EPTInteresting series of documentaries about feminism - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
metroid composite
Canada231 Posts
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men. This includes (for most modern feminists) discrimination against LGBT. Feminism is a pretty complex and rapidly changing movement. For instance, the earliest feminists were almost all pro-life. Nowadays the movement is almost entirely pro-choice (for better or for worse). If you look at some feminist writings from the 80s some of them are pretty anti-transgender, whereas the overwhelming trend lately is pro-transgender. Feminism in the 70s saw sex based media as almost exclusively derogatory and exploitative, whereas most modern-day feminists take almost the opposite opinion. (With some notable exceptions--Anita Sarkeesian takes an unusually negative view on sex for 2013--and generally has a few stances that are straight out of 1980s feminism; most feminists I know have several critiques of her stances, even if they're simultaneously glad that she's brought some issues to the spotlight). But the point is, before you make a claim of "feminism excludes group X, or hasn't considered aspect Y"--bear in mind that it actually probably has thought about group X and considered aspect Y. There are people who spend their lives studying this kind of stuff--somewhere some professor of philosophy and gender studies has probably considered exactly the same thing you did, analyzed it from more angles than you did, maybe even did some sociological research, and then published a paper on the subject. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
On November 16 2013 11:38 L1ghtning wrote: I believe you can find a lot of crap ideas and opinions on both sides, but feminism is just pure poison at its core. It teaches us to put ppl into categories, and it makes the assumption that the categories should add up to the same, despite the fact that there might be complex explanations to why they don't. Feminism contradicts equality completely, because equality doesn't allow you to make any assumptions, as you only look at facts. Feminism sees you as part of a category, rather than an individual. To them "equality" is men vs women, rather than individual vs individual. To illustrate what I mean. Let's assume that a women doesn't get a certain job, because the employer is a sexist bastard, and a guy who was not as suitable for the job ended up getting it instead. According to feminists you fix this problem by forcing a company to hire a woman at the expense of a man. To them, you can make things right by screwing with someone from the other gender, and maintaining the balance between the genders. To them, 1-1 equals 0. But if you don't categorize, it would rather be 1+1 equals 2, where 1 woman was screwed over by a sexist employer, and 1 man was screwed over by a policy. Feminists doesn't care about specific injustices in the same category, or specific injustices between them. They just want each category to add up to the same. Well, most of them will say that they care about general injustices as well, but that goes against all logic as the core of feminism is about categorizing and evening out the categories, something you cannot do without screwing ppl over, by for instance disqualifying them from applying certain jobs, purely based on their gender. You know, thats not what feminism is at all. But hey, I bet it's way easier to make feminism look bad if you just make up shit about it  | ||
|
gedatsu
1286 Posts
On November 17 2013 17:45 metroid composite wrote: That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men. Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it. We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
There are some who will use the term feminist or feminism to describe themselves or their ideology that is clearly nothing more than just hatred of men. There are those who want "equality" in this or that scenario who when you bring up a scenario where men actually get the short end of the stick in society they'll laugh, or say "good!". Those people are either complete dipshits incapable of having a valid discussion or they've got a seething hatred for men, maybe both. Those kind of people you just have to poke fun at and cut them from the discussion or your life, you'll never get anywhere trying to deal with them. There are also some in the feminist movement who do understand that sometimes women get the shaft in life and sometimes men get the shaft as well through nothing else than the fact that they're one gender or another in a certain situation. Once you realize that there are inconsistencies in treatment on both sides then you can actually try and fix them, on both sides, together! Shock and horror. Certainly there are some things that are impossible to remedy as humans. Being born with different physiologies and all that entails. But as it sits there's things that can be fixed on both sides of the coin to make it better for everyone. Trying to paint an entire group with a broad brush and dismiss them all for the sins of some of their members is foolish. Doing so actually makes you no better than that sect within feminism that would write off all men because some of them are assbags. To make any progress people in both camps need to call out the shitheads within their own party for being worthless to any discussion or advancement. They're dead weight that takes everyone down with them and until they're thrown overboard I fear things aren't going to go anywhere fast. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
And people who get really pissed off when women get some attention in sports: | ||
|
L1ghtning
Sweden353 Posts
On November 17 2013 17:45 metroid composite wrote: That's...not actually what feminism does at all. Feminism, is concerned with fighting against gender discrimination; this includes discrimination against men. This includes (for most modern feminists) discrimination against LGBT. Feminism is a pretty complex and rapidly changing movement. For instance, the earliest feminists were almost all pro-life. Nowadays the movement is almost entirely pro-choice (for better or for worse). If you look at some feminist writings from the 80s some of them are pretty anti-transgender, whereas the overwhelming trend lately is pro-transgender. Feminism in the 70s saw sex based media as almost exclusively derogatory and exploitative, whereas most modern-day feminists take almost the opposite opinion. (With some notable exceptions--Anita Sarkeesian takes an unusually negative view on sex for 2013--and generally has a few stances that are straight out of 1980s feminism; most feminists I know have several critiques of her stances, even if they're simultaneously glad that she's brought some issues to the spotlight). But the point is, before you make a claim of "feminism excludes group X, or hasn't considered aspect Y"--bear in mind that it actually probably has thought about group X and considered aspect Y. There are people who spend their lives studying this kind of stuff--somewhere some professor of philosophy and gender studies has probably considered exactly the same thing you did, analyzed it from more angles than you did, maybe even did some sociological research, and then published a paper on the subject. I know that all feminists are not bad, but those who actually have good views, don't really subscribe to what feminism really is, and yet they call themselves feminists. They like what it stands for, but they don't really try to analyze what the feminists who have power (politicians) actually do. This is the danger. The feminists who are in power, they sugar-coat their views, and most ppl don't know what they're actually supporting, when they're voting on a feminist. I think sexism is a real problem in this world, but using mathematics to solve it is not the answer at all, it just makes things worse. You can't fix a labeling problem by labeling even more. If we are to advance as a society, we need to stop putting labels on ppl, and we need to stop comparing different labels with eachother. If a woman doesn't get a certain job, simply because she's a woman, feminism is not the answer. Feminism is mathematics. They see this injustice as a statistic, and their answer is to steal a similar job from another man and give it to another woman. Equality is the real answer to all injustices related to gender, sexuality, creed or whatever. Why? Because equality doesn't assume anything. It doesn't assume that men and women generally are equal, which is another flaw in feminism. They claim a lot of things, without being able to prove it. To equality, the only thing that matters is whether the two persons in question are equals. Feminism is applied in politics, by telling us how to run our businesses, etc, while equality is applied in the justice system, on a case-to-case basis. A true believer in equality would never support a system that tells companies that they must hire a person under a specific label. It just goes against all that equality stands for. That's why it's strange to hear feminists say that they believe in equality. In Sweden, one example of the work of feminism is to make music festivals "equal". They really like to hijack the word equality. Basically a feminist organization have pushed festival organizers towards deliberately signing 50% female and 50% male artists. And to show you how mainstream this organization is, the party leader of the 3rd largest political party in Sweden have openly supported this. And he's a guy btw, which makes it even worse. I could understand if a woman pushed a feminist agenda a bit overboard, for selfish or emotional reasons, but when you examine the actions of a influential male feminist, it says a lot about where feminism is today. The organizers have lost money while doing this, compared to prior years, because as there's more competition among male artists and bands, the female bands and artists are generally not as desperate to get a gig, and thus more expensive, and they also attract less ppl, as they're simply not as good, not because men are better than women at creating music, but because men just happens to be dominating the live music industry. Feminists can't accept this fact. Instead they claim that the organizers are deliberately favouring male musicians, which is ridiculous, as these organizers operate from a market perspective. These organizers who have accepted it is clearly shooting themselves in the foot, and they will realize it soon enough, but the damage has already been done, in the form of a large number of musicians not getting the chance for exposure that they deserved, simply because of a feminist agenda. Some festival organizers also went bankrupt, or was forced to cancel, because they didn't sell enough tickets. Madonna once said "I'm not a feminist, but I'm a humanist." and I think that's a very wise statement. Humanism incorporates all the good things about fairness and equality that the feminists claim to believe in, and without all the invalid assumptions, and questionable ways to operate, and on top of that it's so much more than that, as it also includes things like fairness between different culture groups, classes, and fairness among ppl of the same gender. When you're a humanist, there's no reason to put such a flawed label as feminism on yourself. I believe that ppl fall for feminism because it's easier to grasp, and ppl like putting labels on themselves in order to fit it. But if you stop and think about it, you see the flaws in it. Anyway. I see a few ppl here who have tried defending feminism, saying that there is good feminism too. But neither of you seem to be able to show any example of this. Show me an example of how feminism leads to more justice in this world. I have mentioned a ton of example of how feminism leads to injustice, but I haven't seen any example of the opposite. I believe that feminism started out as a good movement, but the problem is that they are trying to fix a very complex problem by simplistic political means, which doesn't even adress the core issue, and creates a lot of injustices on top of that. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
But you're going out and define feminism based on these extreme examples, and then go around saying that feminism is therefore inherently bad. Just because something stupid is done in the name of feminism does not mean that feminism is inherently stupid. Feminism, "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women", is an inherently good thing. The details are up for discussion, of course, but if you declare feminism itself a bad thing (because you just defined it as such), then - I'm sorry to say - you've just lost the discussion. Go ahead and damn those 50% rules. That's fine. But don't go ahead and damn feminism and women's rights in general because of those 50% rules. That's just stupid. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On November 17 2013 23:41 Conti wrote: Yes, there are people who overdo it. Yes, there are people who make ridiculous claims. And yes, there are people demanding stupid things in the name of fairness. And, yes, these people exist in all areas. Feminism. Men's rights. Starcraft fans. Whatever. But you're going out and define feminism based on these extreme examples, and then go around saying that feminism is therefore inherently bad. Just because something stupid is done in the name of feminism does not mean that feminism is inherently stupid. Feminism, "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women", is an inherently good thing. The details are up for discussion, of course, but if you declare feminism itself a bad thing (because you just defined it as such), then - I'm sorry to say - you've just lost the discussion. Go ahead and damn those 50% rules. That's fine. But don't go ahead and damn feminism and women's rights in general because of those 50% rules. That's just stupid. I don't think anyone would object to feminism as you have defined it. However, I think the problem is that the definition you include does not accurately fit the reality of what feminism is fighting for. The number 1 cause (my observation alone) of feminism is the establishement of quotas for companies and governments. Companies should be forced to hire some proportion of women in top positions. The justification is that companies and government apparently prefer to hire men. The explanation can't possibly be that there are more qualified men available, because such a thought is deeply sexist. The second biggest cause is reducing the wage gap, women get paid less on average, and that is wrong. The justification for this is that this is a patriarchical society, where women are denied equal opportunities either through semi-conscious male conspiracies, or through unconscious biases that are the result of our culture telling us that women are less capable. I feel these justifications are very flimsy. There is no apparent economic explanation for how these situations could possibly exist. A business that overpays men for doing the same job would surely go out of business when met with competition from businesses that hire cheaper women. In such a situation pressure on the price of labor from women would surely lead to wages being equalized in equilibrium. In the same vein, companies that prefer to hire underqualified men over qualified women would go out of business when met with competition from businesses that take advantage of the abundant supply of qualified women. Clearly there must be some other explanations for the wage gap and for the under-representation of women in top positions. And these explanations are rather obvious. Women are absent more often, take more maternity leave and are less likely to have time to work overtime. Women may simply have different priorities. Equal opportunities for the sexes afterall does not mean that there are no differences between the genders. and surely that isn't a problem. It is dishonest to say that women are paid less for doing the same job. They may be doing the same kind of work, but if they are working less on average, then on average they are not really supplying the same unit of work as their male counterparts. Now I do think there are things that can be done to equalize the wage gap and the under-representation of women problem. But not in the form of quotas. For example men can be forced to take the same amount of paternity leave, and can be stimulated to spend an equal amount of resources on child-rearing. These efforts can never completely equalize however. The simple fact is that women must carry a child within their body, which surely must have some effect on productivity. And women are likely to always be more willing to devote resources to raising children, just as part of differences in biological makeup. Another problem with such an approach is that it is very presumptuous, why exactly is it that the current situation is less desirable? Why is it bad that men and women prefer to sepnd their resources in different ways, if both have the opportunity to go for any kind of balance they desire? I do also think that there is some cultural element that can have an effect on our perception of gender differences. You only need to look at works of fiction. It is very easy to notice that in fiction in the overwhelming majority of cases, the main protagonist is a man, and owmen serve as love-interest for him, are damsels in distress or serve as a device for the man to do shit in some other way. As a rule ,women support the true heroes of the story, a man. But it is hard to say if this difference in portrayal is shaping society, or if it is simply an accurate portrayal of society. The truth is obviously somewhere in between, but where exactly? Another problem is that feminism completely ignores areas in which women have a clear advantage. On the low-income side of the economy men often work in physically demanding and more dangerous jobs. Women can get entry level jobs in the safe and comfortable service industry very easily, the same is not true for men. Men generally are not trusted to work around children, and are also hessitant to do so out of fear of being suspected of being a pedophile. It is quite likely that mentioning these facts will lead to some harsh words from a feminist. | ||
|
bananafone
68 Posts
| ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On November 18 2013 00:42 Crushinator wrote: I don't think anyone would object to feminism as you have defined it. However, I think the problem is that the definition you include does not accurately fit the reality of what feminism is fighting for. I can only repeat myself here. You are pointing out specific issues that may or may not be agreeable, and then declare that these issues are what defines feminism. I'll happily have a discussion about the specific issues, but it's simply flat out wrong to define these issues as "feminism" and thus oppose feminism in general. Heck, we cannot say that "feminism" is fighting for anything. Feminism is an abstract concept, not a concrete implementation of demands. And, again, the abstract concept is inherently good. The concrete implementations may or may not be. I agree that the 50% rule can be pretty stupid at times. It can also make perfect sense, depending on where it is applied. But implying that the most extreme examples you can find that are done in the name of feminism are what defines feminism is just wrong. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On November 18 2013 00:56 Conti wrote: I can only repeat myself here. You are pointing out specific issues that may or may not be agreeable, and then declare that these issues are what defines feminism. I'll happily have a discussion about the specific issues, but it's simply flat out wrong to define these issues as "feminism" and thus oppose feminism in general. Heck, we cannot say that "feminism" is fighting for anything. Feminism is an abstract concept, not a concrete implementation of demands. And, again, the abstract concept is inherently good. The concrete implementations may or may not be. I agree that the 50% rule can be pretty stupid at times. It can also make perfect sense, depending on where it is applied. But implying that the most extreme examples you can find that are done in the name of feminism are what defines feminism is just wrong. I do not judge feminism on what it ideally should be, but rather on what it tends to do in practice. To me this seems like a reasonable way to make judgements in life. I do think women's gender based-disadvantages should be combatted, but I am hessitant to describe myself as a feminist, because of the average activist. Making judgements based only on whether or not something is ''inherently'' good or bad, just isn't a workable system in my opinion. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25482 Posts
I proposed in another thread that a rebrand is in order, by and large I stick to that. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25482 Posts
Hm well, feminist ideas as to gender role designations influenced the Swedish system of relatively equivalent shared parental leave. Meanwhile in this country, I got 2 weeks leave from work and was back at the grind, and though we're together my partner gets all the tax credits and child benefits etc. Because women are meant to be more caring, and regardless of the individual's involved by default the primary carer. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 16 2013 11:47 Shiragaku wrote: You would think that gamers would actually learn not to make lazy slanderous statements after Jack Thompson's crusade against video games. Why would they take after his moral teachings? | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 17 2013 21:15 gedatsu wrote: Feminists often claim they fight against discrimination against men, but I have never witnessed it. We'd all be better off if feminists realized that there is a discrepancy between the textbook definition and the way it is practiced today. Feminism is about equality of choice and role of females. A Feminist would support a stay at home mom as much as they would support a female CEO the important part is that they had the choice and equal opportunity to be either. I think you get people who call themselves feminist yet aren't. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On November 18 2013 12:31 Roe wrote: Why would they take after his moral teachings? I was stating that gamers should learn from his legacy of not lying like a complete jackass about a group of people without doing research and attaching the label of the group they dislike to a tragedy, be it big or small. For example, Jack Thompson blamed video games whenever a school shooting happened. Similarly, I have seen the internet community blame feminism for this and for this And we even had The Amazing Atheist compare feminism to the KKK and judging from the reception he got, much of the internet community seems to accept his ideas. Almost every single critique of feminism I have seen on the internet, even on TL has been completely incorrect and uses irrelevant comparisons just like Jack Thompson's critique of video games. And I did even touch on the issue of gaming and sexism which seems to blow up in a shitstorm whenever it is brought it. In fact, because I have heard feminism compared enough to Nazis, KKK, fascism, and everything bad, I think this quote becoming similar to how many people use the word feminism these days. The biggest difference in my opinion is that feminism has no historical roots to fascism, and if anything, tended to get their asses kicked by fascists. the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On November 18 2013 12:34 semantics wrote: Feminism is about equality of choice and role of females. A Feminist would support a stay at home mom as much as they would support a female CEO the important part is that they had the choice and equal opportunity to be either. I think you get people who call themselves feminist yet aren't. I think this again is an inaccurate portrayal of what feminism is in practice. Many (most) active feminists are openly disapproving of women who want nothing more than be a stay at home mom. Some will argue that their lack of ambition is the result of patriachical opression, and/or that these women are complicit to their own oppression. By spinning it so that feminism is only one thing that nobody can object to, and that anybody who does more that that isn't a real feminist, you are basically commiting the ''no true scotsman'' fallacy. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On November 18 2013 20:59 Crushinator wrote: I think this again is an inaccurate portrayal of what feminism is in practice. Many (most) active feminists are openly disapproving of women who want nothing more than be a stay at home mom. Some will argue that their lack of ambition is the result of patriachical opression, and/or that these women are complicit to their own oppression. By spinning it so that feminism is only one thing that nobody can object to, and that anybody who does more that that isn't a real feminist, you are basically commiting the ''no true scotsman'' fallacy. Honestly, I think you simply mix up radical feminism with feminism, and define every radical feminist you see as a typical feminist, while you define every feminist you see as, well, normal. | ||
| ||
