Do you like feminism?

[ELK12695]

(04-05-2016 07:01 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 06:42 AM)ELK12695 Wrote:  Although I stand by what I said before, I do get a chuckle out of the really crazy ones:





Then they must really hate me since I'm studying to become a kindergarden teacher, as a side job while I'm working on becoming a pro drummer. Infact, they'll hate me even more since there are almost no male kindergarden teachers in my country, and are highly sought after.

You're a metal head too, right? Misogynist scum!

I also like Cannibal Corpse.

[Blackhand293]

No I do not like feminism. I am distrustful of invasive ideologies that want to tell me how to live, act and think all for my own good of course.

I am distrustful of an ideology that claim that I as a male am schrodinger's rapist[1], that because I am gay I must hate woman[2][3][4], and that I must be educated on consent when I attend university because I as a male don't understand it and will face censure if i don't comply[5]

So no, I do not like feminism.

[Dom]

For the most part this thread just shows the huge disconnect between the root meaning of feminism (equal rights) and some current fringe group's "ideology"(Misandry).

[Drunkin Druid]

(03-05-2016 02:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 01:40 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  See that's the thing. You can call me what you like. I don't and won't identify as a feminist. You obviously define feminism in its traditional sense. I do not. I define it by the actions and words of those who claim that title. I can only see more and more feminism is moving from the realm of philosophy into the realm of religion.
"Feminist" is every bit an antiquated term as "fireman."

Then wouldn't EvolutionKills or others here using it and their actions be the defining of the term then?

Yes I suppose so. I don't know what people's actions are here. But I can ask if things like manspreading is an issue. Or if male tears is hate based. Or if every every man is a potential rapist.
I think I can make a reasonable judgement based on the answers.
People here might actually believe in equality but I'm more concerned with the very vocal extremists.
We need Islamic terrorism to be denounced by Muslims. If they do not people tend to group them with the bad guys. It's obvious and understandable.
The egalitarians must do the same if they are to call themselves feminists.
All that said, it seems nobody is able to address the minor issue of the gender bias term "feminism."
I suspect when faced with this fact, cognitive dissonance sets in.
Somebody might justify this hypocracy with bullshit.

[Dom]

(04-05-2016 10:24 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 02:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then wouldn't EvolutionKills or others here using it and their actions be the defining of the term then?

Yes I suppose so. I don't know what people's actions are here. But I can ask if things like manspreading is an issue. Or if male tears is hate based. Or if every every man is a potential rapist.
I think I can make a reasonable judgement based on the answers.
People here might actually believe in equality but I'm more concerned with the very vocal extremists.
We need Islamic terrorism to be denounced by Muslims. If they do not people tend to group them with the bad guys. It's obvious and understandable.
The egalitarians must do the same if they are to call themselves feminists.
All that said, it seems nobody is able to address the minor issue of the gender bias term "feminism."
I suspect when faced with this fact, cognitive dissonance sets in.
Somebody might justify this hypocracy with bullshit.

Just like with Islam, if you take a fringe group riding on the name and portray all Islamic peoples as such, more damage than good is done.

Feminists are for gender equality and that has been the case for 100 years. The misandrists who also call themselves feminists are a recent phenomenon.

[ClydeLee]

(04-05-2016 10:24 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 02:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then wouldn't EvolutionKills or others here using it and their actions be the defining of the term then?

Yes I suppose so. I don't know what people's actions are here. But I can ask if things like manspreading is an issue. Or if male tears is hate based. Or if every every man is a potential rapist.
I think I can make a reasonable judgement based on the answers.
People here might actually believe in equality but I'm more concerned with the very vocal extremists.
We need Islamic terrorism to be denounced by Muslims. If they do not people tend to group them with the bad guys. It's obvious and understandable.
The egalitarians must do the same if they are to call themselves feminists.
All that said, it seems nobody is able to address the minor issue of the gender bias term "feminism."
I suspect when faced with this fact, cognitive dissonance sets in.
Somebody might justify this hypocracy with bullshit.

I don't think it's obvious or... well I guess it's understandable as I understand how and why people do it. Though I don't find it sensible.

Well the gender bias there is met by the historical and never ceasing element of the movement. When will it not be historical..?

Idk, I also would like atheist to be a historical term not relevant to a modern human society one time too.

I also don't like humanism used in attempts to say that's equal, that's also human based maybe in our time sentient aliens and ai will be equal right demanding. I'd hope to not settle on just historical now shift vs past one while ignoring the future. Some definitions do define egalitarian as a human/people concept which I'd limited in scope as I see it to. Even though it's root is equal, the usage in that way saddens me as nearsighted.

[Drunkin Druid]

(04-05-2016 10:35 AM)Dom Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 10:24 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Yes I suppose so. I don't know what people's actions are here. But I can ask if things like manspreading is an issue. Or if male tears is hate based. Or if every every man is a potential rapist.
I think I can make a reasonable judgement based on the answers.
People here might actually believe in equality but I'm more concerned with the very vocal extremists.
We need Islamic terrorism to be denounced by Muslims. If they do not people tend to group them with the bad guys. It's obvious and understandable.
The egalitarians must do the same if they are to call themselves feminists.
All that said, it seems nobody is able to address the minor issue of the gender bias term "feminism."
I suspect when faced with this fact, cognitive dissonance sets in.
Somebody might justify this hypocracy with bullshit.

Just like with Islam, if you take a fringe group riding on the name and portray all Islamic peoples as such, more damage than good is done.

Feminists are for gender equality and that has been the case for 100 years. The misandrists who also call themselves feminists are a recent phenomenon.

I certainly won't deny the truth of the first statement. So shouldn't those who're less extreme do everything they can to condemn the actions of those who have bastardized their ideals? How are the outsiders to know who's who?

The second statement is also true. However it looks like the misandrist are gaining a great deal of momentum. The stubborn refusal to drop a gender biased term may be evidence of that. You see I think people want to believe feminism is still about equality....like it used to be. I think people refuse to accept that their tag has been hijacked.
At any rate let the crazies have the term. I'll say it a thousand more times. It's a gender biased term...

[Drunkin Druid]

(04-05-2016 10:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 10:24 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Yes I suppose so. I don't know what people's actions are here. But I can ask if things like manspreading is an issue. Or if male tears is hate based. Or if every every man is a potential rapist.
I think I can make a reasonable judgement based on the answers.
People here might actually believe in equality but I'm more concerned with the very vocal extremists.
We need Islamic terrorism to be denounced by Muslims. If they do not people tend to group them with the bad guys. It's obvious and understandable.
The egalitarians must do the same if they are to call themselves feminists.
All that said, it seems nobody is able to address the minor issue of the gender bias term "feminism."
I suspect when faced with this fact, cognitive dissonance sets in.
Somebody might justify this hypocracy with bullshit.

I don't think it's obvious or... well I guess it's understandable as I understand how and why people do it. Though I don't find it sensible.

Well the gender bias there is met by the historical and never ceasing element of the movement. When will it not be historical..?

Idk, I also would like atheist to be a historical term not relevant to a modern human society one time too.

I also don't like humanism used in attempts to say that's equal, that's also human based maybe in our time sentient aliens and ai will be equal right demanding. I'd hope to not settle on just historical now shift vs past one while ignoring the future. Some definitions do define egalitarian as a human/people concept which I'd limited in scope as I see it to. Even though it's root is equal, the usage in that way saddens me as nearsighted.

I too would like to see atheist become an irrelevant term. But they're not really the same.
Admitting there is a gender bias in the word is a good start. I suggest feminist, when presented with the bias, abandon the word. Why the refusal? It seems perfectly consistent with the claim "feminism is about equality."

[Dom]

(04-05-2016 03:19 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 10:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't think it's obvious or... well I guess it's understandable as I understand how and why people do it. Though I don't find it sensible.

Well the gender bias there is met by the historical and never ceasing element of the movement. When will it not be historical..?

Idk, I also would like atheist to be a historical term not relevant to a modern human society one time too.

I also don't like humanism used in attempts to say that's equal, that's also human based maybe in our time sentient aliens and ai will be equal right demanding. I'd hope to not settle on just historical now shift vs past one while ignoring the future. Some definitions do define egalitarian as a human/people concept which I'd limited in scope as I see it to. Even though it's root is equal, the usage in that way saddens me as nearsighted.

I too would like to see atheist become an irrelevant term. But they're not really the same.
Admitting there is a gender bias in the word is a good start. I suggest feminist, when presented with the bias, abandon the word. Why the refusal? It seems perfectly consistent with the claim "feminism is about equality."

Gender equalitarian is a bit of a mouthful....

The word feminist has stood for equal rights for a century. A small group of misandrists should not be able to discredit it.

[Drunkin Druid]

(04-05-2016 04:13 PM)Dom Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 03:19 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I too would like to see atheist become an irrelevant term. But they're not really the same.
Admitting there is a gender bias in the word is a good start. I suggest feminist, when presented with the bias, abandon the word. Why the refusal? It seems perfectly consistent with the claim "feminism is about equality."

Gender equalitarian is a bit of a mouthful....

The word feminist has stood for equal rights for a century. A small group of misandrists should not be able to discredit it.

A mouthful for sure. But humanist is as inclusive as firefighter. If that ain't good enough there are plenty of imaginative people who could come up with something.
What ought to be and what is aren't always the same thing. Those who truly support equality should speak against the hate mongers (what ought to be) but so many are too concerned with stubbornly holding on to a word that's obviously antiquated (what is).

I'm hoping to bring attention to that. I have a hard time trusting a movement that commits the same infractions it protests against. It reminds me too much of religion. I can't see past the hypocracy.