feminism vs everything
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: feminism vs everything
Feminism was founded specifically to fight for women's rights and equalities. Its ok to say humanist of course but much gets lost when we generalise so feminism wss born specifically to focus on female equality.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 10:54 AM
RE: feminism vs everything
(28-10-2014 10:40 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  If someone is talking about how they hate feminists because they turn online communities and universities in hell holes of sexism and denial of freedom of expression they're obviously not talking about you if you are an equalitarian and not a sexist who wants to delete opposing viewpoints. Saying "Look up what feminism actually means, retard!" doesn't help at all.

...

Of course though the sexist group seems to have a monopoly when it comes to news, social media and university campuses. Pretending they are not feminists, or that they only exist in the dozens, is bordering on delusional, and also an unproductive position insisting on ignoring the issue.

...

If someone sees the feminists who have the monopoly on social media, news and university campuses, and then try to get more information and they get told by egalitarian feminists "Educate yourself about real feminism, dipshit" they just see more of the same shit; and there is absolutely nothing there to show a separation of the two types. Suddenly gender equality gets a bad connotation, then people start saying of egalitarians 'those people are the same as feminists', and before you know it everything has been pushed back to 1890 because people who actually stand for gender equality held onto an outdated term while it turned into shit instead of just dropping it and taking a new label for the 21st century.

...

You repeatedly refer to universities.

As an academic I've never encountered the "feminists" and their "monopoly" at any of them...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
28-10-2014, 11:42 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 01:00 PM by CleverUsername.)
RE: feminism vs everything
(27-10-2014 09:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 05:29 PM)CleverUsername Wrote:  Not feminism in general, just the term. It seems illogical to name something that should be for two sides after one side. I used the analogy in another thread that it's like calling fans of any sport "Baseball fans".

History and etymology; as women have been, continue to be, and most likely will be the most adversely affected by sexual inequality. We can't change the word's history, but we can define it for us now; and it's current definition is clear, 'sexual equality'.

I already said I know where the term comes from. And I already said I'm just more nitpicky than most people.

Popcorn I put more thought into fiction than theists put into reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: feminism vs everything
(28-10-2014 10:40 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  If people are under the impression that the public face of feminism is an extremely rare minority then it explains a little bit, but it doesn't really explain why anti-feminists are being branded as sexist. Unless of course a complete denial of the public face of feminism is considered to be a totally proper position? Societal labels are what they are. Sure you can pretend that the public face of feminism doesn't exist all you like, but when you apply that practically and end up calling gender equalitarians 'sexists' for being against that public face it ends up looking like two sides of the same coin.
"Oh, they're not real feminists." doesn't really work. It's a futile effort to claim a name back which already has a widely accepted meaning.

If someone is talking about how they hate feminists because they turn online communities and universities in hell holes of sexism and denial of freedom of expression they're obviously not talking about you if you are an equalitarian and not a sexist who wants to delete opposing viewpoints. Saying "Look up what feminism actually means, retard!" doesn't help at all.
"Ok, so you say that feminism is actually just egalitarianism with a concentration on gender issues, but all of the feminists on the TV, on the internet, in the newspapers and walking around in the streets are acting a totally different way, and they take up most of the google searches too. And they say you are actually the fake feminists" Telling people to 'get educated you sexist pig' produces absolutely no good results, and claiming that the other side of feminism is 'not true feminism' doesn't help at all either.

That other side of feminism calls you 'not real feminists' too. In fact many forms of the group call each other 'not real feminists'. The true egalitarians, which you claim to be, apparently claim that the other groups don't exist except for a tiny handful of people, but tens of thousands of those people say you have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. Then of course you have the feminists who claim that any feminist group which also concentrates on male issues is 'not real feminism', and then the other groups who say "men's issues and women's issues are tied together and anyone who ignores men's issues is not a real feminist". You then also get the groups who claim that men's issues don't exist at all and no real feminist would think they do.
Of course though the sexist group seems to have a monopoly when it comes to news, social media and university campuses. Pretending they are not feminists, or that they only exist in the dozens, is bordering on delusional, and also an unproductive position insisting on ignoring the issue.

I would assume that the feminists on an atheist rationalist forum are the egalitarian type, and that 'feminist' is used as the label only because of historical reasons. Fine, go with that, but going into a shit flinger because all of these other groups share the same label and people don't like them is completely stupid.

Maybe it's just time for a division? Personally I've always preferred to go by the technical term of gender equality, but if you've picked a label and that label becomes shit it makes more sense to just abandon it rather than alienating everyone by attempting to clean it off. In fact it just contributes to the shit the more it's clung to. If someone sees the feminists who have the monopoly on social media, news and university campuses, and then try to get more information and they get told by egalitarian feminists "Educate yourself about real feminism, dipshit" they just see more of the same shit; and there is absolutely nothing there to show a separation of the two types. Suddenly gender equality gets a bad connotation, then people start saying of egalitarians 'those people are the same as feminists', and before you know it everything has been pushed back to 1890 because people who actually stand for gender equality held onto an outdated term while it turned into shit instead of just dropping it and taking a new label for the 21st century.

Personally I'm all for just using 'humanist' as that covers all humanity, and if you have a particular interest in gender issues, or are a gender equality activist, then add that on the end if you want, or if you are particularly interested in income equality between classes, or race issues, whatever.

Maybe you disagree with all this, and that is fine. Unfortunately this is another issue I have to be a boring bastard and just say: I've said all I have to say, if we disagree then we disagree.







Although I wonder if there would be a better word to describe a Humanist who has an emphasis on the fair treatment of non-humans...

Stop claiming you know the public face of feminism when you are talking about just one public face of feminism.

It's like damning democracy for its evils when you are actually talking about The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
28-10-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: feminism vs everything
(28-10-2014 11:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 10:40 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  If people are under the impression that the public face of feminism is an extremely rare minority then it explains a little bit, but it doesn't really explain why anti-feminists are being branded as sexist. Unless of course a complete denial of the public face of feminism is considered to be a totally proper position? Societal labels are what they are. Sure you can pretend that the public face of feminism doesn't exist all you like, but when you apply that practically and end up calling gender equalitarians 'sexists' for being against that public face it ends up looking like two sides of the same coin.
"Oh, they're not real feminists." doesn't really work. It's a futile effort to claim a name back which already has a widely accepted meaning.

If someone is talking about how they hate feminists because they turn online communities and universities in hell holes of sexism and denial of freedom of expression they're obviously not talking about you if you are an equalitarian and not a sexist who wants to delete opposing viewpoints. Saying "Look up what feminism actually means, retard!" doesn't help at all.
"Ok, so you say that feminism is actually just egalitarianism with a concentration on gender issues, but all of the feminists on the TV, on the internet, in the newspapers and walking around in the streets are acting a totally different way, and they take up most of the google searches too. And they say you are actually the fake feminists" Telling people to 'get educated you sexist pig' produces absolutely no good results, and claiming that the other side of feminism is 'not true feminism' doesn't help at all either.

That other side of feminism calls you 'not real feminists' too. In fact many forms of the group call each other 'not real feminists'. The true egalitarians, which you claim to be, apparently claim that the other groups don't exist except for a tiny handful of people, but tens of thousands of those people say you have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. Then of course you have the feminists who claim that any feminist group which also concentrates on male issues is 'not real feminism', and then the other groups who say "men's issues and women's issues are tied together and anyone who ignores men's issues is not a real feminist". You then also get the groups who claim that men's issues don't exist at all and no real feminist would think they do.
Of course though the sexist group seems to have a monopoly when it comes to news, social media and university campuses. Pretending they are not feminists, or that they only exist in the dozens, is bordering on delusional, and also an unproductive position insisting on ignoring the issue.

I would assume that the feminists on an atheist rationalist forum are the egalitarian type, and that 'feminist' is used as the label only because of historical reasons. Fine, go with that, but going into a shit flinger because all of these other groups share the same label and people don't like them is completely stupid.

Maybe it's just time for a division? Personally I've always preferred to go by the technical term of gender equality, but if you've picked a label and that label becomes shit it makes more sense to just abandon it rather than alienating everyone by attempting to clean it off. In fact it just contributes to the shit the more it's clung to. If someone sees the feminists who have the monopoly on social media, news and university campuses, and then try to get more information and they get told by egalitarian feminists "Educate yourself about real feminism, dipshit" they just see more of the same shit; and there is absolutely nothing there to show a separation of the two types. Suddenly gender equality gets a bad connotation, then people start saying of egalitarians 'those people are the same as feminists', and before you know it everything has been pushed back to 1890 because people who actually stand for gender equality held onto an outdated term while it turned into shit instead of just dropping it and taking a new label for the 21st century.

Personally I'm all for just using 'humanist' as that covers all humanity, and if you have a particular interest in gender issues, or are a gender equality activist, then add that on the end if you want, or if you are particularly interested in income equality between classes, or race issues, whatever.

Maybe you disagree with all this, and that is fine. Unfortunately this is another issue I have to be a boring bastard and just say: I've said all I have to say, if we disagree then we disagree.







Although I wonder if there would be a better word to describe a Humanist who has an emphasis on the fair treatment of non-humans...

Stop claiming you know the public face of feminism when you are talking about just one public face of feminism.

It's like damning democracy for its evils when you are actually talking about The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.


That's a good point.
Which is why i tried to point out individual opinions do tend to color feminism ideals.
Its really not
One size fits all
Concept.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: feminism vs everything
(28-10-2014 10:40 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  If people are under the impression that the public face of feminism is an extremely rare minority then it explains a little bit, but it doesn't really explain why anti-feminists are being branded as sexist. Unless of course a complete denial of the public face of feminism is considered to be a totally proper position? Societal labels are what they are. Sure you can pretend that the public face of feminism doesn't exist all you like, but when you apply that practically and end up calling gender equalitarians 'sexists' for being against that public face it ends up looking like two sides of the same coin.
"Oh, they're not real feminists." doesn't really work. It's a futile effort to claim a name back which already has a widely accepted meaning.

If someone is talking about how they hate feminists because they turn online communities and universities in hell holes of sexism and denial of freedom of expression they're obviously not talking about you if you are an equalitarian and not a sexist who wants to delete opposing viewpoints. Saying "Look up what feminism actually means, retard!" doesn't help at all.
"Ok, so you say that feminism is actually just egalitarianism with a concentration on gender issues, but all of the feminists on the TV, on the internet, in the newspapers and walking around in the streets are acting a totally different way, and they take up most of the google searches too. And they say you are actually the fake feminists" Telling people to 'get educated you sexist pig' produces absolutely no good results, and claiming that the other side of feminism is 'not true feminism' doesn't help at all either.

That other side of feminism calls you 'not real feminists' too. In fact many forms of the group call each other 'not real feminists'. The true egalitarians, which you claim to be, apparently claim that the other groups don't exist except for a tiny handful of people, but tens of thousands of those people say you have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. Then of course you have the feminists who claim that any feminist group which also concentrates on male issues is 'not real feminism', and then the other groups who say "men's issues and women's issues are tied together and anyone who ignores men's issues is not a real feminist". You then also get the groups who claim that men's issues don't exist at all and no real feminist would think they do.
Of course though the sexist group seems to have a monopoly when it comes to news, social media and university campuses. Pretending they are not feminists, or that they only exist in the dozens, is bordering on delusional, and also an unproductive position insisting on ignoring the issue.

I would assume that the feminists on an atheist rationalist forum are the egalitarian type, and that 'feminist' is used as the label only because of historical reasons. Fine, go with that, but going into a shit flinger because all of these other groups share the same label and people don't like them is completely stupid.

Maybe it's just time for a division? Personally I've always preferred to go by the technical term of gender equality, but if you've picked a label and that label becomes shit it makes more sense to just abandon it rather than alienating everyone by attempting to clean it off. In fact it just contributes to the shit the more it's clung to. If someone sees the feminists who have the monopoly on social media, news and university campuses, and then try to get more information and they get told by egalitarian feminists "Educate yourself about real feminism, dipshit" they just see more of the same shit; and there is absolutely nothing there to show a separation of the two types. Suddenly gender equality gets a bad connotation, then people start saying of egalitarians 'those people are the same as feminists', and before you know it everything has been pushed back to 1890 because people who actually stand for gender equality held onto an outdated term while it turned into shit instead of just dropping it and taking a new label for the 21st century.

Personally I'm all for just using 'humanist' as that covers all humanity, and if you have a particular interest in gender issues, or are a gender equality activist, then add that on the end if you want, or if you are particularly interested in income equality between classes, or race issues, whatever.

Maybe you disagree with all this, and that is fine. Unfortunately this is another issue I have to be a boring bastard and just say: I've said all I have to say, if we disagree then we disagree.







Although I wonder if there would be a better word to describe a Humanist who has an emphasis on the fair treatment of non-humans...

I'm not sure what public face has meant this entire conversation because I don't think the public perception.. If that's what public face means, is what you believe "the" public perception of feminism is.

And if your looking for a term that's not Human or gender specific... You've already been using it in your posts. It's egalitarian. If you think what a word etymology means has much more merit than current definitions or common usage, that word is ideal for you since it's merely based on the words for equality.

People on here mainly are those who freely use the term atheist/agnostic in ways that aren't in accordance to their original use or what the public perception of them is, but that doesn't bother people as much as they claim feminism as a label bothers them... It would seem sensible that these are seen equally but for some reason, they're not.

"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
28-10-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: feminism vs everything
This is the part where I fruitlessly remind people that labels don't matter but issues do. At this point I remind everyone that we all agree that gender inequality exists and needs to be corrected, and that the rest doesn't really matter. The following posts will be more squabbles about who "true feminist" are and whether or not one label or another fits better ect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
28-10-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: feminism vs everything
(28-10-2014 01:06 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This is the part where I fruitlessly remind people that labels don't matter but issues do. At this point I remind everyone that we all agree that gender inequality exists and needs to be corrected, and that the rest doesn't really matter. The following posts will be more squabbles about who "true feminist" are and whether or not one label or another fits better ect.

Even you seem to be missing the point. Weeping

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: feminism vs everything
(28-10-2014 01:06 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This is the part where I fruitlessly remind people that labels don't matter but issues do. At this point I remind everyone that we all agree that gender inequality exists and needs to be corrected, and that the rest doesn't really matter. The following posts will be more squabbles about who "true feminist" are and whether or not one label or another fits better ect.

You're right if course....issues matter more than labels. But we live in a world of labels....so working together to help define them is always good.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: feminism vs everything
(27-10-2014 09:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 05:29 PM)CleverUsername Wrote:  Not feminism in general, just the term. It seems illogical to name something that should be for two sides after one side. I used the analogy in another thread that it's like calling fans of any sport "Baseball fans".

History and etymology; as women have been, continue to be, and most likely will be the most adversely affected by sexual inequality. We can't change the word's history, but we can define it for us now; and it's current definition is clear, 'sexual equality'.

1 half of a amen

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: