NSG, extraordinarily liberal?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There is no excuse for being against feminism in this day and age. No excuse. If you are against feminism you are against the equality of women with men and that is unacceptable. No tolerance for intolerance. I will gladly demonize those who do not think women are equals.

This might be an illustrative case for why that philosophy has certain limitations, though, because Albion didn't actually say he didn't think women were equals. That's an assumption, but it might or might not be accurate. It's possible that he simply disagrees with your assessment that "thinking women are equals implies supporting abortion." Now, he might or might not be correct about that, but if your reason for justifying demonizing him is that he doesn't think women are equal, that might not actually be true. So that becomes the problem. What's understood and expressed as "I will gladly demonize those who do not think women are equals" kind of has this unspoken assumption that "I know who thinks women are equals without asking them," making it in practice "I will gladly demonize those who I expect or I assume do not think women are equals," which, I think, is a somewhat weaker statement.

It wasn't the abortion statement that prompted that, it was not supporting feminism.

[Caille]

We need to discuss the merits of policy and examine the evidence instead of resorting to demonizing the beliefs of millions of people.

There is no excuse for being against feminism in this day and age. No excuse. If you are against feminism you are against the equality of women with men and that is unacceptable. No tolerance for intolerance. I will gladly demonize those who do not think women are equals.

There's definitely no excuse to be against feminism as you have defined it in an above post.

However, different groups interpret the word in another context. Little actions we do (mainly referring to 'he's' when referencing the office of the Presidency, the term "founding fathers," and so on) have been attacked for not standing on the principles of gender equality.

I understand that what I mention above is a misrepresentation of feminism, but not everyone does. And you certainly won't gain followers if you are constantly ridiculing the people you are trying to change.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

1. Some disagree with feminism due to the feminism movement and it's actions. 2. Many of these people still believe in egalitarianism and the right for EVERYBODY to be equal, 3. but do not want to stick to the label of feminism, which has a lot of baggage with it due to the extremist views some feminists hold.

4. So no, anti-feminist is not anti-woman.

1. They don't think women should have equal rights because some advocates of women's rights were dicks about it? Fantastic. Great. No. That's fucking bad.

2. That's feminism.

3. Feminists hold the view that men and women should be equal. If they go beyond that they are chauvinists. Though female chauvinists are unbelievably rare. Acknowledging a gap in pay between genders, for example, is not chauvinism, it's acceptance of a fact.

4. Yes it is.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Yes. You do. I literally just proved you do. If you support equal rights, you are a feminist. That's the fucking definition.

Some would say that it's inaccurate to call yourself a feminist if you believe that gender equality has been achieved, as feminism connotes that equality must be achieved by elevating women.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There is no excuse for being against feminism in this day and age. No excuse. If you are against feminism you are against the equality of women with men and that is unacceptable. No tolerance for intolerance. I will gladly demonize those who do not think women are equals.

There's definitely no excuse to be against feminism as you have defined it in an above post.

However, different groups interpret the word in another context. Little actions we do (mainly referring to 'he's' when referencing the office of the Presidency, the term "founding fathers," and so on) have been attacked for not standing on the principles of gender equality.

I understand that what I mention above is a misrepresentation of feminism, but not everyone does. And you certainly won't gain followers if you are constantly ridiculing the people you are trying to change.

The way I defined it is the way the dictionary defines it.

I've never heard anyone do that and I'm going to ask for sources because of it. I've never heard anyone ever get mad because you referred to people by their chosen, desired gender pronoun.

I'm not trying to gain followers. And I have no desire to be friends or even acquaintances with someone who believes someone is not equal to me because of the way they were born.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yes. You do. I literally just proved you do. If you support equal rights, you are a feminist. That's the fucking definition.

Some would say that it's inaccurate to call yourself a feminist if you believe that gender equality has been achieved, as feminism connotes that equality must be achieved by elevating women.

Gender equality has not been achieved, so. And yeah, would you suggest just bringing men down?

[Wulfenia]

It sure seems that way.


Huh, I can't be for women's rights, but dislike a silly movement that attempts to monopolize it? What the fuck.

Oh, yeah, +A for irony, mate.

Do you have any clue what feminism is? Stupid question, you obviously don't.

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

If you do not support feminism, by definition, you do not support the equality of women and men. I have no clue what "silly movement" you're talking about, unless it's the one that advocates for women's rights, in which case, again, do you know what feminism is?

Obviously I was referring to the feminist movement, which largely engages in hypocrisy and silliness (denying transwomen recognition, talking about the "patriarchy," and psychoanalysis of movies, games, and literature). By the definition of the word, I'd be a feminist.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Gender equality has not been achieved, so. And yeah, would you suggest just bringing men down?

My feelings on gender politics are complex and situational. I think that in many areas of mainstream American society, a rough equality has been achieved. I think that in some areas of society, males are disadvantaged and their real issues are overlooked. I think that the solution for the near future is to allow a greater spectrum of gender roles, allow gender roles to be more permeable, and to actively try to value the contribution of people from all gender roles on a more objective and inclusive basis.

Much of the world obviously needs feminism, because the disparity between the rights and privileges of women and men are so stark as to need immediate correction, and we need to remember the feminist struggle to keep from backsliding into that sort of behavior ourselves, but I think that some parts of the world are indeed getting to the point where we can move beyond feminism and into a more generally inclusive model of equality.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Do you have any clue what feminism is? Stupid question, you obviously don't.

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

If you do not support feminism, by definition, you do not support the equality of women and men. I have no clue what "silly movement" you're talking about, unless it's the one that advocates for women's rights, in which case, again, do you know what feminism is?

1. Obviously I was referring to the feminist movement, which largely engages in hypocrisy and silliness (2. denying transwomen recognition, 3. talking about the "patriarchy," 4. and psychoanalysis of movies, games, and literature). 5. By the definition of the word, I'd be a feminist.

1. Source

2. Very bad, agreed.

3. Not liking the phrase doesn't make it nonexistent. Men are still in control.

4. This can definitely get out of hand sometimes.

5. Of course. Most people would.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

3. Not liking the phrase doesn't make it nonexistent. Men are still in control.

In all situations, with male desires defining the nature of all power relationships?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

3. Not liking the phrase doesn't make it nonexistent. Men are still in control.

In all situations, with male desires defining the nature of all power relationships?

"Patriarchy is a social system in which: males hold primary power; males predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; and, in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. "

...yeah.

[Mysterious Stranger]

This might be an illustrative case for why that philosophy has certain limitations, though, because Albion didn't actually say he didn't think women were equals. That's an assumption, but it might or might not be accurate. It's possible that he simply disagrees with your assessment that "thinking women are equals implies supporting abortion." Now, he might or might not be correct about that, but if your reason for justifying demonizing him is that he doesn't think women are equal, that might not actually be true. So that becomes the problem. What's understood and expressed as "I will gladly demonize those who do not think women are equals" kind of has this unspoken assumption that "I know who thinks women are equals without asking them," making it in practice "I will gladly demonize those who I expect or I assume do not think women are equals," which, I think, is a somewhat weaker statement.

It wasn't the abortion statement that prompted that, it was not supporting feminism.

Oh, so your objection was to the second part "and feminism?" That makes sense.
So your thinking is basically:
1. OP said that they exclude feminism
2. The dictionary definition of feminism involves thinking that women are the equals of men
3. Op thinks that women are not the equals of men.
That's certainly a reasonable chain of logic. In this case, though, I wonder (and I can only speculate, unfortunately, since he's gone) whether OP might have been thinking more in terms of the living and spontaneous element of language, where words can take on different "meanings" in different contexts, especially in politics, and take on various connotations or serve as group identifiers according to the actions of people in real time. I've certainly met a lot of people who had become alienated by what a group of people calling themselves feminists and using the word feminist had been saying, (which wasn't necessarily the same as the dictionary definition of feminism) and felt the word feminist had taken on a connotation in a lot of people's minds that they didn't agree with, but who agree with the dictionary definition of the term, (namely, equality of men and women). For example, in my daily life I usually specify that I'm a "libertarian socialist" rather than just saying "communist" and that I'm an "anarcho-pacifist" or "Christian anarchist" rather than just "anarchist," not because I actually think that the dictionary definitions of "communist" or "anarchist" don't accurately describe my views (they do), but because a lot of people associate the term "communist" with "marxist-leninist" and "anarchist" with "egoist anarchist." I feel that I have an obligation to speak in terms of how I expect to be understood. For example, I've frequently argued with people who thought that there was nothing wrong with displaying the confederate flag because they didn't mean to communicate racism by it, that the standard for communication isn't "what you meant" but rather "how you had reasonable cause to assume that others would understand you;" in other words, that what the listener thinks words mean is the basis of communication. In light of that principle, I might question whether words each have a single, essential meaning no matter where they are used. Instead, I'm prepared to accept the possibility that the same word might mean different things in different contexts and places at the same time based on differences in how it's understood. I think that's especially true for political symbols, because they are often used as group identifiers representing a particular broad group of people more strongly than a particular concept.

[New Skaaneland]

There sure are a lot of commies and weirdos around here, but there are also more anarcho-capitalists and libertarians than what you'd find at many places. It could be that the place appeals to "liberals" in both its' meanings.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Oh, so your objection was to the second part "and feminism?" That makes sense.
So your thinking is basically:
1. OP said that they exclude feminism
2. The dictionary definition of feminism involves thinking that women are the equals of men
3. Op thinks that women are not the equals of men.
That's certainly a reasonable chain of logic. In this case, though, I wonder (and I can only speculate, unfortunately, since he's gone) whether OP might have been thinking more in terms of the living and spontaneous element of language, where words can take on different "meanings" in different contexts, especially in politics, and take on various connotations or serve as group identifiers according to the actions of people in real time. I've certainly met a lot of people who had become alienated by what a group of people calling themselves feminists and using the word feminist had been saying, (which wasn't necessarily the same as the dictionary definition of feminism) and felt the word feminist had taken on a connotation in a lot of people's minds that they didn't agree with, but who agree with the dictionary definition of the term, (namely, equality of men and women). For example, in my daily life I usually specify that I'm a "libertarian socialist" rather than just saying "communist" and that I'm an "anarcho-pacifist" or "Christian anarchist" rather than just "anarchist," not because I actually think that the dictionary definitions of "communist" or "anarchist" don't accurately describe my views (they do), but because a lot of people associate the term "communist" with "marxist-leninist" and "anarchist" with "egoist anarchist." I feel that I have an obligation to speak in terms of how I expect to be understood. For example, I've frequently argued with people who thought that there was nothing wrong with displaying the confederate flag because they didn't mean to communicate racism by it, that the standard for communication isn't "what you meant" but rather "how you had reasonable cause to assume that others would understand you;" in other words, that what the listener thinks words mean is the basis of communication. In light of that principle, I might question whether words each have a single, essential meaning no matter where they are used. Instead, I'm prepared to accept the possibility that the same word might mean different things in different contexts and places at the same time based on differences in how it's understood. I think that's especially true for political symbols, because they are often used as group identifiers representing a particular broad group of people more strongly than a particular concept.

I didn't actually think he is against equality of the sexes. I'm just a sarcastic asshole who has a thing for the English language and likes to ensure accuracy of word definitions.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There sure are a lot of commies and weirdos around here, but there are also more anarcho-capitalists and libertarians than what you'd find at many places. It could be that the place appeals to "liberals" in both its' meanings.

...what do you mean by "commies and weirdos?"

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

"Patriarchy is a social system in which: males hold primary power; males predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; and, in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. "

...yeah.

That's the old social system, which to my eyes is clearly in the process of crumbling to it's end. Mothers very commonly hold the authority over the men and children in their families, women are more and more gaining access to positions of political leadership, and have long held positions of moral authority and social priviledge, and a huge amount of property is controlled by women.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Oh, so your objection was to the second part "and feminism?" That makes sense.
So your thinking is basically:
1. OP said that they exclude feminism
2. The dictionary definition of feminism involves thinking that women are the equals of men
3. Op thinks that women are not the equals of men.
That's certainly a reasonable chain of logic. In this case, though, I wonder (and I can only speculate, unfortunately, since he's gone) whether OP might have been thinking more in terms of the living and spontaneous element of language, where words can take on different "meanings" in different contexts, especially in politics, and take on various connotations or serve as group identifiers according to the actions of people in real time. I've certainly met a lot of people who had become alienated by what a group of people calling themselves feminists and using the word feminist had been saying, (which wasn't necessarily the same as the dictionary definition of feminism) and felt the word feminist had taken on a connotation in a lot of people's minds that they didn't agree with, but who agree with the dictionary definition of the term, (namely, equality of men and women). For example, in my daily life I usually specify that I'm a "libertarian socialist" rather than just saying "communist" and that I'm an "anarcho-pacifist" or "Christian anarchist" rather than just "anarchist," not because I actually think that the dictionary definitions of "communist" or "anarchist" don't accurately describe my views (they do), but because a lot of people associate the term "communist" with "marxist-leninist" and "anarchist" with "egoist anarchist." I feel that I have an obligation to speak in terms of how I expect to be understood. For example, I've frequently argued with people who thought that there was nothing wrong with displaying the confederate flag because they didn't mean to communicate racism by it, that the standard for communication isn't "what you meant" but rather "how you had reasonable cause to assume that others would understand you;" in other words, that what the listener thinks words mean is the basis of communication. In light of that principle, I might question whether words each have a single, essential meaning no matter where they are used. Instead, I'm prepared to accept the possibility that the same word might mean different things in different contexts and places at the same time based on differences in how it's understood. I think that's especially true for political symbols, because they are often used as group identifiers representing a particular broad group of people more strongly than a particular concept.

I didn't actually think he is against equality of the sexes. I'm just a sarcastic asshole who has a thing for the English language and likes to ensure accuracy of word definitions.

Haha, and I'm a pedagogue at heart who doesn't know how to read subtext.

[Mysterious Stranger]

"Patriarchy is a social system in which: males hold primary power; males predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; and, in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. "

...yeah.

That's the old social system, which to my eyes is clearly in the process of crumbling to it's end. Mothers very commonly hold the authority over the men and children in their families, women are more and more gaining access to positions of political leadership, and have long held positions of moral authority and social priviledge, and a huge amount of property is controlled by women.

Things are getting better in much of the world, but women are still behind men overall in nearly every country. It's an enormous problem and still in many ways a very present reality.

[Excidium Planetis]

Gender equality has not been achieved

Source?

And, in what nation? Obviously it has not been achieved in countries like Saudi Arabia, but I believe it has in America.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"Patriarchy is a social system in which: males hold primary power; males predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; and, in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. "

...yeah.

1. That's the old social system, which to my eyes is clearly in the process of crumbling to it's end. 2. Mothers very commonly hold the authority over the men and children in their families, 3. women are more and more gaining access to positions of political leadership, 4. and have long held positions of moral authority and 5. social priviledge, and 6. a huge amount of property is controlled by women.

1. Still seems pretty current to me.

2. ...really? Because I don't see that as even being common. Existent, sure, but not the usual.

3. Yeah, but men obviously and blatantly dominate politics in every country in the world.

4. Pope's a man and always has been, so's the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dalai Lama, etc.

5. How? Because I don't see it, unless you mean shit like holding doors open for them.

6. Not as much as men. I'm seeing most CEOs being men. I'm seeing more men owning the property their family lives on.

[Harelia]

How the hell is OP already Ex-Nation? Along with a few others here?

Who's flinging invisi-B&hammers?

I am not comfy right now. This is making me question NSG's liberalness.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Gender equality has not been achieved

Source?

And, in what nation? Obviously it has not been achieved in countries like Saudi Arabia, but I believe it has in America.

This was easy.

America. And everywhere else, though to different degrees.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's the old social system, which to my eyes is clearly in the process of crumbling to it's end. Mothers very commonly hold the authority over the men and children in their families, women are more and more gaining access to positions of political leadership, and have long held positions of moral authority and social priviledge, and a huge amount of property is controlled by women.

Things are getting better in much of the world, but women are still behind men overall in nearly every country. It's an enormous problem and still in many ways a very present reality.

In the Western world, in what ways are women behind? They have the right to vote, they hold citizenship equal to men, they have the same protections under the law, they can own property, and they earn the same income as men in the same job. In the US, they can even serve in military combat roles, including Special Forces. If anything, men are at a disadvantage, being subject to the military draft (in the US), lacking maternity leave, and having an unfair bias in rape cases.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

How the hell is OP already Ex-Nation? Along with a few others here?

Who's flinging invisi-B&hammers?

I am not comfy right now. This is making me question NSG's liberalness.

He was a troll who had already been DEATed back in February.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

How the hell is OP already Ex-Nation? Along with a few others here?

Who's flinging invisi-B&hammers?

I am not comfy right now. This is making me question NSG's liberalness.

The OP was a puppeteering troll who tried to double play in the abortion thread.