|
On April 26 2016 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's actually a really, really good example of a whole bunch of logical fallacies though  Good practice.
It's just a good old strawman. Well, two strawmen actually. Feminism doesn't say that women should become men (quite the opposite), or that men are bad. Strawmen work great as trolls in a lot of cases when I come to think about it.
Actually you are right, there are plain logical fallacies as well. Impressive for so few words.
|
On April 26 2016 22:05 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 26 2016 21:52 Sent. wrote:
That question is a minefield It's actually a really, really good example of a whole bunch of logical fallacies though Good practice. It's just a good old strawman. Well, two strawmen actually. Feminism doesn't say that women should become men (quite the opposite), or that men are bad. Strawmen work great as trolls in a lot of cases when I come to think about it. Actually you are right, there are plain logical fallacies as well. Impressive for so few words.
Agreed! Plot twist: He purposely created a "stupid" question so that it would be relevant to the title of this thread...
|
On April 26 2016 22:05 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 26 2016 21:52 Sent. wrote:
That question is a minefield It's actually a really, really good example of a whole bunch of logical fallacies though Good practice. It's just a good old strawman. Well, two strawmen actually. Feminism doesn't say that women should become men (quite the opposite), or that men are bad. Strawmen work great as trolls in a lot of cases when I come to think about it. Actually you are right, there are plain logical fallacies as well. Impressive for so few words.
I am pretty sure that if anything, the question is at least a Strawwoman
|
|
|
If you don't know how to treat a woman as an equal and as someone special at the same time, the problem lies with you, not feminism.
|
|
|
JimmiC, it sounds like you have very limited experience with people who consider themselves feminists. (Men can be feminists too, btw.)
it is a extreme challenge as many women want to be both equal and treated like a special princess. Which are opposing ways of treatment. And there are not clear times when what behavior is appropriate or wishes.
It's really not that hard to figure out... when it comes to economic/ salary discrepancies, women would like equal pay for equal work; when it comes to objectification or walking down the street, women would like to not be cat-called or talked down to or treated like a piece of meat; when it comes to being in a serious relationship with someone, women (like men) would like to be treated as someone special. There will always be prissy/ entitled/ selfish/ snobbish people (men or women), but understanding sexual equality isn't really that hard.
|
JimmiC, the man who stepped into a minefield
|
the solution is really simple: ignore the women who want to milk their gender for benefits and treat the others as human beings, not walking vaginas. i do agree that there is a lot of stupidity regarding this, but as with many other similar issues, you can make your life so mu better by simply using your own brain instead of just playing along.
women that want to be your equal partner in relationship do exist. source: married for 8 years
|
To make feminism (and equality in general) easier, each gender/sex/race has assholes. Ignore the people who try to make you feel bad for who you are if you happen to be born white/male, and ignore the people who think they deserve to be placed on pedestals because they're not white/male. Ignore the people who think that inequality doesn't exist or is just an exaggeration.
That should leave the reasonable people, the non-extremists who still support the cause.
|
|
|
On April 26 2016 21:01 iloveav wrote:
If Feminists want women to be equal to men and all men are bad according to feminism, can we assume feminists want good people to turn bad?
Yay, great generalization. I'm sure you're useful at debates.
|
On April 27 2016 00:59 JimmiC wrote:Here is a situation you walk up to a door and there is a women behind you. You open the door and step aside to let the women through. She says "thank you" smiles and walks through. Or she says " I can open it myself" snidely and walks through. There is no way of knowing and I will continue to open doors. My point is both of these women could consider themselves feminists. But there is a huge range.
You are not supposed to let women through a door because that's how you always do it (according to the rule of being a gentleman or whatever you wall it).
You have to do it only when the other side of the door is safer and/or comfier, eg: it's raining outside, you let her in first.
But now, since the question of real 'danger' is not so likely, there is no point in doing it anyway, you just lose time (for the example of the rain, both of you will get wetter if you do so). Just hold the door for the person behind you, and say thanks for the one in front that hold it.
I know this was just an example, but as many other like it, quoted when speaking about feminism, they don't make much sense in the end.
|
|
|
@AbouSV
i don't thing you got it.
the gesture itself has (alleged)feminists have (at least)two opposite reactions and neither cares about the practicality of said gesture. one feels entitled, the other demeaned.
|
On April 27 2016 01:27 JimmiC wrote:
Politeness in general does not make sense from a logical sense, just social rules that were seen as being "good and nice"
Politeness does make logical sense because it helps to favor societal cohesion, something we badly need in our over-individualistic societies. It also makes logical sense in case you have something to gain to a social interaction, because you'll be seen more favorably.
On April 27 2016 01:27 xM(Z wrote:
@AbouSV
i don't thing you got it.
the gesture itself has (alleged)feminists have (at least)two opposite reactions; neither cares about the practicality of said gesture. one feels entitled, the other demeaned.
Congrats, you just found out that "feminism" used as a broad term means nothing.
|
or, feminism as a term always means nothing. problem solved; 'cause if you let it up to the (feminist)individual, there's no way you can pull a meaningful, generalized definition out of your ass.
|
On April 27 2016 01:43 xM(Z wrote:
or, feminism as a term always means nothing. problem solved; 'cause if you let it up to the (feminist)individual, there's no way you can pull a meaningful, generalized definition out of your ass.
Feminism has many, many different iterations over time, thus feminism - like all "-isms", by the way - needs to be seen in light of history (I remember someone doing a pretty good job at explaining the different iterations of feminism in this thread, was it WhiteDog?). And yes, you can't let the definition up to an individual. Or rather, you can if you're discussing with that individual about what they think is feminism, but you can't use an individual's definition as if it was the one and only correct definition.
|
|
|
On April 27 2016 01:54 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:43 xM(Z wrote:
or, feminism as a term always means nothing. problem solved; 'cause if you let it up to the (feminist)individual, there's no way you can pull a meaningful, generalized definition out of your ass. Feminism has many, many different iterations over time, thus feminism - like all "-isms", by the way - needs to be seen in light of history (I remember someone doing a pretty good job at explaining the different iterations of feminism in this thread, was it WhiteDog?). And yes, you can't let the definition up to an individual. Or rather, you can if you're discussing with that individual about what they think is feminism, but you can't use an individual's definition as if it was the one and only correct definition.
i want a definition that would be like an applicable law. if there is none, then i can't be arsed to care.
i'll take people at face value and define them based on their actions; if i call someone a feminist, i don't care if i, my definition, manages to squeeze in one of those iterations because guess what, i might just define the new meta-ism!.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
