Dodging the feminist label because you perceive it to have connotations that you find uber negative doesn't really make any statements about you having shifting viewpoints just as you were saying. That being said not everyone is shying away from the word so hopefully you don't associate individuals commenting in this thread who may label themselves as feminists as being linked to that...
Interesting series of documentaries about feminism - Page 30
Forum Index > General Forum |
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
Dodging the feminist label because you perceive it to have connotations that you find uber negative doesn't really make any statements about you having shifting viewpoints just as you were saying. That being said not everyone is shying away from the word so hopefully you don't associate individuals commenting in this thread who may label themselves as feminists as being linked to that... | ||
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
Farrell seems to have left NOW since he didn't agree with the organization's stance regarding joint custody. I agree with him there. The real criticism against him seems to be because of a piece he wrote regarding rape. And especially this sentence: "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting." The youtube clip calls the quote out of context. But it isn't really. "And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no." How about just having people say yes when they mean it? I actually get his point, but it's pretty offensive to someone who said no and got raped. Have fun trying to get the perpetrator convicted if he just misread the cues. The piece from FriaTider was a real wtf-moment. Seems to be pure bullshit. I'm amazed they even found 35 people who shared that view and isn't under 20! Edit: By the way, as to the discussion about who and who isn't a feminist. I consider myself a feminist. I don't see it as urgently needed as 50 years ago here in Sweden, but in other countries I'm bothered by the gender inequality. I see gender inequality as strongly intertwined with inequality in society as a whole though. One of these can not come at the expense of the other. | ||
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 09 2014 23:09 Wombat_NI wrote: That's the issue though. There are people like that in any group , but the people you're trying to influence often can't 'look past it'. It frustrates me no end that people want to see a shift in societal norms, but refuse to engage in a less antagonistic engagement with those of differing views in order to achieve it. Antagonizing the other party is not the problem though, because that's oftentimes how social change comes about. The feminists who fought for the right to vote and the various other things that they now have, they didn't do it by staying in the kitchen. They took the the streets and shouted loudly against oppression. They targeted their enemy and went after them. At the time, it was easier though; most men were the enemy, or supported the status quo. The problem is that there's a small minority of extremist feminists who are not antagonizing people who are NOT the problem, and don't really support the status quo. Sexism still obviously exists and it's a problem that we have to deal with, and proper feminists will show this by bringing up the various inequalities which persist to this day in most countries, states/provinces/cities or sometimes informally in certain subcultures. Explaining that it's there is only the first step, because change doesn't come from pointing out a problem, because merely raising awareness about a perceived injustice won't fix the problem on its own. The issues are sometimes subtle and deeply ingrained in our daily lives. Anita Sarkeesian is a good example of someone who's doing counterproductive work. She's raising awareness that the gaming industry, largely based around the consumption of videogames by a majority of males, often has male fantasy elements in them.... not unlike pornography, big fucking cars, beer, etc. All those things show that certain industries do in fact favor male "interests" which are thought to be prevalent according to market studies. Is there sexism? Certainly. Does the fact that the gaming industry develop games based around male interests represent sexism? Not necessarily, it's just capitalism at work. Market studies show that the best demographic to sell full-priced games to is men, make games for them, make money. There are two elements at play: men sometimes enjoy games with sexist themes (whether or not they carry this with them in their life), and men have their big male fantasies where they shoot up a bunch of guys. Now that I have this information, what the fuck am I to do with it? I've saved princess peach, I've played game with male fantasy themes in them and have enjoyed many of those. So how does showing me a list of possibly sexist cultural elements in games do for me? Nothing. So what does it do? Well it gets people riled up because it antagonizes people who are essentially innocent. It's bad to attack the wrong people, because no one wins when Sarkeesian does that. Change will not stem from her very shortsighted approach, but there's worse than her out there. There's the fact that some of them have now decided to antagonize "liberal, cisgendered white males" as a classification of people who are hostile to feminism. I happen to be one of those, and I consider myself to be 100% for equality between men and women, but I'm critical of the means that are used because they're simply ineffective, sometimes even counterproductive, and in some cases even a bit immoral. The term "cis"' short for "cisgendered" (gender identity where an individual's experience of their own gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth), is now used by some feminists as a derogatory label to attack white men in general because they're representative of their oppression no matter what they do. So you're the enemy. I'm the enemy. Unless I admit that I'm the enemy, in which case I'm still just a less dangerous enemy. And by writing this and questioning the methods used by the minority of extremist feminists, I'm automatically tagged as a sexist person by them, because a man like myself surely can't have positive intentions. When I do the same thing and criticize people who hold political affiliations which are close to mine, I don't get labeled an "enemy of social democracy". I'm merely critical of some of the doctrine. Anyways, cheers. | ||
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
Even on Team Liquid, if you voice any opinion that isn't text book feminist about gay rights, trans people or gender, you'll hear about it pretty harshly. The idea that anyone that disagrees with your ideology is objectively wrong and evil is a problem that permeates both sides and draws everyone closer to the extremes, which is why another reason I say I'm closer to centrist than anything. I agree with KwarK on a lot of things for instance, but I only ever post in threads where we disagree, because I don't want to contribute to the echo chamber. I probably come off as a contentious dick because of it. @Arevall The entire quote is + Show Spoiler + If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying. Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work with over 150,000 men and women – about half of whom are single – the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his. We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No”. They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women’s most enduring romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O’Hara to bed, who is a hero to females – not to males – in Gone With the Wind (the best selling romance novel of all time – to women). It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” It was in a chapter that was directed at the fine line between consent and non-consent in certain scenarios, the typical romance scenarios where the woman says no but doesn't mean it and everything is passionate and blah blah, or when a couple goes home drunk and has sex, where they're both in a committed relationship and both too inebriated to consent. Is it always rape if they're drunk? Where's the line between passionate and non-consensual? I guess I can "get it" more than most though, my first ex was both open about her rape fetish and committed to waiting until marriage, which threw some weird mixed signals my way. We never did anything PiV because of it, though I'm pretty sure she was down but just didn't want to say it, purely because I didn't want to push her into something she didn't want to get my jimmies off. I can see where the problem most people have with it, but the people in the video saying that it's pro-rape rather than a discussion of rape is and isn't is extremely disingenuous, or would be had they actually known the context and still implied otherwise. I differentiate feminists into two categories internally, people who believe in equality but don't actually do the academics of gender studies, and people who do. The former I define as egalitarians, the latter as feminists, because it's hard to be part of a movement you don't know the history, tenets or ideology of. | ||
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote: I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does. If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. | ||
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote: If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. | ||
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote: Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a poll? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? | ||
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote: Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. | ||
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
BTW are we still talking about the label or only the movement at this point regardless of the label. | ||
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On April 10 2014 01:19 puppykiller wrote: I can't speak for anyone else but I don't blame you for shedding the label if you feel it associates you with fanatics. This is so long as you are ok with individuals occasionally keeping the label who don't feel like it associates them with these fanatics. BTW are we still talking about the label or only the movement at this point regardless of the label. Well as a fellow man, I would ofc argue anything that benefits people of my kind. ![]() | ||
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
I'll just class them as egalitarians in my head. | ||
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
| ||
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote: Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. On April 10 2014 01:27 RockIronrod wrote: I'd say any movement IS it's followers, but even removing fanatics I disagree on some things in the overall movement (the WHO's stance on custody as seen above, the focus on western media and ideals rather than the constant atrocities suffered by women in other countries and the general us versus them stance I see a lot). I support anyone fighting for equal rights and opportunities for all people, so regardless of whatever someone labels themselves as, if they truly want equality I'm with them. I'll just class them as egalitarians in my head. I disagree with that stance on custody, the only feminist commercials on tv are about the atrocities in 3rd world countries so I don't think its fair to say the focus of the overall movement is on western ideals, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by feminist movements to send girls to school in those countries. To me feminism is just being against oppression against women. I'm of course against oppression against anyone so i consider myself a feminist. It's not very intelligent to use your anecdotal evidence of "seeing us versus them a lot" to define the overall movement especially when there are people of both genders on both sides. | ||
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
At school I took an elective about societies and cultures where the first lesson I learnt was to be open minded about different societies and cultures. The second lesson I learnt was to never challenge the ideas I was taught. The glass ceiling was because of the patriarchy, gender roles are social constructs that must be broken down, love and respect Dr. Money for he is your new god, male problems are secondary to female problems. That's what got me on the track to disagreeing with the overall movement, the idea that I wasn't allowed to. It's where I got to see the difference between someone who says they're a feminist and someone who actually majors in it's studies. The latter is rarely ever a moderate. On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote: you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. I disagree with that stance on custody, the only feminist commercials on tv are about the atrocities in 3rd world countries so I don't think its fair to say the focus of the overall movement is on western ideals, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by feminist movements to send girls to school in those countries. To me feminism is just being against oppression against women. I'm of course against oppression against anyone so i consider myself a feminist. It's not very intelligent to use your anecdotal evidence of "seeing us versus them a lot" to define the overall movement especially when there are people of both genders on both sides. I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? | ||
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
| ||
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote: You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies. Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either. If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed. | ||
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On April 10 2014 02:44 xM(Z wrote: but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed. Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that? | ||
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote: What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?) I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like. Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great. | ||
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On April 10 2014 02:48 GoTuNk! wrote: There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?) I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like. Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great. I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly? | ||
| ||