Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2015, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2015 11:42 AM by Firefly3000.)
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
(24-03-2015 11:23 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 03:07 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  1) Even if women have been the underdogs, that is not a logical reason to call it feminism. What they are effectively calling it is Womanism.

From a purely linguistic perspective, I don't understand what you mean here. Do you think it should be called "Womanism" instead? Why?

No, what I'm saying is that they effectively ARE calling it womanism. Feminists claim that feminism is about equality. Almost always, things are named after what they are, or what they're about, or what their end goal is.

As is often the case, business and economics are useful and relevant metaphors. For example, let's say you start a rock band with your 3 friends and you name it the Polyglot Jazz Quartet. Bad idea? Of course, for obvious reasons. And if someone asks you why you've got jazz in your name and you say well, it's because a few of our songs have a bit of a jazz influence here and there, that isn't going to do you any good. People will come to your shows expecting jazz, but getting rock instead.

And then, when people start complaining about the misleading name, and you say well, that's not our problem, that's not going to do you any good either. If you stubbornly stuck to that name, even though it means alienating your real intended audience, that would be foolish to say the least.

It's the same with feminism. The example I just gave shouldn't be taken as a 100% mirror example, since the factors involved aren't exactly the same, but the principle is.

If feminism is about equality, then it should be made absolutely clear that that's what it's about in the name. Naming it after one gender alienates huge numbers of people, and yet feminists want to stubbornly stick to that name. Saying that it's because women are the underdogs is no reason to name it after women.

By calling it feminism, they are creating a permanent victim status, rather than focusing on their claimed end goal.

There's nothing wrong with having some sort of side movement dedicated solely and specifically to women's rights, just as there's nothing wrong with having a side movement that focuses on men's rights. And indeed there ought to be both, so that both sides get a say and are represented (as long as they also listen to each other). But the actual movement for equality should be completely unbiased and neutral, and not named after any particular gender. To do so is to hijack all discussion on equality.

Are women underdogs in some areas? Sure. Are men underdogs in some areas? Absolutely. Do feminists take equality seriously? Nope. How do I know? Because they absolutely stubbornly refuse to entertain the idea of naming their so called equality movement something that refers to equality, rather than their gender.

And that is why feminists are sexists and hypocrites. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, calling it a cow isn't going to fool anyone with self respect, which is why feminists alienate loads of people and they know it, but they dare not change their movement's name because to do so would be to give up the eternal victim status.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
(24-03-2015 10:40 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 03:45 AM)DLJ Wrote:  After, maybe, but not during. I was completely asset-stripped (she got the assets, I got the debts) ... yet she was the one who had the affairs.

Go figure.

In California the assets and debt are divided. I'm pretty sure Oregon is the same. The system like that will favor whoever has the most money or can access the most. So like hubby's brother who was able to keep the house and got custody of the kids -- he had to basically assume all the exwife's share of debt to do it.

What happened to you was just wrong.

Seriously. Did you get divorced in the 80s? Or, more likely, did she not work?

Working husband + not working wife can = really lopsided settlement. Something else that is changing, but maybe not as fast as it needs to.

One great change in recent years is the recognition that father's can be more than just sperm donars and can actually be parents. The days of just "every other weekend" are generally behind us.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
24-03-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 11:23 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  From a purely linguistic perspective, I don't understand what you mean here. Do you think it should be called "Womanism" instead? Why?

No, what I'm saying is that they effectively ARE calling it womanism. Feminists claim that feminism is about equality. Almost always, things are named after what they are, or what they're about, or what their end goal is.

As is often the case, business and economics are useful and relevant metaphors. For example, let's say you start a rock band with your 3 friends and you name it the Polyglot Jazz Quartet. Bad idea? Of course, for obvious reasons. And if someone asks you why you've got jazz in your name and you say well, it's because a few of our songs have a bit of a jazz influence here and there, that isn't going to do you any good. People will come to your shows expecting jazz, but getting rock instead.

And then, when people start complaining about the misleading name, and you say well, that's not our problem, that's not going to do you any good either. If you stubbornly stuck to that name, even though it means alienating your real intended audience, that would be foolish to say the least.

It's the same with feminism. The example I just gave shouldn't be taken as a 100% mirror example, since the factors involved aren't exactly the same, but the principle is.

If feminism is about equality, then it should be made absolutely clear that that's what it's about in the name. Naming it after one gender alienates huge numbers of people, and yet feminists want to stubbornly stick to that name. Saying that it's because women are the underdogs is no reason to name it after women.

By calling it feminism, they are creating a permanent victim status, rather than focusing on their claimed end goal.

There's nothing wrong with having some sort of side movement dedicated solely and specifically to women's rights, just as there's nothing wrong with having a side movement that focuses on men's rights. And indeed there ought to be both, so that both sides get a say and are represented (as long as they also listen to each other). But the actual movement for equality should be completely unbiased and neutral, and not named after any particular gender. To do so is to hijack all discussion on equality.

Are women underdogs in some areas? Sure. Are men underdogs in some areas? Absolutely. Do feminists take equality seriously? Nope. How do I know? Because they absolutely stubbornly refuse to entertain the idea of naming their so called equality movement something that refers to equality, rather than their gender.

And that is why feminists are sexists and hypocrites. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, calling it a cow isn't going to fool anyone with self respect, which is why feminists alienate loads of people and they know it, but they dare not change their movement's name because to do so would be to give up the eternal victim status.


I'm generally not a fan of ad hominem attacks as they add no value to a discussion.

You're an idiot.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 12:04 PM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
(24-03-2015 11:45 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  No, what I'm saying is that they effectively ARE calling it womanism. Feminists claim that feminism is about equality. Almost always, things are named after what they are, or what they're about, or what their end goal is.

As is often the case, business and economics are useful and relevant metaphors. For example, let's say you start a rock band with your 3 friends and you name it the Polyglot Jazz Quartet. Bad idea? Of course, for obvious reasons. And if someone asks you why you've got jazz in your name and you say well, it's because a few of our songs have a bit of a jazz influence here and there, that isn't going to do you any good. People will come to your shows expecting jazz, but getting rock instead.

And then, when people start complaining about the misleading name, and you say well, that's not our problem, that's not going to do you any good either. If you stubbornly stuck to that name, even though it means alienating your real intended audience, that would be foolish to say the least.

It's the same with feminism. The example I just gave shouldn't be taken as a 100% mirror example, since the factors involved aren't exactly the same, but the principle is.

If feminism is about equality, then it should be made absolutely clear that that's what it's about in the name. Naming it after one gender alienates huge numbers of people, and yet feminists want to stubbornly stick to that name. Saying that it's because women are the underdogs is no reason to name it after women.

By calling it feminism, they are creating a permanent victim status, rather than focusing on their claimed end goal.

There's nothing wrong with having some sort of side movement dedicated solely and specifically to women's rights, just as there's nothing wrong with having a side movement that focuses on men's rights. And indeed there ought to be both, so that both sides get a say and are represented (as long as they also listen to each other). But the actual movement for equality should be completely unbiased and neutral, and not named after any particular gender. To do so is to hijack all discussion on equality.

Are women underdogs in some areas? Sure. Are men underdogs in some areas? Absolutely. Do feminists take equality seriously? Nope. How do I know? Because they absolutely stubbornly refuse to entertain the idea of naming their so called equality movement something that refers to equality, rather than their gender.

And that is why feminists are sexists and hypocrites. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, calling it a cow isn't going to fool anyone with self respect, which is why feminists alienate loads of people and they know it, but they dare not change their movement's name because to do so would be to give up the eternal victim status.



I'm generally not a fan of ad hominem attacks as they add no value to a discussion.


You're an idiot.

[Image: good-good-let-the-butthurt-flow-through-...;amp;h=217]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
My butt's fine. But, I did almost give myself a concussion from the head smack after that last post.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
24-03-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
(24-03-2015 12:04 PM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 11:45 AM)BnW Wrote:  I'm generally not a fan of ad hominem attacks as they add no value to a discussion.


You're an idiot.

[Image: good-good-let-the-butthurt-flow-through-...;amp;h=217]

Now that's a projection.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
24-03-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 11:23 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  From a purely linguistic perspective, I don't understand what you mean here. Do you think it should be called "Womanism" instead? Why?
No, what I'm saying is that they effectively ARE calling it womanism. Feminists claim that feminism is about equality.

Because it is about sexual equality, that's the very fucking definition.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  Almost always, things are named after what they are, or what they're about, or what their end goal is.

Simply irrelevant. A word's meaning doesn't hing on whether or not you alone agree with it.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  As is often the case, business and economics are useful and relevant metaphors.

So prepare for the bastardization of logic I take it? Oh goody.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  For example, let's say you start a rock band with your 3 friends and you name it the Polyglot Jazz Quartet. Bad idea? Of course, for obvious reasons. And if someone asks you why you've got jazz in your name and you say well, it's because a few of our songs have a bit of a jazz influence here and there, that isn't going to do you any good. People will come to your shows expecting jazz, but getting rock instead.

You have no idea how indie music works, do you? If a venue caters exclusively to rock music, even if the band's name is 'Polka Express', I'd just assume that they're being hipsters as opposed to actually going to play polka music at a rock venue...


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  And then, when people start complaining about the misleading name, and you say well, that's not our problem, that's not going to do you any good either.

That's because it's not their problem. They have the option to name themselves whatever they damn well please, there is nothing which dictates that they must follow a specific naming convention; and attempting to hold them to such an imaginary convention is pointless.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  If you stubbornly stuck to that name, even though it means alienating your real intended audience, that would be foolish to say the least.

Doesn't matter, they have the right to be foolish in your eyes; nobody needs your damn permission or approval.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  It's the same with feminism. The example I just gave shouldn't be taken as a 100% mirror example, since the factors involved aren't exactly the same, but the principle is.

What principle? That you don't like the name and they should change it to something else because you don't like it?


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  If feminism is about equality, then it should be made absolutely clear that that's what it's about in the name.

Nope. The word's meaning is already clear, and bitching about it's etymology gets you nowhere. Feminist have zero obligation to change names or educate those who are simply too ignorant or lazy or open a dictionary.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  Naming it after one gender alienates huge numbers of people, and yet feminists want to stubbornly stick to that name.

It alienates the ignorant and those going out of their way to be offended. I fail to see why this is a compelling reason to change anything.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  Saying that it's because women are the underdogs is no reason to name it after women.

It's because women have been and continue to be the overwhelming victims of sexual discrimination, you cannot simply divest a term from it's history and context unilaterally; that's not how languages work.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  By calling it feminism, they are creating a permanent victim status, rather than focusing on their claimed end goal.

No, it's a term with a specific meaning; it doesn't imply a permanent anything. The only people who complain about this are the misogynists with nothing better to do than be concern trolls.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with having some sort of side movement dedicated solely and specifically to women's rights, just as there's nothing wrong with having a side movement that focuses on men's rights. And indeed there ought to be both, so that both sides get a say and are represented (as long as they also listen to each other). But the actual movement for equality should be completely unbiased and neutral, and not named after any particular gender. To do so is to hijack all discussion on equality.

No. To ignore the actual debate to instead bitch about semantics and titles is the true hijacking of the discussion. You have no substance, only special pleading and butthurt.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  Are women underdogs in some areas? Sure. Are men underdogs in some areas? Absolutely. Do feminists take equality seriously? Nope.

Citation needed.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  How do I know? Because they absolutely stubbornly refuse to entertain the idea of naming their so called equality movement something that refers to equality, rather than their gender.

Once again, you do not get to unilaterally redefine words you disagree with; that's not how languages work. Focusing on semantics does nothing but stonewall any actual discussion, which is why it's the favorite tactics of misogynists and concern trolls. People actually interesting in the conversation move past the semantics instead of making a shit-fit out of label and etymology.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  And that is why feminists are sexists and hypocrites.

Translation: It's why you're a fucking entitled moron.


(24-03-2015 11:39 AM)Firefly3000 Wrote:  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, calling it a cow isn't going to fool anyone with self respect, which is why feminists alienate loads of people and they know it, but they dare not change their movement's name because to do so would be to give up the eternal victim status.

Feminism alienates the ignorant, and I'm just fine with that. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-03-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
Wow another revelation showing us how these movements and groups are static figures of people collectively in one position opposed to others in ways to push their personal gain.

I think this groups of people popping in and out in on this topic aren't going to cease, but it's at least gladly slowed down. Though I'm still not getting the motivations of people circling around and joining forums just to throw out their thoughts on 1 specific topic, especially when it's unconnected to the main theme of the forum. If you're gonna do it, do it right!
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ST-PIGLETS

[Image: piglets_red_spotted.jpg]

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
24-03-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
Would someone please bring this guy an Almond Joy?


Jesus. Facepalm

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
24-03-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: Feminism's doublespeak with perpetual victimhood
(24-03-2015 12:52 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Would someone please bring this guy an Almond Joy?


Jesus. Facepalm

Those things are nasty. Go with Reese's PBC. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: