Advertisement

by Replevion » Thu May 28, 2015 1:02 pm

by Camicon » Thu May 28, 2015 1:04 pm
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter

by The Free Democratic Republic of Freedom » Thu May 28, 2015 1:08 pm
Camicon wrote:My results...
Liberal feminist: 48
Women of Color: 32
Socialist feminist: 24
Cultural feminist: 22
Radical feminist: 14
Conservative: 12
I found the quiz to be somewhat ridiculous, quite frankly. It would jump around between questions of morality and ethics that have no clear answer (such as "Given the way that men are, women have a responsibility not to arouse them by their dress and actions") to ones that are very much able to be scientifically quantified and answered (such as "Capitalism forces most women to wear feminine clothes to keep a job").
The entire "agree/disagree" scale is flawed for a great many of the questions asked, for example: "The availability of adequate child care is central to a woman's right to work outside the home". Answering "agree" could mean that you believe in traditional gender roles, hence why women would need child care in order to participate in the work force, or it could mean that you recognize the socially enforced challenges men and women face in bucking said gender roles (stay at homes dads, etc.), and believe that providing adequate child care is one way of breaking down those barriers.
And then there are the questions that just make no sense, like: "Replacing the word God with Goddess will remind people that the deity is not male". What deity? Some deities are decidedly male, and some are decidedly female. Of course, calling a sexless/genderless deity a "goddess" will remind people that it isn't inherently male, but it's also inaccurate, because then you're saying that it is inherently female. So what the fuck is that question supposed to be measuring, and how the fuck are any given answers interpreted?
All-in-all, that's a shitty quiz.
PRETTY IN PINK | ||
For: Better RP, Gratuitous Swearing, Nederland, Metric System, Secularism, Equal Rights for All, Science, UK, EU, NATO, Royal Navy, Sensible Gun-control, Pro-Choice, DEAT Everyone 2016 Neutral: Ukraine, Israel, China Against: Imperial Measurement System, Putin, DPRK, Religious Extremism, SJWs, Pseudoscience, Creationism, Sectarianism, Prejudice, Censorship of Legitimate Criticism, Inherited Guilt | (average of 3) Economic Left/Right: -4.413 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.333 | |

by New Werpland » Thu May 28, 2015 1:15 pm
Women of Color 33
Liberal feminist 31
Conservative 18
Socialist feminist 17
Radical feminist 15
Cultural feminist 15

by Dumb Ideologies » Thu May 28, 2015 1:15 pm
Assorted sucrose-based lifeforms wrote:Chessmistress wrote:I totally agreed here. But such question is not just only about Radical Feminism but also about Liberal Feminism: indeed a liberal "feminist" would totally disagree.
Oh, 'feminist' in quotes for 'liberal feminist', huh?
Cute. I bet you're the only true Scotsman too.

by Chessmistress » Thu May 28, 2015 1:18 pm
Assorted sucrose-based lifeforms wrote:Chessmistress wrote:I totally agreed here. But such question is not just only about Radical Feminism but also about Liberal Feminism: indeed a liberal "feminist" would totally disagree.
Oh, 'feminist' in quotes for 'liberal feminist', huh?
Cute. I bet you're the only true Scotsman too.

by Camicon » Thu May 28, 2015 1:18 pm
The Free Democratic Republic of Freedom wrote:Camicon wrote:My results...
Liberal feminist: 48
Women of Color: 32
Socialist feminist: 24
Cultural feminist: 22
Radical feminist: 14
Conservative: 12
I found the quiz to be somewhat ridiculous, quite frankly. It would jump around between questions of morality and ethics that have no clear answer (such as "Given the way that men are, women have a responsibility not to arouse them by their dress and actions") to ones that are very much able to be scientifically quantified and answered (such as "Capitalism forces most women to wear feminine clothes to keep a job").
The entire "agree/disagree" scale is flawed for a great many of the questions asked, for example: "The availability of adequate child care is central to a woman's right to work outside the home". Answering "agree" could mean that you believe in traditional gender roles, hence why women would need child care in order to participate in the work force, or it could mean that you recognize the socially enforced challenges men and women face in bucking said gender roles (stay at homes dads, etc.), and believe that providing adequate child care is one way of breaking down those barriers.
And then there are the questions that just make no sense, like: "Replacing the word God with Goddess will remind people that the deity is not male". What deity? Some deities are decidedly male, and some are decidedly female. Of course, calling a sexless/genderless deity a "goddess" will remind people that it isn't inherently male, but it's also inaccurate, because then you're saying that it is inherently female. So what the fuck is that question supposed to be measuring, and how the fuck are any given answers interpreted?
All-in-all, that's a shitty quiz.
I think that you've basically said every point that I would make, plus some new points that I also agree with; all in all, a lot of the questions present a very clear bias, with some questions being worded in such a way as to make you appear sexist for not answering one way or another.
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter

by Jute » Thu May 28, 2015 1:26 pm
Nierra wrote:I think the quiz is incredibly biased against traditional conservatives as it only gives then 3 reasonable choices that reinforce what actual conservatives think. The rest are strawman assumptions.
I scored mid 40s in liberal feminist and 18 in conservatism and I'm anti feminism so....
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."

by The Free Democratic Republic of Freedom » Thu May 28, 2015 1:26 pm
PRETTY IN PINK | ||
For: Better RP, Gratuitous Swearing, Nederland, Metric System, Secularism, Equal Rights for All, Science, UK, EU, NATO, Royal Navy, Sensible Gun-control, Pro-Choice, DEAT Everyone 2016 Neutral: Ukraine, Israel, China Against: Imperial Measurement System, Putin, DPRK, Religious Extremism, SJWs, Pseudoscience, Creationism, Sectarianism, Prejudice, Censorship of Legitimate Criticism, Inherited Guilt | (average of 3) Economic Left/Right: -4.413 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.333 | |

by Nierra » Thu May 28, 2015 1:28 pm
The Free Democratic Republic of Freedom wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
Liberal "feminists" are supporters of pornography and prostitution, do you know?
I think that pornography and prostitution are anti-women.[I am ASBL, I forgot to switch accounts before posting my first post there]
I do know, and I also know that you thinking that porn& prostitution are anti-women doesn't make them so.
Personally, I think that preventing women from profiting from their own bodies in a way of their choosing is anti-women, but I'm not going to say that you're not a feminist because that's the ol' 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
Personally, even though I think that you're denying some women their own sexuality due to your own prudishness, I still acknowledge that you are a feminist, albeit a different type of feminist than I would agree with.

by Jute » Thu May 28, 2015 1:28 pm
Camicon wrote:The Free Democratic Republic of Freedom wrote:I think that you've basically said every point that I would make, plus some new points that I also agree with; all in all, a lot of the questions present a very clear bias, with some questions being worded in such a way as to make you appear sexist for not answering one way or another.
And I forgot to mention the number of questions that I didn't feel comfortable answering, because they were essentially asking about the experience of groups that I don't belong to. Do women of colour face more challenges in the work place than white women? How the fuck do I know? I'm not going to answer either way until I have a helluva lot more information.Chessmistress wrote:
Liberal "feminists" are supporters of pornography and prostitution, do you know?
I think that pornography and prostitution are anti-women.
Hence my displeasure with the whole of the feminist movement. They can't come to a consensus on such basic issues, and then ask for my unequivocal support? Fat chance.
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."

by Jute » Thu May 28, 2015 1:29 pm
Nierra wrote:The Free Democratic Republic of Freedom wrote:[I am ASBL, I forgot to switch accounts before posting my first post there]
I do know, and I also know that you thinking that porn& prostitution are anti-women doesn't make them so.
Personally, I think that preventing women from profiting from their own bodies in a way of their choosing is anti-women, but I'm not going to say that you're not a feminist because that's the ol' 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
Personally, even though I think that you're denying some women their own sexuality due to your own prudishness, I still acknowledge that you are a feminist, albeit a different type of feminist than I would agree with.
First reasonable feminist all year
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."

by Nierra » Thu May 28, 2015 1:30 pm
Jute wrote:Camicon wrote:And I forgot to mention the number of questions that I didn't feel comfortable answering, because they were essentially asking about the experience of groups that I don't belong to. Do women of colour face more challenges in the work place than white women? How the fuck do I know? I'm not going to answer either way until I have a helluva lot more information.
Hence my displeasure with the whole of the feminist movement. They can't come to a consensus on such basic issues, and then ask for my unequivocal support? Fat chance.
Feminists at least have already achieved the right for women to vote, be elected and have it socially be accepted that they take whatever job they please. Widespread acceptance of feminism is mostly because of the achievements of those "liberal" (aka actual, non-radical) feminists.

by Fanosolia » Thu May 28, 2015 1:32 pm
Camicon wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
Liberal "feminists" are supporters of pornography and prostitution, do you know?
I think that pornography and prostitution are anti-women.
Hence my displeasure with the whole of the feminist movement. They can't come to a consensus on such basic issues, and then ask for my unequivocal support? Fat chance.

by Nazi Flower Power » Thu May 28, 2015 1:34 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:22. The availability of adequate child care is central to a woman’s right to work outside the home. (Sexist. Men can also have this problem; and not all women choose to have children.)
In an environment where feminism is purported to be anti-sexism... this scale sorts out the typology of feminists into one variety of feminism that is more anti-sexist than sexist, one that's more about racism than sexism, and three that are very clearly more sexist than anti-sexist.
Thoughts? Opinions? Scores? Musings?

by Jute » Thu May 28, 2015 1:35 pm
Fanosolia wrote:Camicon wrote:
Hence my displeasure with the whole of the feminist movement. They can't come to a consensus on such basic issues, and then ask for my unequivocal support? Fat chance.
Couldn't we say the same of pro v. anti-nuclear environmentalists, and differing libertarian views on intellectual property, and interpretations of Non-aggression principle?
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."

by Camicon » Thu May 28, 2015 1:36 pm
Fanosolia wrote:Camicon wrote:
Hence my displeasure with the whole of the feminist movement. They can't come to a consensus on such basic issues, and then ask for my unequivocal support? Fat chance.
Couldn't we say the same of pro v. anti-nuclear environmentalists, and differing libertarian views on intellectual property, and interpretations of Non-aggression principle?
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter

by Jute » Thu May 28, 2015 1:36 pm
If you consider feminism as nothing more than "women should be treated like human beings, just like men", which about sums up most of it according to my knowledge, then I sure hope it is.Nierra wrote:Jute wrote:Feminists at least have already achieved the right for women to vote, be elected and have it socially be accepted that they take whatever job they please. Widespread acceptance of feminism is mostly because of the achievements of those "liberal" (aka actual, non-radical) feminists.
Lol what. Feminism is not widely accepted at all
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."

by Chessmistress » Thu May 28, 2015 1:37 pm

by Jute » Thu May 28, 2015 1:38 pm
Camicon wrote:Fanosolia wrote:Couldn't we say the same of pro v. anti-nuclear environmentalists, and differing libertarian views on intellectual property, and interpretations of Non-aggression principle?
None of those groups demand my uncompromising, unquestioning support, like the more hard-line feminist movements do. I can be a libertarian, disagree on certain key policy issues with other libertarians, and not be excluded from the conversation. Meanwhile, there are plenty of feminist that would immediately and wholly discount everything I say, simply because I have a dick. I'm not going to associate myself with a political movement that, at least in part, is hostile towards my involvement at any level.
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science
and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
"A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy."

by Prussia-Steinbach » Thu May 28, 2015 1:38 pm

by Prussia-Steinbach » Thu May 28, 2015 1:39 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Who ever said "romantic love = slavery!"???![]()
When one opposes pornography and prostitution it's exactly the opposite!

by Nazi Flower Power » Thu May 28, 2015 1:40 pm
Fanosolia wrote:Camicon wrote:
Hence my displeasure with the whole of the feminist movement. They can't come to a consensus on such basic issues, and then ask for my unequivocal support? Fat chance.
Couldn't we say the same of pro v. anti-nuclear environmentalists, and differing libertarian views on intellectual property, and interpretations of Non-aggression principle?

by Chessmistress » Thu May 28, 2015 1:41 pm

by Nazi Flower Power » Thu May 28, 2015 1:42 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Who ever said "romantic love = slavery!"???![]()
When one opposes pornography and prostitution it's exactly the opposite! Pornography and prostitution are exactly the opposite of "romantic love" - and I guess (euphemism) that is because both things are meant for...
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Xind
Advertisement