

Read both posts I quoted. If it wasn't you that called me a misogynist, then it might have been the other person I was quoting.

Nope, he (I) didn't either.

I think you're paranoid, comrade.

[Sarkhaan]

And yet, oddly, I am neither misogynist

If only your posting history, this post included, validated that statement.

EDIT: I keep hoping that one day you'll realize that all the problems you ascribe to feminism are the result of patriarchy, which feminism seeks to eliminate, and so they are actually trying to help men. I know that its foolish of me to assume that such a point will ever sink in, but I tell myself that anyway.

And again, rather than politely having a conversation, you become agressive and rude. Rather than providing the education that has been claimed renders my proposal moot, you claim your work done and accuse the other party of being dense.

I wonder how my students would do if I ran my classroom that way...education, indeed.

[Choronzon]

And again, rather than politely having a conversation, you become agressive and rude. Rather than providing the education that has been claimed renders my proposal moot, you claim your work done and accuse the other party of being dense.

TJ's posts don't exist in a vacuum, and you're wrongly assuming that the education hasn't been offered. It has. A thousand times. It was almost a weekly occurrence. TJ is either incapable of or not interested in fixing his ignorance. We've all heard the song before. We know all the words. It gets played all the damn time. So we change the station.

I don't waste my time educating people who refuse to learn.