|
On April 04 2014 12:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 11:33 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 11:18 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2014 10:56 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 10:26 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote:
Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why). Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity. Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish. For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for. Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that. Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded. The idea of equality shouldn't be discarded when removing feminism, just the name because so much negativity is being drawn just from the name alone. And if we change our ideas towards total equality, rather than specific equality, we can do so much more. With feminism and masculism not being different in whats being fought for (other than one being mainly for women and the other for men) keeping them separate hurts equality overall. We don't have individual movements for equal rights for each race, we have a collective, even though each race isn't equal. As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence. The point should not be to stop using the term feminism because some are misguided as to what feminism means - it should be to educate those people who are misguided either about the movement and/or about sexist stereotypes. There is nothing that "hurts equality" in having feminism - in fact, one could argue having "equalism" instead of feminism is probably what would, in reality, "hurt equality", since it would hide where most substantial disadvantages lie. Having the term "feminism" may help to better sensitize, when they do some research on the topic, people who were previously unaware of some of the disadvantages affecting women. Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 11:33 Ercster wrote:
As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence. Well, then, you side with the people who are wrong. Since you mention the APA, let me direct you to this page from their website: Show nested quote +Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills
Research debunks myths about cognitive difference.
Are boys better at math? Are girls better at language? If fewer women than men work as scientists and engineers, is that aptitude or culture? Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys and girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways -- differences that would matter in school or at work -- in how, and how well, they think.
[...]
The research shows not that males and females are - cognitively speaking -- separate but equal, but rather suggests that social and cultural factors influence perceived or actual performance differences. For example, in 1990, Hyde et al. concluded that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization. The researchers said that to explain why fewer women take college-level math courses and work in math-related occupations, "We must look to other factors, such as internalized belief systems about mathematics, external factors such as sex discrimination in education and in employment, and the mathematics curriculum at the precollege level."
Where the sexes have differed on tests, researchers believe social context plays a role. Spelke believes that later-developing differences in career choices are due not to differing abilities but rather cultural factors, such as subtle but pervasive gender expectations that really kick in during high school and college. Nobody is denying that there are some differences. But innate differences are minor, and the impact of inherent biological differences pales in comparison to the influence of environment on neural development. Innate biological sex differences aren't the relevant variable to explain structural differences in career choices - culture is.
As I said in my post, I'm not going to get into the argument. I posted my stance on it merely to put it out there, not to discuss my evidence because I'm not committing the time to gathering it all. So it's nice that you put that there, and I've read it, but I've read articles that contradict that. So I'm no longer going to be discussing that point as it will only devolve into me explaining my point without evidence and someone wanting the evidence on my point.
As for main discussion we've been having. Not surprisingly, educating the ignorant or misinformed about feminisim with an already misunderstood belief is an incredibly hard and pointless battle. The same battle can be often seen between the scientific and religious communities. It just devolves into a rock throwing contest because neither side (whether right or wrong) will agree that the other is right. And as stupid as it sounds, changing the word we use for the same cause can often bring the many who are misinformed into the correctly informed. The idea is similar if not identical to a marketing tool. Put out a product that garners very unfavorable reviews, change the products name with improvements to the product and the existing opinion of the original product is often not applied to the product with the changed name.
As an example of a similar idea, the game "War Z" was released as a finished product, even though it actually played like it was an alpha. Then, several weeks to a few months later, it was re-released with many improvements and under a different name "Infestation: Survivor Stories."
Also, I feel compelled to correct you and the many others. Feminism, by definition, is the movement for gaining social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. It is solely specific for women to gain the rights that men have that women don't.
|
United States42572 Posts
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:
If that is true then why arn't feminists protesting that women get the child 80% of the time during divorce?
I'm a feminist protesting that literally one post above you bro. 0/10 must try harder.
|
United States42572 Posts
Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write
Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men.
I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means.
Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
|
On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote:Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write Show nested quote +Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means. Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal.
I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't, not vice-verse. So it's a pseudo-equality if you will. So I apologize for not correctly conveying that there. I incorrectly summarized the definition, as it's incredibly long. I will go back and edit that so it's clear.
|
United States42572 Posts
On April 04 2014 13:47 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote:Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means. Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal. I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will.
But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension.
|
On April 04 2014 13:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 13:47 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote:Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means. Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal. I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will. But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension.
Edited the post above which answers this.
tl;dr: I fucked up with summarizing. Sorry.
|
United States42572 Posts
On April 04 2014 13:52 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 13:50 KwarK wrote:On April 04 2014 13:47 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote:Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means. Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal. I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will. But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension. Edited the post above which answers this. tl;dr: I fucked up with summarizing. Sorry.
I wrote "while preserving the meaning of the word equal" whereas what you've just done is changed your point to include "pseudo-equality" which appears to be a made up word pairing with a meaning opposite to the word "equal". That's not how language works. If I were to say "the sky is down" and you were to call me out on it would you let me get away with clarifying that I meant "pseudo-down" which is how you explain that something is up? If not, why do you expect to get away with "pseudo-equality" as a way of explaining that two things are not equal?
|
On April 04 2014 13:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 13:52 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 13:50 KwarK wrote:On April 04 2014 13:47 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 13:43 KwarK wrote:Ercster you appear to be struggling with what words mean. You write Feminism, by definition, is the movement for equal social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. I'm not sure you know what the word equal means. If I try to make A equal to B then my attempts, potential solutions and conditions for success will be identical to someone trying to make B equal to A. This is because of what the word equal means. Now, you appear to be saying that a program to make women equal to men is by definition not a program to make men equal to women. This is odd because every single part of every single word in your argument would suggest the opposite conclusion. Is English your second language perhaps? If not could you please explain how making women equal to men would not also make men equal to women while preserving the meaning of the word equal. I explained later that the "equality" is giving the rights to women that men have that women don't not vice versa so its a pseudo-equality if you will. But if women keep rights that men don't have then it what sense would that be equality? You'd have to give men the rights women have too for it to be equal, or take away those rights from women. How you can argue that a movement to make two groups equal only concerns one group is beyond my, and also I believe your, comprehension. Edited the post above which answers this. tl;dr: I fucked up with summarizing. Sorry. I wrote "while preserving the meaning of the word equal" whereas what you've just done is changed your point to include "pseudo-equality" which appears to be a made up word pairing with a meaning opposite to the word "equal". That's not how language works. If I were to say "the sky is down" and you were to call me out on it would you let me get away with clarifying that I meant "pseudo-down" which is how you explain that something is up? If not, why do you expect to get away with "pseudo-equality" as a way of explaining that two things are not equal?
Because equal/equality wasn't the correct word I should have used. pseudo-equality, on the other hand, is the more accurate word that should have been used. So there would have been no way for me to answer you question correctly since the term I used was incorrect to begin with. Happy? If not, I don't care. I've gotten pretty tired of this feminist debate because it just devolves into nothing. We aren't going to get anywhere with passive aggressive posts such as yours, and people aren't going to become more aware of inequality until something significant happens that makes equality a much more hot button issue in the western world, which is extremely unfortunate, but how things work nowadays.
|
United States42572 Posts
I am a feminist, a man and someone who finds the feminist intellectual framework and body of research useful for addressing the problems faced by men in society which, as a feminist, I care about. What you're saying, when you're not destroying the meaning of words, is that I can't exist because of pseudo somehow.
|
Kwark gets you on semantics men, just stop trying.
feminism is what happens when Kwark believes in fairy tales. there is nothing wrong with having believes, morals, principles, unquestionable opinions about an agenda or another.
if feminism is what Kwark thinks it is, then bravo, everything is/will be fine and dandy; but what if it's not Kwark?, what if it's not?.
feminism is not controlled by any person/group/council/shared ideology/shared agenda/law, civil or otherwise. when shit hits the fan, whomever group will have the most power will impose itself, while others will just go into opposition and become ... terrorists?. you have to nip the stupid feminist ideas in the bud not let them grow until they become religions 'cause that only breeds terrorists/militants.
until feminism gets its shit together, everything they stand for is up for grabs.
Kwark, you should preach your feminist ideologies to women first but hmm ... you're a man and men can't teach feminism to women ... that's quite the pickle isn't it?.
|
United States42572 Posts
On April 04 2014 15:39 xM(Z wrote:
if feminism is what Kwark thinks it is, then bravo, everything is/will be fine and dandy; but what if it's not Kwark?, what if it's not?.
What if it's a dragon!?!? That'd be awesome. But if it was Hitler then that'd be less awesome. What if you actually had a point rather than just open questions?!? What then!?
On April 04 2014 15:39 xM(Z wrote:
feminism is not controlled by any person/group/council/shared ideology/shared agenda/law, civil or otherwise. when shit hits the fan, whomever group will have the most power will impose itself, while others will just go into opposition and become ... terrorists?. you have to nip the stupid feminist ideas in the bud not let them grow until they become religions 'cause that only breeds terrorists/militants.
That's a serious point which we should all treat seriously and not dismiss out of hand while laughing at you. Right now they might be reblogging each other's shit on tumblr but it's a slippery slope from that to planes flying into towers, people often overlook Al Qaeda's rapid transition from blogging to terrorism. Better nip that movement that's been going on for over a century now in the bud, if you leave it any longer it may get out of hand.
On April 04 2014 15:39 xM(Z wrote:
Kwark, you should preach your feminist ideologies to women first but hmm ... you're a man and men can't teach feminism to women ... that's quite the pickle isn't it?.
I'm of the opinion I can and that anyone telling someone they can't do something based upon their gender is bad at feminism.
|
just in that other thread, Euromaidan one, people were talking about and agreeing on the necessity of a deterrence plan against well, anything. you have none man.
i somewhat applaud your convictions but from where i'm sitting, you are a martir.
|
On April 04 2014 16:53 xM(Z wrote:
just in that other thread, Euromaidan one, people were talking about and agreeing on the necessity of a deterrence plan against well, anything. you have none man.
i somewhat applaud your convictions but from where i'm sitting, you are a martir.
You have nothing. You have no arguments or responses to Kwark, I'm kinda surprised he's even bothering to respond to you anymore.
EDIT: I mean, re-read your post. You're making a vague complaint about posts in another thread, and then telling him he's a martyr. Good response.
|
he knows what i have better then you. i didn't questioned feminism, i questioned him.
my so called zero arguments, are still something.
|
United States42572 Posts
On April 04 2014 16:53 xM(Z wrote:
just in that other thread, Euromaidan one, people were talking about and agreeing on the necessity of a deterrence plan against well, anything. you have none man.
i somewhat applaud your convictions but from where i'm sitting, you are a martir.
When you did your "what if it's something else?" speech and I suggested you meant literally anything from a dragon to Hitler I thought I was using hyperbole to show that feminism couldn't be literally anything and that perhaps you should narrow it down. I was really not expecting you to follow that up with the argument that we need to oppose feminism now, and indeed always, so we can be ready when feminism inevitably annexes Crimea.
Well done sir, you have followed through on your initial vagueness with fantastic form and I confess that if we need to have a deterrence plan to stop everything from doing anything ever then I am indeed lacking and will be martyred when they march braless down the streets of Sevastopol.
|
On April 04 2014 13:27 Jumperer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 06:16 ComaDose wrote:
whaaaat? what do people that have a lot of sex dress like?
why do you think that this article saying that no feminists want construction jobs makes it true? how does that make me have to prove it's not true? because some anti-feminist blogger said it? They cry all the time about how there is not enough female CEOs. They don't complain about the gender imbalance in hardworking job such as construction because they don't care about it.
naw man no ones crying, its just a more relative statistic when discussing the wage gape and glass ceiling. its about letting everyone do what ever job they want. It's a pretty broad statement you're making that no women want to work those jobs. I'm aware of support for women in auto mechanics for example.
|
i ignored the 'hyperbole'. there are plenty of (self)proclaimed feminists with screwed up ideas, ideas posted in this right here topic. name your pic. i wont bother listing more. i see no point in doing that.
i am calling you out not feminism. i am calling you a hypocrite just as you've been calling a lot of people on this forums.
what have you been doing for feminism besides keeping and preaching (at times even trying to enforce) your own idea of/about it, while reaping in the rewards of publicity for your cause granted by those "not real feminists" as you call them, when they publicly, pull/say some of the most outrageous bullshit people have ever seen?.
have you actively condoned, criticized, invalidated any or at least some of the ideas floating in their heads?. i haven't seen you do that. all i've seen you do is, take a passive defensive stance, call them not real feminists or bad at feminism and that's the end of it (at best, you'd first disassociate that person from the(your) idea of feminism (based on ...? , you have membership cards or something?, and then go easy on him ...).
how can you do that?. how can you do that while at the same time, lashing out at anyone that tries to criticize, not the feminism you believe in and hold dear, but those same radical extremists you consider "bad at feminism"?.
.. and all you'll do now is give me some feminism 101 like in http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/faq-some-feminist-saiddid-something-offensivestupidcrazyevil-so-isnt-feminism-a-failure/ and bury me in catch phrases like Feminists don’t have to defend any alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil actions of someone in order to defend the positive social movement of feminism.
then as a conclusion, hit me with Or should we conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by Fred Phelps reflects badly on all one-time civil rights lawyers, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act of Dick Cheney reflects badly on every father of a lesbian, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil song of James Blunt reflects badly on all one-time officers of the Household Cavalry Life Guards Regiment? as if it matters.
i want you, to conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by any kind or type of (self)proclaimed feminist is an offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done in the name of and in the context of feminism, then actively militate against it.
that, is what i call being a feminist.
quotes from feminists/radical feminists + Show Spoiler +"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor. or just google "The Demon Lover" by her. "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas) "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female. "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins and honestly, i could go on the whole day but whats the point ...
|
On April 04 2014 13:35 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2014 12:09 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2014 11:33 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 11:18 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2014 10:56 Ercster wrote:On April 04 2014 10:26 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote:
Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why). Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity. Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish. For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for. Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that. Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded. The idea of equality shouldn't be discarded when removing feminism, just the name because so much negativity is being drawn just from the name alone. And if we change our ideas towards total equality, rather than specific equality, we can do so much more. With feminism and masculism not being different in whats being fought for (other than one being mainly for women and the other for men) keeping them separate hurts equality overall. We don't have individual movements for equal rights for each race, we have a collective, even though each race isn't equal. As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence. The point should not be to stop using the term feminism because some are misguided as to what feminism means - it should be to educate those people who are misguided either about the movement and/or about sexist stereotypes. There is nothing that "hurts equality" in having feminism - in fact, one could argue having "equalism" instead of feminism is probably what would, in reality, "hurt equality", since it would hide where most substantial disadvantages lie. Having the term "feminism" may help to better sensitize, when they do some research on the topic, people who were previously unaware of some of the disadvantages affecting women. On April 04 2014 11:33 Ercster wrote:
As a quick addition, I do side with the people who have argued that biology does play as significant a role, if not more, than environment does when it comes to "gender roles" and how they apply to what men and women do for things such as careers. I've read articles from psychology and biology journals and the APA, both have stated that biology is an important factor. However, I'm not going to spend the time to find said articles, so I don't want to get into that argument without the proper evidence. Well, then, you side with the people who are wrong. Since you mention the APA, let me direct you to this page from their website: Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills
Research debunks myths about cognitive difference.
Are boys better at math? Are girls better at language? If fewer women than men work as scientists and engineers, is that aptitude or culture? Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys and girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways -- differences that would matter in school or at work -- in how, and how well, they think.
[...]
The research shows not that males and females are - cognitively speaking -- separate but equal, but rather suggests that social and cultural factors influence perceived or actual performance differences. For example, in 1990, Hyde et al. concluded that there is little support for saying boys are better at math, instead revealing complex patterns in math performance that defy easy generalization. The researchers said that to explain why fewer women take college-level math courses and work in math-related occupations, "We must look to other factors, such as internalized belief systems about mathematics, external factors such as sex discrimination in education and in employment, and the mathematics curriculum at the precollege level."
Where the sexes have differed on tests, researchers believe social context plays a role. Spelke believes that later-developing differences in career choices are due not to differing abilities but rather cultural factors, such as subtle but pervasive gender expectations that really kick in during high school and college. Nobody is denying that there are some differences. But innate differences are minor, and the impact of inherent biological differences pales in comparison to the influence of environment on neural development. Innate biological sex differences aren't the relevant variable to explain structural differences in career choices - culture is. As I said in my post, I'm not going to get into the argument. I posted my stance on it merely to put it out there, not to discuss my evidence because I'm not committing the time to gathering it all. So it's nice that you put that there, and I've read it, but I've read articles that contradict that. So I'm no longer going to be discussing that point as it will only devolve into me explaining my point without evidence and someone wanting the evidence on my point.
Ok, fair enough.
On April 04 2014 13:35 Ercster wrote:
As for main discussion we've been having. Not surprisingly, educating the ignorant or misinformed about feminisim with an already misunderstood belief is an incredibly hard and pointless battle. The same battle can be often seen between the scientific and religious communities. It just devolves into a rock throwing contest because neither side (whether right or wrong) will agree that the other is right. And as stupid as it sounds, changing the word we use for the same cause can often bring the many who are misinformed into the correctly informed. The idea is similar if not identical to a marketing tool. Put out a product that garners very unfavorable reviews, change the products name with improvements to the product and the existing opinion of the original product is often not applied to the product with the changed name.
As an example of a similar idea, the game "War Z" was released as a finished product, even though it actually played like it was an alpha. Then, several weeks to a few months later, it was re-released with many improvements and under a different name "Infestation: Survivor Stories."
I don't see how what you suggest applies to this particular debate. You argue that people who do not understand, or are uninformed about, the disadvantages that women face, and who therefore hold misguided beliefs on the topic, are unlikely to be successfully educated on the issue. How would that change if we abandoned "feminism" and promoted "equalism" instead? Sure, they would adhere to "equalism" (except, obviously, those who do not want equality), but they would still hold their misguided beliefs and educating them on the issue would require just as much, if not more (since we would not have a movement addressing the specificity of the disadvantages faced by women), effort. Only using the term "equalism" could very well prevent them from further questioning the specificity of the oppressed status of women. Having feminism highlights instead that women are still on the oppressed side in most instances of differences between the sexes in our societies.
On April 04 2014 13:35 Ercster wrote:
Also, I feel compelled to correct you and the many others. Feminism, by definition, is the movement for gaining social, economic, and political rights for women. While some may also advocate for equal rights for men, feminism is not for the equality of men. It is solely specific for women to gain the rights that men have that women don't.
As Kwark explained, feminism is about fighting for equality between women and men. It does not aim to preserve women advantages in areas where women have advantages.
|
On April 05 2014 00:05 xM(Z wrote:i ignored the 'hyperbole'. there are plenty of (self)proclaimed feminists with screwed up ideas, ideas posted in this right here topic. name your pic. i wont bother listing more. i see no point in doing that. i am calling you out not feminism. i am calling you a hypocrite just as you've been calling a lot of people on this forums. what have you been doing for feminism besides keeping and preaching (at times even trying to enforce) your own idea of/about it, while reaping in the rewards of publicity for your cause granted by those "not real feminists" as you call them, when they publicly, pull/say some of the most outrageous bullshit people have ever seen?. have you actively condoned, criticized, invalidated any or at least some of the ideas floating in their heads?. i haven't seen you do that. all i've seen you do is, take a passive defensive stance, call them not real feminists or bad at feminism and that's the end of it (at best, you'd first disassociate that person from the(your) idea of feminism (based on ...? , you have membership cards or something?, and then go easy on him ...). how can you do that?. how can you do that while at the same time, lashing out at anyone that tries to criticize, not the feminism you believe in and hold dear, but those same radical extremists you consider "bad at feminism"?. .. and all you'll do now is give me some feminism 101 like in http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/faq-some-feminist-saiddid-something-offensivestupidcrazyevil-so-isnt-feminism-a-failure/ and bury me in catch phrases like Show nested quote +Feminists don’t have to defend any alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil actions of someone in order to defend the positive social movement of feminism. then as a conclusion, hit me with Show nested quote +Or should we conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by Fred Phelps reflects badly on all one-time civil rights lawyers, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act of Dick Cheney reflects badly on every father of a lesbian, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil song of James Blunt reflects badly on all one-time officers of the Household Cavalry Life Guards Regiment? as if it matters. i want you, to conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by any kind or type of (self)proclaimed feminist is an offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done in the name of and in the context of feminism, then actively militate against it. that, is what i call being a feminist. quotes from feminists/radical feminists + Show Spoiler +"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor. or just google "The Demon Lover" by her. "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas) "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female. "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins and honestly, i could go on the whole day but whats the point ...
Hold on 2 secs, why are you hating on feminism, when there are men saying stuff like this:
“Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.” – Joseph Stalin
“The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.” – Robert Mugabe
“You cannot run faster than a bullet.” – Idi Amin
“We need not fear the judgement of history. Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?” – Adolf Hitler
Why are you wasting time hating on the feminist movement, when the "Being a man" movement is so hateful?
|
On April 05 2014 01:22 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 00:05 xM(Z wrote:i ignored the 'hyperbole'. there are plenty of (self)proclaimed feminists with screwed up ideas, ideas posted in this right here topic. name your pic. i wont bother listing more. i see no point in doing that. i am calling you out not feminism. i am calling you a hypocrite just as you've been calling a lot of people on this forums. what have you been doing for feminism besides keeping and preaching (at times even trying to enforce) your own idea of/about it, while reaping in the rewards of publicity for your cause granted by those "not real feminists" as you call them, when they publicly, pull/say some of the most outrageous bullshit people have ever seen?. have you actively condoned, criticized, invalidated any or at least some of the ideas floating in their heads?. i haven't seen you do that. all i've seen you do is, take a passive defensive stance, call them not real feminists or bad at feminism and that's the end of it (at best, you'd first disassociate that person from the(your) idea of feminism (based on ...? , you have membership cards or something?, and then go easy on him ...). how can you do that?. how can you do that while at the same time, lashing out at anyone that tries to criticize, not the feminism you believe in and hold dear, but those same radical extremists you consider "bad at feminism"?. .. and all you'll do now is give me some feminism 101 like in http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/faq-some-feminist-saiddid-something-offensivestupidcrazyevil-so-isnt-feminism-a-failure/ and bury me in catch phrases like Feminists don’t have to defend any alleged offensive/stupid/crazy/evil actions of someone in order to defend the positive social movement of feminism. then as a conclusion, hit me with Or should we conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by Fred Phelps reflects badly on all one-time civil rights lawyers, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act of Dick Cheney reflects badly on every father of a lesbian, or that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil song of James Blunt reflects badly on all one-time officers of the Household Cavalry Life Guards Regiment? as if it matters. i want you, to conclude that every offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done by any kind or type of (self)proclaimed feminist is an offensive/stupid/crazy/evil act done in the name of and in the context of feminism, then actively militate against it. that, is what i call being a feminist. quotes from feminists/radical feminists + Show Spoiler +"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor. or just google "The Demon Lover" by her. "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas) "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female. "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins and honestly, i could go on the whole day but whats the point ... Hold on 2 secs, why are you hating on feminism, when there are men saying stuff like this: “Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.” – Joseph Stalin “The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.” – Robert Mugabe “You cannot run faster than a bullet.” – Idi Amin “We need not fear the judgement of history. Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?” – Adolf Hitler Why are you wasting time hating on the feminist movement, when the "Being a man" movement is so hateful?
Are you trolling or retarded?
Being a man =/= being a genocide
There is a difference between being a man and being a man activist (dunno how they are called), which none of the guys cited are. Morever, Comunism and Nazism are forms of colectivism, closer to feminism than other opposed ideologies, such as anarchism or libertarianism.
And those cunts (yes, I am using derogatory words) are not much better than Hitler or Stalin. If they were man saying the same (replacing men with women) they would be censored, fined and maybe even face jail time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
