NATION

PASSWORD

Why feminism is wrong

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57851
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:45 pm

Alyakia wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Well, I could point out that only 23% of women are feminists.
So you're kind of fucked here.
Which is it.
Are they not sexist and not feminist, or are they majority sexist?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 94917.html

You can't have it both ways.
Either feminism is not the same thing as not being a sexist, or most women are in fact sexist.
SO I provided my source and you didn't, just threw a demand for sources back at me.
I think it's clear you are an ideologue who doesn't care what's actually true.



I'm not denying women have some disadvantages.
I'm denying they have it worse than men.
And i'm denying a gynocentric narrative will fix those disadvantages for women, which are a result of misandry, not misogyny.
Most of the complaints in that study are about money.
That's because it's not a womans job to earn money in our society. Whining about how they aren't given as much money ignores that they have lots of shit paid for for them.
It's a white person complaining that blacks pick more cotton than they do, and ignoring where it ends up.
And whining about how they aren't seen as good cotton pickers, and this hurts their self-esteem.
Well, theres a way to fix that you know.
Stop enslaving black people.

That's an extreme example obviously. But none of what you showed actually demonstrates oppression. Only that men are seen as workhorses and women are not.

And that's before you get into the fact that 18-30, males earn less than females.
The paygap is a result of bygone eras. You can't expect women above 30 to benefit from policies enacted now. They lack the socioeconomic means to benefit from the changes.
But what you can expect is the endless whining of feminists to make the CURRENT pay gap even larger by privileging females even more.

So your article is completely off the mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CW ... %9D_effect

This shows clearly that the feminist narrative is completely ass backwards. Misogyny isn't the problem.
In fact, by endlessly braying "YOU JUST HATE WOMEN!!!" they are making the problem worse by consistently implying the solution to womens problems is to care more about women.
It isn't.
That's the cause of their problems. The way to fix them would be to say "Women are adults and don't require your affectionate protection, but that man over there is in dire straights and could use your assistance."
But will they do it? Will they fuck.


would it blow your mind were i tell you that, yes, most men and women do indeed hold sexist views? even about their own sex?


No, I agree entirely with you on that point. I'll admit I was a little surprised to see you say it, but thinking about it you've typically been one of the better feminists on this issue, even if still biased ideologically in my opinion. You've at least been willing to hear what women are doing to cause the situation and how they can change.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Sparunica
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 114
Founded: Aug 31, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Sparunica » Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:18 pm

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

As far as I know, men don't have everything just fine and dandy as well. And I extremely hate it when feminists make things that aren't women's issues into women's issues. Let's take rape and sexual assault for example. Lots of feminists (the ones you hear from at least) tend to make out that only women get raped and sexually assaulted, and only men commit such crimes. And this is made especially worse by those who say things like "Teach men not to rape".

"According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in her or his lifetime"

So that's around 4,588,000 men victims of rape or attempted rape. Doesn't seem like a women's issue. Sure, the number is higher, doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

In my view feminism is done in the Western World, you have all the legal equality you really need without going into first world problems. If you're one of the people who moans about the apparent wage gap, which doesn't exist when you count in factors like maternity leave, and ignores things going on in places like Yemen, then how can you call yourself a feminist? How can you claim to stand for women's rights and ignore the oppression and exploitation women receive in the Middle East and Africa?
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
For: Socialism, Marxism, (neo)Communism, Leftism, Atheism, Secularism, Libertarianism, Scandinavian Leftism, Trotskyism, LGBT Rights, Egalitarianism
Against: Fascism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Monarchism, Feudalism, Nazism, Nationalism, Religious and Ideological Extremism, North Korea, China, Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, Imperialism, Russia, Putin, Feminism, MRM, Globalisation

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 72165
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:21 pm

Sparunica wrote:"According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in her or his lifetime"

Point of order:

The study in question only counts the victim being penetrated as rape. If a woman drugs a man, rides him until she's done with him, leaves his penis broken and bleeding, while recording the whole incident on DVD, and drops off the DVD at the local police station and the local television news station, that is not rape by the terms of that survey.

It's "other sexual violence", because the victim was made do the penetrating against his will, but he wasn't, himself, penetrated.

If one uses a nonsexist definition of rape, the number of men raped grows substantially.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57851
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:00 pm

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comm ... s_no_need/

I'll admit, I'm chuckling a little.
Maybe they should do satire more often.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Saints Empire of Stilwater and Steelport
Secretary
 
Posts: 27
Founded: Feb 05, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Saints Empire of Stilwater and Steelport » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:07 pm

Sparunica wrote:feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Feminism has evolved from that definition, though. As I said before on this thread, it's not just white straight cis women's issues they fight for. Feminism nowadays fights for the rights of ethnic minorities, the rights of sexual and gender minorities and men's rights as well, even though it may not seem like it. It has become quite the pro-minority movement recently. Of course, some feminists do not recognize some people's rights to be worth fighting for, but what can I say. The movement, like any movement, has its bad apples and as time goes by, feminists will become more accepting of new rights they haven't defended before. That is just how it goes.

Sparunica wrote:As far as I know, men don't have everything just fine and dandy as well. And I extremely hate it when feminists make things that aren't women's issues into women's issues. Let's take rape and sexual assault for example. Lots of feminists (the ones you hear from at least) tend to make out that only women get raped and sexually assaulted, and only men commit such crimes. And this is made especially worse by those who say things like "Teach men not to rape".

There are many issues which are gender-specific and which aren't. Rape and sexual violence is one, however that is not an issue of systematic oppression as rape and sexual violence are punishable by law and as far as I know bodily sovereignty in the cases of violent crimes like rape is a right protected by law. Abortion, on the other hand, is a women's rights issue and a matter of systematic oppression in certain states since states are allowed to make differing laws regarding civil liberty issues such as abortion. A men's rights issue which pops up to my mind would be the right to dress however one wants, but I'm not sure whether the United States has decency laws which prohibit dressing in clothes perceived to be for the opposite gender.

Sparunica wrote:"According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in her or his lifetime"

So that's around 4,588,000 men victims of rape or attempted rape. Doesn't seem like a women's issue. Sure, the number is higher, doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

We have, in fact, known for a while that rape is definitely not a women's issue. The reason it is mentioned a lot is due to the emotional impact it has. Rape is, as many people know (hopefully not from first hand), a horrible experience and nothing that anyone would deserve ever in any circumstances. The problem is that not as many rape and sexual assault cases with male victims come to light and into publicity, so that it could be easily seen as a non-gender-specific issue by the general public.

Sparunica wrote:In my view feminism is done in the Western World, you have all the legal equality you really need without going into first world problems. If you're one of the people who moans about the apparent wage gap, which doesn't exist when you count in factors like maternity leave, and ignores things going on in places like Yemen, then how can you call yourself a feminist? How can you claim to stand for women's rights and ignore the oppression and exploitation women receive in the Middle East and Africa?

It is not just the wage cap. As I have said, feminism is not just about white straight women. Why would you say that the oppression of women in the Islamic world is somehow being ignored by women's rights activists? It most definitely is not.
⚜ Don't fuck with the Saints! ⚜

User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Skappola » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:09 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2v328t/meninism_is_about_women_too_why_there_is_no_need/

I'll admit, I'm chuckling a little.
Maybe they should do satire more often.

:lol: That's actually quite good.
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Natapoc » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:51 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2v328t/meninism_is_about_women_too_why_there_is_no_need/

I'll admit, I'm chuckling a little.
Maybe they should do satire more often.


Really? That's the dumbest attempt at satire I've ever seen. It's like something fox news and the 700 club would put together if they tried to do a comedy skit.

Leave the satire to those who understand how to do it.
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57851
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:59 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2v328t/meninism_is_about_women_too_why_there_is_no_need/

I'll admit, I'm chuckling a little.
Maybe they should do satire more often.


Really? That's the dumbest attempt at satire I've ever seen. It's like something fox news and the 700 club would put together if they tried to do a comedy skit.

Leave the satire to those who understand how to do it.


I'd say it's pretty on the money for why aspects of feminism are a joke. The thread as a whole mind, OP isn't the best part. It's funny that you refer to two right wing groups. You know the MRA is mostly left wing, right?
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Free Tristania
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8194
Founded: Oct 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Free Tristania » Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:27 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Really? That's the dumbest attempt at satire I've ever seen. It's like something fox news and the 700 club would put together if they tried to do a comedy skit.

Leave the satire to those who understand how to do it.


I'd say it's pretty on the money for why aspects of feminism are a joke. The thread as a whole mind, OP isn't the best part. It's funny that you refer to two right wing groups. You know the MRA is mostly left wing, right?

Since when ? Most of the MRA comments online show something of a conservative, even libertarian slant.
Pro: True Liberty, Voluntary association, Free Trade, Family and Tradition as the Bedrock of Society
Anti: Centralisation (of any sort), Feminism, Internationalism, Multiculturalism, Collectivism of any sort (be it Left-wing or Right-wing)

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:29 am

Free Tristania wrote:Since when ? Most of the MRA comments online show something of a conservative, even libertarian slant.
Image

You probably mean - "most of the MRA comments I've read online show something of a conservative even libertarian slant" - without reading every MRA comment online, you cannot credibly make your previous claim.

The fact is that there is a roughly equal division between left and right. This survey demonstrates a fairly equal division between liberatian and democrat on the mensright subreddit.
Last edited by Hirota on Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
AiliailiA
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27722
Founded: Jul 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby AiliailiA » Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:46 am

Hirota wrote:
Free Tristania wrote:Since when ? Most of the MRA comments online show something of a conservative, even libertarian slant.
Image

You probably mean - "most of the MRA comments I've read online show something of a conservative even libertarian slant" - without reading every MRA comment online, you cannot credibly make your previous claim.

The fact is that there is a roughly equal division between left and right. This survey demonstrates a fairly equal division between liberatian and democrat on the mensright subreddit.


Or perhaps it demonstrates that every member of the Libertarian party is active on mensrights :p

Seriously, there's a lot of "independents" there. You can't say for sure whether they're left or right.
My name is voiced AIL-EE-AIL-EE-AH. My time zone: UTC.

Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
Ethel mermania wrote:
Ifreann wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
: eugenics :
What are the colons meant to convey here?
In my experience Colons usually convey shit

NSG junkie. Getting good shit for free, why would I give it up?

User avatar
Unholy Byzantium
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Jan 22, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Unholy Byzantium » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:46 am

Natapoc wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2v328t/meninism_is_about_women_too_why_there_is_no_need/

I'll admit, I'm chuckling a little.
Maybe they should do satire more often.


Really? That's the dumbest attempt at satire I've ever seen. It's like something fox news and the 700 club would put together if they tried to do a comedy skit.

Leave the satire to those who understand how to do it. I agree with


Fixed it for you.
The White Sun will never be extinguished

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:50 am

Ailiailia wrote:Seriously, there's a lot of "independents" there. You can't say for sure whether they're left or right.
My point was to disprove Free Tristania's claim, not make one of my own.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 57851
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:00 pm

Ailiailia wrote:
Hirota wrote:(Image)

You probably mean - "most of the MRA comments I've read online show something of a conservative even libertarian slant" - without reading every MRA comment online, you cannot credibly make your previous claim.

The fact is that there is a roughly equal division between left and right. This survey demonstrates a fairly equal division between liberatian and democrat on the mensright subreddit.


Or perhaps it demonstrates that every member of the Libertarian party is active on mensrights :p

Seriously, there's a lot of "independents" there. You can't say for sure whether they're left or right.


http://i.imgur.com/2w5nQyZ.png

Kind of suggests they aren't conservatives. You'll also find that they tend toward disliking democrats for their gynocentrism, and disliking republicans for their traditionalism.
I consider it a given that most are left wing at least on the social scale, and given that many of their solutions involve increasing state expenditure, it's sort of a given that they are left wing economically at least on mens issues. (Or are Libertarians actually demanding charity occur. Which is more acceptable than the Gimme Libertarian imo.)
Social conservatism is fairly antithetical to the movements goals, so while Libertarians have a strong showing, those "Independents" would be either Democrats or Lib-leaning republicans without party loyalty voting based on whichever candidate woo'd them most.
I'd consider it obvious that they'll begrudgingly vote gynocentric over traditionalist.
Most of their policy suggestions revolve around more resources for men from the state (left wing.) private sector (libertarian), or expanding the civil rights of men. (left wing socially.)

So it is mostly left wing.
(Left socially.)
(Left and right economically.)
->
Centre-left.

There was a thread a while back where a lot of them said they would be mercenary in their party loyalty if the other side adopted some mens rights policies and would be willing to overlook a lot to get them through in order to make a breakthrough though. That kind of worries me a bit.
The last thing we need is the republicans taking up the cause imo. If the democrats did then whopee. Hell, i'd even take the libertarians.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:15 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9290
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:01 pm

Ailiailia wrote:
Hirota wrote:Image

You probably mean - "most of the MRA comments I've read online show something of a conservative even libertarian slant" - without reading every MRA comment online, you cannot credibly make your previous claim.

The fact is that there is a roughly equal division between left and right. This survey demonstrates a fairly equal division between liberatian and democrat on the mensright subreddit.


Or perhaps it demonstrates that every member of the Libertarian party is active on mensrights :p

Seriously, there's a lot of "independents" there. You can't say for sure whether they're left or right.

More to the point, that survey suggests that /r/MensRights demographics are not terribly easily distinguished in many ways from the general internet population, aside from being more male and MRM-specific stances (e.g., skepticism of the feminist movement). There are lots of independents / libertarians / libertarian-leaning types on th internet.

There do seem to be an awful lot of bisexuals on /r/MensRights. That's really the only bit that sticks out as truly unusual - a 2:1 ratio between bisexual and gay is typical of women, but the reverse ratio is more typical of men (more gay men than bisexual men), and having only 81% of a mostly-male population identify as straight is low, even on the internet.

Even the above may not be quite statistically significant vs the baseline Reddit population.

User avatar
The Cobalt Sky
Minister
 
Posts: 2009
Founded: Jul 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cobalt Sky » Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:32 pm

Feminism:
"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

Doesn't sound bad to me.

People are saying that there are other people out there advocating for women's rights high above those of men's? They aren't real feminists.
I TRY TO KEEP MY WILD ASSERTIONS, AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO HOLD OFF POSTING WITH THIS NATION UNTIL 2016

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:26 am

The Cobalt Sky wrote:People are saying that there are other people out there advocating for women's rights high above those of men's? They aren't real feminists.
Pointing out logical fallacies is my new favourite thing

Having said that, Feminism is a very dispersed ideology - I'm not sure there is a such a thing as a "real" feminist given the range of infighting and variation in objectives. If your definition of feminism is the dictionary definition of feminism, then I identify as a feminist. But you've got 2nd Wave, 3rd Wave, Radical, Post-Modernist, Equity, Existential, TERF, and many other branches of feminist ideology.

I'm not really convinced there is a clear consensus of what Feminism actually is.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Forsher
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21488
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Forsher » Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:23 am

Hirota wrote:
The Cobalt Sky wrote:People are saying that there are other people out there advocating for women's rights high above those of men's? They aren't real feminists.
Pointing out logical fallacies is my new favourite thing

Having said that, Feminism is a very dispersed ideology - I'm not sure there is a such a thing as a "real" feminist given the range of infighting and variation in objectives. If your definition of feminism is the dictionary definition of feminism, then I identify as a feminist. But you've got 2nd Wave, 3rd Wave, Radical, Post-Modernist, Equity, Existential, TERF, and many other branches of feminist ideology.

I'm not really convinced there is a clear consensus of what Feminism actually is.


Pretty sure that is not no true Scotsmkan as no parties that should be included in a group are excluded arbitraily. Female supremacists are, by definition of feminist, excluded from being feminists. This term, feminism, is largely well defined. The troble is whether or not it stops at "rights for women that are equal to men" or is, instead, entirely synonomous with egalitarianism. You also get a little bit of trouble when some anonymous posters on internet forums decide to call people feminists when they're uncomfortable with the terminology.

With 2nd and 3rd waves you're really dealing with terms that are very roughly analogous with post-impressionism or cubism. They describe the differences in focus, emphasis and nature of a movement that is still essentially that core of "let's make women equal with men" (obviously the core in the analogy are artists). As with many movements the central ideological branch has members with quite different ideas of how to go about things or who consider some things more important than others (for instance, a TERF may talk about real women, as opposed to trans* women, and only the former, to a TERF, falls within feminism's interests).

So, there is a consensus, it's just quite broad but it definitely excludes female supremacists. The only people who disagree are either uninformed or deliberately misleading (whether because they're trying to legitimise female supremacism by tagging along or because they're trolling, or maybe some other reason to mislead that I haven't thought of).

Whether or not feminism is a good thing, in this sense, moves well beyond what exactly the term includes theoretically to focus more on what the term does in practice. And, if you ask me, feminism has certainly had its place and done a lot of good things, but its perspective (i.e. it approaches inequality from a female perspective) is problematic these days in developed nations... therefore describing it as good is misleading, just not to the same extent as labelling it bad outright. I had a thread on this once. It is also important to distinguish between feminists and feminists on the internet, they're not quite the same for contextual reasons. I mostly stick with discussing the latter because I'm lazy and, therefore, not a good person.
Last edited by Forsher on Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:36 am

Forsher wrote:This term, feminism, is largely well defined.
And yet, we have feminist bloggers criticising actresses for the wrong type of feminism. I'd argue that if it's really as well defined as you'd claim, you wouldn't have comedians cancelling gigs for advocating the "wrong type of feminism". There are Feminists who don't seem to know what feminism is.
So, there is a consensus, it's just quite broad but it definitely excludes female supremacists.
Yet you've not explained why? You claiming it definitely excludes female supremacists does not make it true.
Last edited by Hirota on Tue Feb 24, 2015 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Forsher
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21488
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Forsher » Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:05 pm

Hirota wrote:
Forsher wrote:This term, feminism, is largely well defined.
And yet, we have feminist bloggers criticising actresses for the wrong type of feminism. I'd argue that if it's really as well defined as you'd claim, you wouldn't have comedians cancelling gigs for advocating the "wrong type of feminism". There are Feminists who don't seem to know what feminism is.
So, there is a consensus, it's just quite broad but it definitely excludes female supremacists.
Yet you've not explained why? You claiming it definitely excludes female supremacists does not make it true.


You have no point. Neither or those articles say anything about the definition of feminism or present any valid point about a different meaning of feminism.

The first is criticising the way a call to action was framed because it strongly sounds like "people of colour" or LGBT individuals are obligated to support women... as though women is a separate distinct category of being, that female persons of colour aren't relevant. This probably happens because most celebrities tend to support these sorts o things without being particularly well informed. The celebrity in question probably didn't think things through very carefully. After all, the thrust of the call to action was, "“It's our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” The problem only comes afterwards when the celebrity implies that because there are separate movements for other groups they are allies, rather than members. It's more "not thinking" or "thicko celeb" than "Feminism is about equality for white women and white women only". It's closer to making your point than the second but, ultimately, you've encountered an author with an unfair interpretation.

The second one is a simple point of ideological difference in argument. One group thinks that Nordic style (as opposed to NZ or German style) legalisation of prostitution (where the suppliers are decriminalised and buyers still criminals) is part of the message of equality while the other doesn't (whether because they favour total legalisation or criminialisation). It's like arguing that Bayern and Dortmund aren't both soccer teams because one favours possession based play and the other quick breaks. It's the same base thing, just different intentions. Like how not all monarchists are in favour of hereditary constitutional monarchy (there are a variety of different specific beliefs within the bigger ideology). It's not really surprising or significant.

Do you understand what is meant by the term "by definition"? It means that because feminists are defined as believing in equality between genders, anyone who doesn't meet that criteria (such as male or female supremacists) cannot be a feminist. It doesn't mean female supremacists are "definitely not" (except that it sort of does), it means they're outside the definition of the group feminism. You're trying to argue that mammals can be called birds. That's not true because the group birds (that is, aves) is defined in such a fashion that it excludes any mammals (probably looks something like "the most recent common ancestor of the common sparrow and Archaeopteryx"*). The same is true of feminism (birds) and female supremacism (beasts).

See what I did there?

*It's, apparently, something of a matter of debate but if you follow the way I did it, what I should have written is "All descendants of the most recent..." And maybe used modern birds rather than the common sparrow.
Last edited by Forsher on Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
The Cobalt Sky
Minister
 
Posts: 2009
Founded: Jul 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cobalt Sky » Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Hirota wrote:
The Cobalt Sky wrote:People are saying that there are other people out there advocating for women's rights high above those of men's? They aren't real feminists.
Pointing out logical fallacies is my new favourite thing

Ha, nice try. Except my definition made it clear it was EQUALITY, and the so called feminists I discounted I specifically mentioned wanted MORE than that. I made it clear what feminism was and was not, based on a legitimate definition. Don't jump to conclusions just because I didn't go into extensive, unneeded detail.
Last edited by The Cobalt Sky on Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I TRY TO KEEP MY WILD ASSERTIONS, AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO HOLD OFF POSTING WITH THIS NATION UNTIL 2016

User avatar
Gold Harbor
Envoy
 
Posts: 284
Founded: Feb 24, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Gold Harbor » Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:38 pm

It's wrong because it goes against democracy and is in fact a "majority faction" like the founders feared because it does not benefit the whole nation, like a very strong gene that comes out in all who have it but causes them to not be able to reproduce.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32055
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:42 pm

The Cobalt Sky wrote:Ha, nice try. Except my definition made it clear it was EQUALITY, and the so called feminists I discounted I specifically mentioned wanted MORE than that. I made it clear what feminism was and was not, based on a legitimate definition. Don't jump to conclusions just because I didn't go into extensive, unneeded detail.


Except they call themselves feminists and justify what they do and say with feminism. You can say there's one true feminism but if that worked branches, sects, and splinters of religions wouldn't be a thing.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Hirota
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7314
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:17 am

Forsher wrote:You have no point. Neither or those articles say anything about the definition of feminism or present any valid point about a different meaning of feminism.
The point is that feminists of different stripes have different opinions. It is not the universal bloc operating under a single definition you'd suggest.

Do you understand what is meant by the term "by definition"? It means that because feminists are defined as believing in equality between genders
You and Cobalt are arguing from a theoretical perspective, I am arguing reality. We could look at dictionary definitions all day, but that wouldn't be reflected in real life. Human beings as a whole are not rational creatures who look at a definitions to decide if a label in a book does or does not fit their cognitive bias.
Last edited by Hirota on Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Hanchu
Diplomat
 
Posts: 595
Founded: May 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Hanchu » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:21 am

BlueVelvet wrote:Feminism is right, women should be able to do whatever men can, and there should be no judging.

Ive seen feminists judge women for what they wear , the way they behave , and how they feel about feminism

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Czechostan, Dimetrodon Empire, Fartsniffage, Greater Miami Shores 3, Grinning Dragon, Hispida, Rary, Shrillland, Stellar Colonies, Thermodolia, Valrifall, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads