EPT10-year hits 2.9%
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 723
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
10-year hits 2.9% | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2013 04:04 Nyxisto wrote: If we're both agreeing that the majority of feminists and the movement as a whole has nothing to do with these people than i don't know what we are arguing about right now. My whole point was that people take these silly "hardcore feminists" as a straw man to discredit the feminist movement as a whole and than act like all feminists are weirdos, the same way people actively pick violent/radical environmentalists to ridicule the whole movement. So who do you think is representative of the feminist movement? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On December 19 2013 05:44 xDaunt wrote: So who do you think is representative of the feminist movement? I know you didn't ask me, but my opinion is that no one does. The word feminist has lost its meaning more than "literally". There are *SO* many movements that call themselves feminism to the point of where I would say the word is dead. It can mean anything from "vote men out of politics" to "Let's advocate for birth control". If people want to try to establish some kinda movement involving women, they need to get a new name for it. The word "feminist" is just plain dead. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2013 06:01 Mohdoo wrote: I know you didn't ask me, but my opinion is that no one does. The word feminist has lost its meaning more than "literally". There are *SO* many movements that call themselves feminism to the point of where I would say the word is dead. It can mean anything from "vote men out of politics" to "Let's advocate for birth control". If people want to try to establish some kinda movement involving women, they need to get a new name for it. The word "feminist" is just plain dead. I generally agree with this. All of the big battles that the original feminists fought are over. All that's left are comparative crumbs and some ludicrous causes. I generally reserve the term "feminist" for the man haters, but that obviously doesn't fit in all circumstances. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
My whole point was that people take these silly "hardcore feminists" as a straw man to discredit the feminist movement as a whole and than act like all feminists are weirdos, the same way people actively pick violent/radical environmentalists to ridicule the whole movement. Hardcore feminists dominate academia and the internet, wherein they fantasize that they are shaping and guiding the feminist movement. Out in the real world most big-time feminists of the 60s, 70s and 80s have mellowed with age. And like Mohdoo says, it's probably the most diffuse and disorganized "movement" of the last 50 years. The word got so disgraced in the 80s and 90s that you'll find lots of people who completely reject the label yet hold totally conventional "feminist" positions (aka uncontroversial opinions about gender equality). It's still a dodge to say "oh people point to those hardcore feminists as a strawman." If white supremacists or members of the woman-hating manocracy held as many influential positions at colleges and universities as they do, there'd be a big stink about it. It's not like they occupy some niche. They dominate campus. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 19 2013 05:44 xDaunt wrote: So who do you think is representative of the feminist movement? As feminism is a global movement with huge differences inside the ideology itself i don't think it makes much sense to pick out single persons. Feminism can range from women rights activists in Africa and the Middle-East, third-wave feminism such as the femen stuff to the European and American intellectual circles. The fact that the whole thing is basically spread into the difference and equality camp, which are basically two completely different things makes it even harder. But what i can tell you is that in fact two women on a Canadian TV show are probably not representative for a global movement. Picking out controversial and vocal minorities has always been a cheap tactic to ridicule whole groups of people. If white supremacists or members of the woman-hating manocracy held as many influential positions at colleges and universities as they do, there'd be a big stink about it.It's not like they occupy some niche. They dominate campus. You make it sound like just because no one is whipping around black guys or hitting women with belts in public anymore, there's no reason to complain. And i don't see hordes of hysterical women on campus every day, in fact i have never witnessed a femen protest myself. There must be hordes of raging women everywhere given the fact how much criticism feminism gets lately. | ||
KwarK
United States43609 Posts
There was a divide within feminism between those espousing genuine equality and those wanting things to be better for middle class white women. The most recent wave challenges the issues with the narrowness of focus of the previous waves along with their hypocrisy. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2013 06:22 Nyxisto wrote: You make it sound like just because no one is whipping around black guys or hitting women with belts in public anymore, there's no reason to complain. And i don't see hordes of hysterical women on campus every day, in fact i have never witnessed a femen protest myself. There must be hordes of raging women everywhere given the fact how much criticism feminism gets lately. It's been 6 years since I was on a campus (and 9 years since I was an undergrad), but there certainly was no shortage of a feminist activists on campus, both among the student body and in the faculty. Aside from the vulgar special interest bullshit that I mentioned earlier (like Sandra Fluke), where I really take issue with the current iteration of the feminist movement is how it is ruining masculinity and imposing a generalized feminist political correctness upon society. This causes all sorts of problems (including, ironically, problems for women). I think Paglia said it pretty well in that article that I posted: A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology. Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 19 2013 06:22 Nyxisto wrote: As feminism is a global movement with huge differences inside the ideology itself i don't think it makes much sense to pick out single persons. Feminism can range from women rights activists in Africa and the Middle-East, third-wave feminism such as the femen stuff to the European and American intellectual circles. The fact that the whole thing is basically spread into the difference and equality camp, which are basically two completely different things makes it even harder. But what i can tell you is that in fact two women on a Canadian TV show are probably not representative for a global movement. Picking out controversial and vocal minorities has always been a cheap tactic to ridicule whole groups of people. You make it sound like just because no one is whipping around black guys or hitting women with belts in public anymore, there's no reason to complain. And i don't see hordes of hysterical women on campus every day, in fact i have never witnessed a femen protest myself. There must be hordes of raging women everywhere given the fact how much criticism feminism gets lately. Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Anne Marie Slaughter and other "feminist" writers are in vogue right now because of the general cultural trend in the US and elsewhere wherein more women than men are graduating with college degrees, more women than men are getting hired in plenty of service industries but also in other fields like startups, account management, law schools, etc. Much of it is a response to the angst these conventionally "successful" women feel when they look around for men to marry and find that, as a group, they have outpaced the pool of available men in terms of conventional career success and financial stability. The problem is that women as a group in the US are still a generation behind men in disillusionment with the global capitalist regime. They have been so focused on "getting theirs" in terms of career success that they haven't yet realized it's a hollow endeavor from the start, and that they are simply labor grist in the capital mill, to be chewed up and spit out, none the happier. Very few women wonder why the powers that be have willingly ceded these petit bourgeois career tracks to women when it should be obvious that real power has long since left those positions. So many are still fighting and scrabbling for the trappings of power rather than the genuine article. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On December 19 2013 06:33 KwarK wrote: I think the gender expectations that society instills in men are at least as damaging as the ones that women get I would have to disagree with that based largely on the measures of self worth. Also, to me, feminism means anti-discrimination against women. which is a great way to reflect good goals that do not seek to "put women ahead" or some such shit people say. i found this picture on wikipedia its pretty nice. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8RSOC.jpg) | ||
|
KwarK
United States43609 Posts
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff? It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43609 Posts
On December 19 2013 07:01 ComaDose wrote: I would have to disagree with that based largely on the measures of self worth. Also, to me, feminism means anti-discrimination against women. which is a great way to reflect good goals that do not seek to "put women ahead" or some such shit people say. i found this picture on wikipedia its pretty nice. + Show Spoiler + Why on earth would I go to all the trouble of creating a masculism movement if all the intellectual groundwork has already been done for me by feminism and what I actually want to achieve is identical to the goals of feminism. Feminism wants gender equality, that already means equality for men too. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43609 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote: xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students". Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff? It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order. What exactly are you taking issue with? That there's an attack on masculinity? That this new crop of professional women are having trouble with their personal lives? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43609 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? And that's the biggest pile of crap. Sorry, but every person on this planet is shit confused when they leave college and actually enter the real world.Please show me one young person that is not worried about their "prospects for their emotionally fulfilled private life? All i read out of Paglia's text are a bunch of stupid stereotypes. Men should behave like cave men, if they don't they're boys. Women should behave like cave women, if they don't they're either irritated raging lesbians or deeply insecure because women obviously aren't shaped for the complicated life that only rough men can endure. She's basically asking today's generation to fall back into old role models that were already out of date 30 years ago. I don't even know why she considers herself a feminist, even the average man is more progressive than she is. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On December 19 2013 07:09 KwarK wrote: Why on earth would I go to all the trouble of creating a masculism movement if all the intellectual groundwork has already been done for me by feminism and what I actually want to achieve is identical to the goals of feminism. Feminism wants gender equality, that already means equality for men too. Feminism is a movement fighting for right for women on the basis of the thought of gender equality. That is a one-sided approach which does not (necessarily) sum up to equality for men too. If you want true gender equality you need a balanced approach, fighting for the rights of both (or much better - neither) gender. EDIT: I missed a post of yours higher up where you actually partly commented on this - it seems we use different definitions of feminist. I will however still argue that the understanding of gender issues is resting on a flawed foundation when your basis of understanding of such issues rest entirely upon the perception of one of the genders - which makes it doubly hilarious when people are calling egalitarians for misogynists. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On December 19 2013 09:22 Ghostcom wrote: Feminism is a movement fighting for right for women on the basis of the thought of gender equality. That is a one-sided approach which does not (necessarily) sum up to equality for men too. If you want true gender equality you need a balanced approach, fighting for the rights of both (or much better - neither) gender. How do you figure that its better to fight for neithers' rights than to fight for both? | ||
| ||
