|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
|
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote:
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late. That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues. On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote:
You have no clue what you're talking about. Loving that projection. He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
|
On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote:
This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
The fact that they don't, or that they're so disorganized, is the reason they lack the support they could otherwise have.
|
On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Oh God, here we go again.
"Why do people advocate for gay rights? Why not promote humanism?"
"Why can't racial minorities promote x rights? Why don't they try to be American?"
|
On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Almost all ideologies end up inconsistent at one pass or another. Humanism as a literary genre is wonderful, as a political movement it is simply far too lukewarm. Feminism, as a surviving political label, suggests that there are still enough problems to merit a gendered approach to equality. Clearly, you do not believe this is the case, and that is where the disagreement ought take place, not over a fantasy world in which folks yearn to identify with the most consistent ideology.
On May 27 2014 02:52 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote:
This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
The fact that they don't, or that they're so disorganized, is the reason they lack the support they could otherwise have.
If you're of the mind that the black rights movement really took off once the NAACP opened their central office, you're sorely mistaken. That's simply not how social movements work. Sure, there is a general trend with which the progress of a movement and its relative organization both increase in similar amounts, but the war over who gets to represent what movement is a conflict that never ends.
|
On May 27 2014 02:55 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. Oh God, here we go again. "Why do people advocate for gay rights? Why not promote humanism?" "Why can't racial minorities promote x rights? Why don't they try to be American?"
Gays face far, far more discrimination than women or minorities. For your second question, this is actually what I believe. Racism/sexism are exacerbated by people trying to split off everyone into separate camps instead of looking at integrative policies.
|
On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote:
This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
They almost can be in the information age. Every movement nowadays ends up with a website they all frequent, either by design or happenstance. The Social Justice crowd has tumblr, atheists have r/atheism, young conservatives have /pol/, etc.
Now, they're not nearly as organized as central offices or the like, but they become hive-minds.
I'd almost go so far as to say the ease of communication in the modern era is actually hurting social movements. It's much easier for them to get co-opted by idiots nowadays. Thats why /pol/ is slowly becoming all Nazi's, r/atheism is becoming a bunch of edgy kids, and the Social Justice tumblr blogs put "trigger warnings" on everything.
|
United States43673 Posts
On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
|
On May 27 2014 02:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote:
This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
They almost can be in the information age. Every movement nowadays ends up with a website they all frequent, either by design or happenstance. The Social Justice crowd has tumblr, atheists have r/atheism, young conservatives have /pol/, etc. Now, they're not nearly as organized as central offices or the like, but they become hive-minds. I'd almost go so far as to say the ease of communication in the modern era is actually hurting social movements. It's much easier for them to get co-opted by idiots nowadays. Thats why /pol/ is slowly becoming all Nazi's, r/atheism is becoming a bunch of edgy kids, and the Social Justice tumblr blogs put "trigger warnings" on everything.
"They almost can" and "they can" are dangerously more different than their appearance would suggest. Furthermore, I would argue that the apparent unification of social movements that comes with internet based interaction is, if anything, just another shorthand way of referencing things that cannot be easily referenced. There is simply far too much confirmation and access bias that goes into the forming of internet communities, so much so that to readily assume that most end up significantly different than their real life counterparts seems very appropriate.
|
On May 27 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. Almost all ideologies end up inconsistent at one pass or another. Humanism as a literary genre is wonderful, as a political movement it is simply far too lukewarm. Feminism, as a surviving political label, suggests that there are still enough problems to merit a gendered approach to equality. Clearly, you do not believe this is the case, and that is where the disagreement ought take place, not over a fantasy world in which folks yearn to identify with the most consistent ideology.
Your problem is that you are falsely equivocating the two concepts of an ideology and a political movement. An ideology you subscribe to because you agree with it's ideas, a political movement is something that can only succeed the ideology not preceed it.
Yes, if I subscribe to an ideology it better be consistent with my own world-views, I see no point in subscribing to an ideology if that ideology doesn't accurately reflect my own beliefs.
I really despise this kind of new-age thinking where everyone needs to subscribe to an ideology, people can no longer have their own opinions and beliefs because we need to standardize everything, every thought is part of an ideology, people's beliefs and their worldviews must always necessarily be the result of some ideology, it's almost unthinkable that people just have their own opinions and beliefs and therefore don't feel the need to subscribe to any particular ideology.
And all this does is it exposes the biggest problem of people like you and Kwark, you don't self-identify as feminists because you agree with the ideology as a whole(which Kwark even admitted to an extent) but because you are political animals with an agenda.
So can we stop pretending that this is an intellectual debate and not just people with political agendas choosing whatever political movement they can best make use of to advance their own political agenda irrespective of wether or not they even agree with the ideology behind it?
|
United States43673 Posts
On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote:
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late. That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues. On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote:
You have no clue what you're talking about. Loving that projection. He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol
That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
|
On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it.
How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and pretend to be subscribed to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
|
On May 27 2014 02:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:55 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. Oh God, here we go again. "Why do people advocate for gay rights? Why not promote humanism?" "Why can't racial minorities promote x rights? Why don't they try to be American?" Gays face far, far more discrimination than women or minorities. For your second question, this is actually what I believe. Racism/sexism are exacerbated by people trying to split off everyone into separate camps instead of looking at integrative policies.
My point is that they all strive for equality. In most cases, especially today, feminism, racial equality, and gay rights are a branch of humanism. Feminism raises issues concerning gender, racial equality raises issues concerning race, and gay rights raises issues concerning equality for gays. Whenever I hear someone use the "humanist" argument, I cannot help but wonder if the person thinks the ideology in question is not for humanity, but rather for some kind of supremacy.
|
United States43673 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
|
On May 27 2014 03:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote:
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late. That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues. On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote:
You have no clue what you're talking about. Loving that projection. He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues. lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself:
"the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
|
On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
|
United States43673 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:13 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:09 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:52 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:38 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:29 Dknight wrote:On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote:
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late. That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues. On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote:
You have no clue what you're talking about. Loving that projection. He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues. Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly. There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA. But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades. Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues. lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted. That evasion lol Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
|
United States43673 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
|
On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
|
On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:09 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 02:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote:
Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work. Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals. They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it. I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender. Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive ( feminism)? If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple. I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap. They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female). That is not something consistent with humanism. Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
