The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If an electronics company produces crappy TVs but is otherwise a reliable company, then honesty when confronted with customer complaints about the crappy TVs is better than pretending that they're wonderful or looking for someone else to blame. If they do the latter, then people will start wondering about their other products and consider buying from someone else. This is how it goes.

Well, feminism exists in a marketplace of ideas. Either they adapt or people will find some other stall that provides something with more satisfaction in it.

Feminism is not a product. It's an ideology about gender equality and it's not going to change its goals just because some members of a privilege class get upset about it. It does not really matter if you like feminism or not.

There is no compromise on gender equality and it does not matter if some men have problems with that.

Gender equality is a vision.

Feminism can perfectly shift its short- to medium-term goals as time goes along, and it has done so already, which is why we have "waves" of feminism.

[New Edom]

Oh, where to begin.

First: the market place of ideas is an analogy. The idea is is that people have the right to examine whatever ideas they want and decide if it applies to their principles or other aspects of their lives, and decide on that basis whether or not they support them.

Second: 'there is no compromise on gender equality". What do you mean? Do you mean that when feminists say something about gender equality it is automatically true and should not be examined by others as to whether they believe it or agree with it?

Of course people have the right to examine ideas and decide if they want to support them. Feminists disagree with each other on all sorts of things about gender. What we agree on is that women should have equal rights as men.

You seem to believe that feminists are against people having the right to form their own opinions. I'm unsure why you would think that.

Because they are?

Why do feminists support other feminists in blocking lecturers from appearing at universities who might disagree with or do disagree with popular feminist ideas, to the point of pulling fire alarms, blocking doors and trying to prevent them being accepted by universities' administrations as being allowed to offer seminars or talks on university property? Why do popular feminist leaders say that other feminists who express concerns about men's issues that don't fall into a standard party line are NOT feminists at all but anti-feminist?

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course people have the right to examine ideas and decide if they want to support them. Feminists disagree with each other on all sorts of things about gender. What we agree on is that women should have equal rights as men.

You seem to believe that feminists are against people having the right to form their own opinions. I'm unsure why you would think that.

Because they are?

Why do feminists support other feminists in blocking lecturers from appearing at universities who might disagree with or do disagree with popular feminist ideas, to the point of pulling fire alarms, blocking doors and trying to prevent them being accepted by universities' administrations as being allowed to offer seminars or talks on university property? Why do popular feminist leaders say that other feminists who express concerns about men's issues that don't fall into a standard party line are NOT feminists at all but anti-feminist?

Also, as that link I posted earlier talked about:

Why do feminists threaten television stations, book publishers, newspapers etc when they give mention to mens issues from a male perspective, instead of a feminist approved female-centric perspective?

The "Lace curtain."

[Baltanica]

i feel like oppressing women in my society

[Natapoc]

Because they are?

Why do feminists support other feminists in blocking lecturers from appearing at universities who might disagree with or do disagree with popular feminist ideas, to the point of pulling fire alarms, blocking doors and trying to prevent them being accepted by universities' administrations as being allowed to offer seminars or talks on university property? Why do popular feminist leaders say that other feminists who express concerns about men's issues that don't fall into a standard party line are NOT feminists at all but anti-feminist?

Also, as that link I posted earlier talked about:

Why do feminists threaten television stations, book publishers, newspapers etc when they give mention to mens issues from a male perspective, instead of a feminist approved female-centric perspective?

The "Lace curtain."

I did not read your entire source so I did not want to reply yet but since you want a response right now...

So far I think it's preposterous but did find humor in the analogy to cold war era scare mongering, almost as if out of 1950s anti soviet propaganda.

Lace curtain = Iron Curtain. Feminists = Soviets.

Honestly I find it impossible to relate to these ideas. You may experience reality as some type of Dystopian matriarchy but I don't and I just can't relate to people who honestly feel this way. I guess I wish you the best in fleeing the "Lace Curtain".

[Ostroeuropa]

Also, as that link I posted earlier talked about:

Why do feminists threaten television stations, book publishers, newspapers etc when they give mention to mens issues from a male perspective, instead of a feminist approved female-centric perspective?

The "Lace curtain."

I did not read your entire source so I did not want to reply yet but since you want a response right now...

So far I think it's preposterous but did find humor in the analogy to cold war era scare mongering, almost as if out of 1950s anti soviet propaganda.

Lace curtain = Iron Curtain. Feminists = Soviets.

Honestly I find it impossible to relate to these ideas. You may experience reality as some type of Dystopian matriarchy but I don't and I just can't relate to people who honestly feel this way. I guess I wish you the best in fleeing the "Lace Curtain".

http://www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm

It describes it fairly well.

Hearing women’s internal stories – without hearing men’s – made the world seem unfair to women. Ironically, because we didn’t know men’s stories were being left out, the more we heard from women the more we thought we’d been neglecting women. Soon it became politically incorrect to interrupt her flow. So women’s stories became women’s studies, not to be interrupted by men’s studies.

Graduates of women’s studies courses soon controlled gender related decisions in almost all large bureaucracies. When an issue about sexual harassment or date rape came up on a college campus, the feminists flooded the committees concerning these decisions, created the agenda, and decided who would be hired as consultants and speakers.

The problem? Women with backgrounds in women’s studies were not only uneducated about men, but often saw men as the problem and women as the solution. They had demonized men. If someone spoke up against them, they weren’t just outnumbered, they were labeled sexist. And what we will see in this chapter is how that labeling led to the end of careers in the ‘80s and ‘90s as quickly as being labeled communist ended careers in the 1950s.

The power of feminists to allow only a feminist perspective to be aired (in every field that dealt with gender issues) came to be labeled the "Lace Curtain."

The Iron Curtain shut out opinions considered a threat to Communism. The Lace Curtain shuts out opinions considered a threat to feminism.

In an Iron Curtain country, capitalist-bashing was the norm. In a Lace Curtain country, man-bashing is the norm. The chapter on man bashing hopefully made clear the degree to which man bashing is the norm; this chapter on the Lace Curtain shows us how each institution, from the government to the school system, from the helping professions to the media, produces that outcome, each in its own unique way.

In an Iron Curtain country, being too critical of core Communist tenets could cost you your job. Especially if your job was in the government, media or education system. In a Lace Curtain country, being too critical of core feminist attitudes (sexual harassment, affirmative action) can cost you your job. Especially if your job is in the government, media or education system.

The Communist Party achieved this power to censor formally, by revolution and becoming the one-party system of Soviet politics. Feminism achieved this power informally, by becoming the one-party system of gender politics: creating a new area of study, defining the terms, generating the data and becoming the only acceptable source of interpretation. This chapter explains how this occurs, and why.

Communists came into power by selling the belief that workers were exploited by capitalists. Feminists came into power by selling the belief that women were exploited by men. Both communists and feminists defined an enemy and sold itself as the champion of the oppressed.

Once Communism and feminism successfully defined themselves as progressive and morally superior, censoring criticism could be rationalized as progressive and morally necessary.

As long as I was writing from a feminist perspective, The New York Times published everything I wrote. Once I began questioning the feminist perspective, The New York Times published nothing I wrote – not a single one of the more than twenty articles I have since submitted to them in the following two decades.

Which institutions create the Lace Curtain? Universities, in all the liberal arts, especially at the top-ranked schools; the school system, especially public high schools; government, especially at the national and United Nations level; the media, especially print media and television; the helping professions, especially social work; advertising, especially on television; book publishing, especially self-help and text books; funding institutions, especially those funding health, arts, and university research. Each institution censors and distorts in its own unique way. Each reinforces the other like academics citing each other’s research.

Worth reading the whole thing, by the way.

[Gauthier]

Some behaviors that will not be tolerated here are...

- misandry and/or misogyny
- all x are y ("all feminists are lesbians"; "all feminists hate men"; "all men want to oppress women")
- anti-feminist rants (go make your own damn thread for that)
- trolling, baiting, flaming, harassing or any other behavior deemed unacceptable on NationStates

Unsurprisingly, they've pretty much been ignored.

[New Edom]

Some behaviors that will not be tolerated here are...

- misandry and/or misogyny
- all x are y ("all feminists are lesbians"; "all feminists hate men"; "all men want to oppress women")
- anti-feminist rants (go make your own damn thread for that)
- trolling, baiting, flaming, harassing or any other behavior deemed unacceptable on NationStates

Unsurprisingly, they've pretty much been ignored.

Why don't you try actually having a genuine conversation about it then rather than just hoping for self congratulations about how great feminism is? The attempts on the part of men going their own way and men's rights activists here have been entirely about trying to come to common agreement about human rights for men and for women. By constantly denying that there are any existing ideas or leadership within feminism that detract from this, the feminists in this thread are just widening the gulf. Why hold onto ideas that prevent this and insist that the ideology is flawless or try to find ways to deny that there is anything worth deeper examination that may be driving people away from feminism? None of what has been suggested is actually harmful towards the idea of equality between men and women.

[Swith Witherward]

Unsurprisingly, they've pretty much been ignored.

Why don't you try actually having a genuine conversation about it then rather than just hoping for self congratulations about how great feminism is? The attempts on the part of men going their own way and men's rights activists here have been entirely about trying to come to common agreement about human rights for men and for women. By constantly denying that there are any existing ideas or leadership within feminism that detract from this, the feminists in this thread are just widening the gulf. Why hold onto ideas that prevent this and insist that the ideology is flawless or try to find ways to deny that there is anything worth deeper examination that may be driving people away from feminism? None of what has been suggested is actually harmful towards the idea of equality between men and women.

New Edom, respectfully, the majority of what you've posted throughout this thread has been nothing but "all feminists are [insert shit here]". I completely understand your stance as a MRA. However, when you continue to paint all feminists with the same sweeping generalizations, I don't see the point in even bothering to converse with you. Your posts come across to me as bitter and whinging although I'm sure that you sincerely don't intend them to be so.

Is feminism great? No. It's a movement. Equality is great. Is the feminist movement flawless? No. It's a movement. Movements have merits and flaws. Are the leaders of various feminist movements perfect? No. Some of them behave like rabid dogs.

Kindly stop with the "all feminists are/believe/do this..." nonsense. It widens the gulf.

[New Edom]

Why don't you try actually having a genuine conversation about it then rather than just hoping for self congratulations about how great feminism is? The attempts on the part of men going their own way and men's rights activists here have been entirely about trying to come to common agreement about human rights for men and for women. By constantly denying that there are any existing ideas or leadership within feminism that detract from this, the feminists in this thread are just widening the gulf. Why hold onto ideas that prevent this and insist that the ideology is flawless or try to find ways to deny that there is anything worth deeper examination that may be driving people away from feminism? None of what has been suggested is actually harmful towards the idea of equality between men and women.

New Edom, respectfully, the majority of what you've posted throughout this thread has been nothing but "all feminists are [insert shit here]". I completely understand your stance as a MRA. However, when you continue to paint all feminists with the same sweeping generalizations, I don't see the point in even bothering to converse with you. Your posts come across to me as bitter and whinging although I'm sure that you sincerely don't intend them to be so.

Is feminism great? No. It's a movement. Equality is great. Is the feminist movement flawless? No. It's a movement. Movements have merits and flaws. Are the leaders of various feminist movements perfect? No. Some of them behave like rabid dogs.

Kindly stop with the "all feminists are/believe/do this..." nonsense. It widens the gulf.

Bitter and whining. That's interesting. Have you actually even read anything I've written?

Allow me to inform you of a few things about me. I'm extensively read in feminist literature. I've read feminist literature from several eras, from Mary Wollstonecroft to Susan Faludi to the present. I've read some I enjoyed and found interesting (bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody) and some I found frustrating (Susan Faludi's Stiffed) I've watched feminist plays, watched feminist movies including short films. I am not speaking as a dilletante or someone who only knows feminism from the internet.

For most of my life I've been a supporter of feminism. In the last few years I've been increasingly disquieted by a trend within the movement of avoiding dealing with any criticism whatsoever from people who support the aims of the movement while being worried about some of the ideas, some particular approaches towards activism and some attempts at legislation, and who for their efforts have been called anti-feminist. I broke with it for the same reason others did, because it was impossible to have a reasonable conversation. It is not I who have not been trying. This is the first time you have engaged what I've written, and did so with a dismissive set of words which are not only contemptuous but in no way address any points I have brought up.

There is no reason to continue in that vein however. There is every possibility of cooperation, but it's up to people like you to respond to it rather than defending a hopeless position.

[Diopolis]

Why don't you try actually having a genuine conversation about it then rather than just hoping for self congratulations about how great feminism is? The attempts on the part of men going their own way and men's rights activists here have been entirely about trying to come to common agreement about human rights for men and for women. By constantly denying that there are any existing ideas or leadership within feminism that detract from this, the feminists in this thread are just widening the gulf. Why hold onto ideas that prevent this and insist that the ideology is flawless or try to find ways to deny that there is anything worth deeper examination that may be driving people away from feminism? None of what has been suggested is actually harmful towards the idea of equality between men and women.

New Edom, respectfully, the majority of what you've posted throughout this thread has been nothing but "all feminists are [insert shit here]". I completely understand your stance as a MRA. However, when you continue to paint all feminists with the same sweeping generalizations, I don't see the point in even bothering to converse with you. Your posts come across to me as bitter and whinging although I'm sure that you sincerely don't intend them to be so.

Is feminism great? No. It's a movement. Equality is great. Is the feminist movement flawless? No. It's a movement. Movements have merits and flaws. Are the leaders of various feminist movements perfect? No. Some of them behave like rabid dogs.

Kindly stop with the "all feminists are/believe/do this..." nonsense. It widens the gulf.

No, feminism isn't a movment. It's a collection of movements. New feminists and queer feminists probably wouldn't agree on much of anything, to put extremes out there. Feminism has a variety of movements integral to it, and some of those movements are broadly reasonable, and others are led by nutcases. Of course, this makes his all x are y bullshit even stupider, because you pretty much can't name a position all feminist movements would agree on. Maybe "women shouldn't be property" or "rape is bad". Possibly "women should have the right to vote"(although I'm not entirely sure there aren't say, fascist feminists or whatever that disagree with the idea of voting in its entirety). The point is, any statements all feminist movements would agree on, pretty much everyone else outside of Saudi Arabia would too(although given the diversity in the movement, I could probably find a pro-Saudi feminist if I needed to).

[Swith Witherward]

Bitter and whining. That's interesting. Have you actually even read anything I've written?

Allow me to inform you of a few things about me. I'm extensively read in feminist literature. I've read feminist literature from several eras, from Mary Wollstonecroft to Susan Faludi to the present. I've read some I enjoyed and found interesting (bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody) and some I found frustrating (Susan Faludi's Stiffed) I've watched feminist plays, watched feminist movies including short films. I am not speaking as a dilletante or someone who only knows feminism from the internet.

For most of my life I've been a supporter of feminism. In the last few years I've been increasingly disquieted by a trend within the movement of avoiding dealing with any criticism whatsoever from people who support the aims of the movement while being worried about some of the ideas, some particular approaches towards activism and some attempts at legislation, and who for their efforts have been called anti-feminist. I broke with it for the same reason others did, because it was impossible to have a reasonable conversation. It is not I who have not been trying. This is the first time you have engaged what I've written, and did so with a dismissive set of words which are not only contemptuous but in no way address any points I have brought up.

There is no reason to continue in that vein however. There is every possibility of cooperation, but it's up to people like you to respond to it rather than defending a hopeless position.

Out of curiosity, exactly what position am I defending?

I'm sorry if you read contempt into my words. I hold no contempt. You are not beneath me; your beliefs are valid. However, engaging you becomes difficult when you insist that all feminists respond the same way and hold the same opinions. I'm not here to respond to your arguments. I'm asking you to stop lumping us all together as if we all believed the same (negative) thing. Seriously, it does come across to me as bitterness on your part. I would have posted the same were you a feminist and treating MRA in the same manner.


Diopolis, for simplicity's sake, I used the term "movement" to encompass all of it. I agree with you, though. There are so many forms of feminism. I added a variety of them to my OP but there's no way to capture them all. That's why "you feminists do XYZ" makes little sense to me.

[New Edom]

Bitter and whining. That's interesting. Have you actually even read anything I've written?

Allow me to inform you of a few things about me. I'm extensively read in feminist literature. I've read feminist literature from several eras, from Mary Wollstonecroft to Susan Faludi to the present. I've read some I enjoyed and found interesting (bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody) and some I found frustrating (Susan Faludi's Stiffed) I've watched feminist plays, watched feminist movies including short films. I am not speaking as a dilletante or someone who only knows feminism from the internet.

For most of my life I've been a supporter of feminism. In the last few years I've been increasingly disquieted by a trend within the movement of avoiding dealing with any criticism whatsoever from people who support the aims of the movement while being worried about some of the ideas, some particular approaches towards activism and some attempts at legislation, and who for their efforts have been called anti-feminist. I broke with it for the same reason others did, because it was impossible to have a reasonable conversation. It is not I who have not been trying. This is the first time you have engaged what I've written, and did so with a dismissive set of words which are not only contemptuous but in no way address any points I have brought up.

There is no reason to continue in that vein however. There is every possibility of cooperation, but it's up to people like you to respond to it rather than defending a hopeless position.

Out of curiosity, exactly what position am I defending?

I'm sorry if you read contempt into my words. I hold no contempt. You are not beneath me; your beliefs are valid. However, engaging you becomes difficult when you insist that all feminists respond the same way and hold the same opinions. I'm not here to respond to your arguments. I'm asking you to stop lumping us all together as if we all believed the same (negative) thing. Seriously, it does come across to me as bitterness on your part. I would have posted the same were you a feminist and treating MRA in the same manner.


Diopolis, for simplicity's sake, I used the term "movement" to encompass all of it. I agree with you, though. There are so many forms of feminism. I added a variety of them to my OP but there's no way to capture them all. That's why "you feminists do XYZ" makes little sense to me.

When I stop seeing feminists generally deploying the same tactics in this thread which are pretty much like feminist tactics elsewhere, I will stop lumping them together. I am not referring to particular beliefs about ideas within feminism but general responses to queries about ideas.

Also, I have not seen you respond this way to feminists lumping all supposedly male critics of feminism as MRAs who all think alike.

[New Edom]

Something else I'd like to bring up. I've tried to discuss a number of feminist topics over the years and have rarely had anything resembling a fair discussion.

For instance, bringing up the modesty issue here on NSG--what I got were accusations that I was trying to be authoritarian, rather than just exploring what people meant by modesty, even when I did my best to make it clear that I was talking more about how clothing and where and when you wear it establishes social boundaries.

When bringing up consent, trying to talk about the grey areas resulted in accusations that I was either a fool who did not understand why consent was important or that I was a potential rapist, even though I said over and over that I believed that consent was important and just wanted to discuss issues surrounding it.

When I brought up the fact that I felt that domestic violence ads should not target men exclusively as potential criminals and should accept that women sometimes abuse others, I was told in a contradictory way that feminists did admit that women could be abusers but that focusing on it would be a bad idea by some, told by radical feminists that it didn't happen enough to matter, but generally I was accused of trying to blame women for everything and not caring about women's issues.

When feminists tried to say that there were no prominent feminists who did dismiss issues surrounding abuse by women and I offered proof, it was ignored or dismissed as not being relevant even though the people in question were well known public speakers and supporters of major feminist initiatives. There was not one avowed feminist who admitted that the literal proof out of the horse's mouth was actual proof of anything.

So I don't think I'm whining; I think I have a legitimate concern. Feminists say they want to have conversations about consent, abuse and violence, but do they really, or do they just want to tell everyone what to do? As I said above, these responses are so consistent that I don't see that what branch or faction of feminism a person belongs to matters in this kind of case.

[Swith Witherward]

When I stop seeing feminists generally deploying the same tactics in this thread which are pretty much like feminist tactics elsewhere, I will stop lumping them together. I am not referring to particular beliefs about ideas within feminism but general responses to queries about ideas.

Also, I have not seen you respond this way to feminists lumping all supposedly male critics of feminism as MRAs who all think alike.

I am a feminist and I loathe any tactics that incorporate degrading men as a means to boost women. There is a video out there of a red-haired woman disrupting a men's lecture. She pulls a fire alarm. She rants at the crowd. She talks over the man trying to politely reason with her. She insults everyone. Is she a feminist? Yep. Is she also a shithead? Yep, IMHO. She doesn't represent me and she's a piss-poor representative of feminism in general.

Please bear in mind that some feminists here are on ignore. They're incapable of behaving themselves and thus I refuse to allow them any presence on my screen. I haven't responded to them because I can't see their posts. I grew weary of their blatant misadry long ago. Such people don't deserve presence on your screen either.

Rather than judge all of us by their poor example, place them on ignore and come dialog with those of us that are interested in what you have to say. I guarantee that I won't agree with everything you believe, but I won't degrade you for holding those beliefs.

[Edward Richtofen]

Mission
This thread is dedicated to supporting feminism and the promotion of women's rights; it is a place to educate, uplift and nurture the younger generations.

oh thank halford I was expecting the bash feminism thread.

As a white male immigrant to the US from Finland I never noticed any problems until recently
but they've always been there. people are just feeding ignorance to everyone.
it makes me sad that feminism has been likened to a hate ideology.

[Haktiva]

When I stop seeing feminists generally deploying the same tactics in this thread which are pretty much like feminist tactics elsewhere, I will stop lumping them together. I am not referring to particular beliefs about ideas within feminism but general responses to queries about ideas.

Also, I have not seen you respond this way to feminists lumping all supposedly male critics of feminism as MRAs who all think alike.

I am a feminist and I loathe any tactics that incorporate degrading men as a means to boost women. There is a video out there of a red-haired woman disrupting a men's lecture. She pulls a fire alarm. She rants at the crowd. She talks over the man trying to politely reason with her. She insults everyone. Is she a feminist? Yep. Is she also a shithead? Yep, IMHO. She doesn't represent me and she's a piss-poor representative of feminism in general.

Please bear in mind that some feminists here are on ignore. They're incapable of behaving themselves and thus I refuse to allow them any presence on my screen. I haven't responded to them because I can't see their posts. I grew weary of their blatant misadry long ago. Such people don't deserve presence on your screen either.

Rather than judge all of us by their poor example, place them on ignore and come dialog with those of us that are interested in what you have to say. I guarantee that I won't agree with everything you believe, but I won't degrade you for holding those beliefs.

Ah, Big Red. She's good for a laugh, or a cringe.

[New Edom]

When I stop seeing feminists generally deploying the same tactics in this thread which are pretty much like feminist tactics elsewhere, I will stop lumping them together. I am not referring to particular beliefs about ideas within feminism but general responses to queries about ideas.

Also, I have not seen you respond this way to feminists lumping all supposedly male critics of feminism as MRAs who all think alike.

I am a feminist and I loathe any tactics that incorporate degrading men as a means to boost women. There is a video out there of a red-haired woman disrupting a men's lecture. She pulls a fire alarm. She rants at the crowd. She talks over the man trying to politely reason with her. She insults everyone. Is she a feminist? Yep. Is she also a shithead? Yep, IMHO. She doesn't represent me and she's a piss-poor representative of feminism in general.

Please bear in mind that some feminists here are on ignore. They're incapable of behaving themselves and thus I refuse to allow them any presence on my screen. I haven't responded to them because I can't see their posts. I grew weary of their blatant misadry long ago. Such people don't deserve presence on your screen either.

Rather than judge all of us by their poor example, place them on ignore and come dialog with those of us that are interested in what you have to say. I guarantee that I won't agree with everything you believe, but I won't degrade you for holding those beliefs.

You are referring to "Chanty Binx" also known as "Big Red". Hilarious.

I appreciate your words here. I think it would help a lot if there were more feminists with the perspective you offered who wanted to have conversations about human rights issues and also understood that these other persons have represented feminism to others. I think that unfortunately too many moderate feminists use the 'no true scotsman' argument. For instance I, as a Christian, would not deny that there are powerful and influential Christians who are homobphobic and promote violent militaristic foreign policies in their countries with which I disagree. I think that a person of integrity has to be honest about an ideology they belong to.

So fair enough. I doubt we will agree on everything but I respect your position. I don't mind hearing from radical feminists or feminists who are anti men's rights (if indeed that's what they are against--I'm sometimes not sure WHAT they are against exactly) but I would like to hear from a lot of others to a greater degree and I hope that will happen.

[Swith Witherward]

You are referring to "Chanty Binx" also known as "Big Red". Hilarious.

I appreciate your words here. I think it would help a lot if there were more feminists with the perspective you offered who wanted to have conversations about human rights issues and also understood that these other persons have represented feminism to others. I think that unfortunately too many moderate feminists use the 'no true scotsman' argument. For instance I, as a Christian, would not deny that there are powerful and influential Christians who are homobphobic and promote violent militaristic foreign policies in their countries with which I disagree. I think that a person of integrity has to be honest about an ideology they belong to.

So fair enough. I doubt we will agree on everything but I respect your position. I don't mind hearing from radical feminists or feminists who are anti men's rights (if indeed that's what they are against--I'm sometimes not sure WHAT they are against exactly) but I would like to hear from a lot of others to a greater degree and I hope that will happen.

Chanty Binx. Thank you. I could not remember her name to save my life. (I secretly desire to see her launched into the sun. *poont* Begone!)

People with her attitude get the most attention. They're train wrecks and we all love to rubberneck. It becomes nearly impossible to overcome the impressions left by those people. One Binx destroys the face of a movement or group. All groups have them, too. They eclipse. Feminists with my perspective are often pushed aside because (let's be honest!) it's more entertaining to debate a radical person.

[Imyoji]

I got an extremely high score on POC-Feminism on the quiz, not too surprised but hm, interesting.

In any case, I do agree that feminism as it stands does little to empower and give voice to women of color and is seemingly 'exclusionary' especially when we speak of women's rights issues abroad. We appear to see other issues concerning women abroad in a very US-centric manner, and I find that it is inherently damaging to the very ethos of feminism.

[New Edom]

You are referring to "Chanty Binx" also known as "Big Red". Hilarious.

I appreciate your words here. I think it would help a lot if there were more feminists with the perspective you offered who wanted to have conversations about human rights issues and also understood that these other persons have represented feminism to others. I think that unfortunately too many moderate feminists use the 'no true scotsman' argument. For instance I, as a Christian, would not deny that there are powerful and influential Christians who are homobphobic and promote violent militaristic foreign policies in their countries with which I disagree. I think that a person of integrity has to be honest about an ideology they belong to.

So fair enough. I doubt we will agree on everything but I respect your position. I don't mind hearing from radical feminists or feminists who are anti men's rights (if indeed that's what they are against--I'm sometimes not sure WHAT they are against exactly) but I would like to hear from a lot of others to a greater degree and I hope that will happen.

Chanty Binx. Thank you. I could not remember her name to save my life. (I secretly desire to see her launched into the sun. *poont* Begone!)

People with her attitude get the most attention. They're train wrecks and we all love to rubberneck. It becomes nearly impossible to overcome the impressions left by those people. One Binx destroys the face of a movement or group. All groups have them, too. They eclipse. Feminists with my perspective are often pushed aside because (let's be honest!) it's more entertaining to debate a radical person.

I think as well that moderates and followers of the pop versions of ideologies also disavow such people entirely as though they cannot imagine people could take them seriously. That's unfortunate, and results in things like Emma Watson acting like there's no reason on earth why someone might connect feminism with man hating. I think you are one of the few who has said "Yes, Binx is a feminist. No, her actions and words were not right."

So then out of curiousity, what do you think of the anti-modesty movement that some feminists are putting forward?

[Haktiva]

You are referring to "Chanty Binx" also known as "Big Red". Hilarious.

I appreciate your words here. I think it would help a lot if there were more feminists with the perspective you offered who wanted to have conversations about human rights issues and also understood that these other persons have represented feminism to others. I think that unfortunately too many moderate feminists use the 'no true scotsman' argument. For instance I, as a Christian, would not deny that there are powerful and influential Christians who are homobphobic and promote violent militaristic foreign policies in their countries with which I disagree. I think that a person of integrity has to be honest about an ideology they belong to.

So fair enough. I doubt we will agree on everything but I respect your position. I don't mind hearing from radical feminists or feminists who are anti men's rights (if indeed that's what they are against--I'm sometimes not sure WHAT they are against exactly) but I would like to hear from a lot of others to a greater degree and I hope that will happen.

Chanty Binx. Thank you. I could not remember her name to save my life. (I secretly desire to see her launched into the sun. *poont* Begone!)

People with her attitude get the most attention. They're train wrecks and we all love to rubberneck. It becomes nearly impossible to overcome the impressions left by those people. One Binx destroys the face of a movement or group. All groups have them, too. They eclipse. Feminists with my perspective are often pushed aside because (let's be honest!) it's more entertaining to debate a radical person.

and those are the ones that get in power because they appeal to the lowest common denominator, which is a hell of a lot of people

[Imyoji]

So then out of curiousity, what do you think of the anti-modesty movement that some feminists are putting forward?

What happened to the woman's choice? That's my reply to anti-modesty feminists.

[Haktiva]

So then out of curiousity, what do you think of the anti-modesty movement that some feminists are putting forward?

What happened to the woman's choice? That's my reply to anti-modesty feminists.

eh......

[New Edom]

Well isn't this interesting by the way. Just took the test.

Liberal feminist 37
Women of Color 32
Conservative 25
Socialist feminist 19
Radical feminist 17
Cultural feminist 12