Feminism

I would actually argue it, I don't like the word. Me being pansexual has that affect on me. But it doesn't change the fact that when in another country I will be offered to "Suck on a ***" in a completely different way then here in America. I feel people should learn the root of the word they are saying and we would have that nonsense stopped. Now to your other point I think you just disproved it. You argue the fact that words are taken to be by there culture and era. You have argued to me that Skinhead means Neo-Nazi and that I should conform to this definition, what if people go out of there way to take the word back? You brought up the plight of the LGBTQI community and it's sulr directed at them. Back when that word was used they were considered immoral and wrong. The same time the United Kingdom National Front decided to change the culture of Skinhead and Rude Boy in a group of White Nationalists instead of the Jamaican Immigrants and Working Class Londonites who loved their music. Now most of the world believe the LGBTQI community are not in fact immoral and a movement in new York in the late 1980's set to take back the term Skinhead as a Militant Working Class Rude Boy not a Aryan Supremacist. If anything you are the one not accepting the words definition changing. You are the one stuck in time where feminists are seen as She-Devils and Homophobia ran rampant. But that's just me assuming.

 

You assume much. I do not live in a time where feminists are she-devils. I live in a time where certain groups of women call themselves feminists incorrectly, and as a direct result of my interactions with them, the term itself leaves a bad taste in my mouth. You are arguing so much over semantics and my own perosnal use of a word (notice I have never said that my use of the word is correct or that it is the true meaning of feminism).

And yes, if enough people tried to take "skinhead" back, then the definition would change again. I never said it wouldn't. What even gave you that idea? I just said that as things are now, that is what "skinhead" means.

 

Okay, I see some different things here. Let's break this down.

Which is one problem most people are having with you: you've decided to be wrong on purpose.

So, this is about how you feel. Well, have you considered the feelings of others? I mean, you ought to if you want others to respect or at least acknowledge your own feelings. If the crux of this entire argument is how you feel, then let's talk feelings here for a second. I don't feel very nice when you take a term that I identify as because I think it's a helpful identity and a powerful, legitimate movement for the betterment of all genders, binary and non-binary. You are, essentially, discriminating. Let's look at why.

You might acknowledge that the Nazi's were bad guys. You know, we're talking specifically about the people who killed and mass-murdered Jews either because they were told to or for the sport of it, or because of their own convictions. Those guys. You might find them despicable, but does that mean you find all German Nationalists (for German Nationalism was one Nazi ideal), past and present, to be utterly despicable people because they're vaguely associated with Nazis and for no other reason?

The truth is that not all Feminists have hurt you. Some have, but if you had come to me and told me about what they did without also transplanting your dislike for them onto everyone else in the movement, I would have been entirely sympathetic. Nobody deserves to be made to feel poorly about themselves as a human being, but right now you're really contributing to the problem by lumping me and other people on this website in with those people. You've taken your far-away problem and brought it here. You've made it personal.

And you're justifying it because you feel like your tantrum is more worthy of recognition that anyone else's personal feelings.

Your argument is based on something you don't even believe, for if your use of the word is not its true meaning, then your application of the word cannot support the logic of your argument; therefore, the basis for your argument is solely the fact that someone hurt your feelings and you want us to feel sorry for you even as you knowingly lump us in with that person, despite admitting that it is wrong of you to do so. Do you see, right now, why some of us would have a problem with that?

So, instead of making blanket statements that allude to people being out to get you with their ideologies, why not take the word "Feminism" back? Put your efforts into re-shaping the way that other people who have felt hurt see the word. Be a force for what you believe in as opposed to being a force for something you don't.

 

Since everyone seems intent on misunderstanding everything I've been saying, and nothing I've said to try and further explain what I'm on about has made any progress whatsoever, I think I'll simply take my leave of this thread. Good day, everyone.

 

Since the topic seems to be about feminism as a word and those that choose to indenting with it. I'd like to say that anyone that says they are a feminist instantly is someone I believe is gonna be a radical, kill all men blah blah blah whatever kind. Those kinds of feminist have highjacked the word. You guys seem to think yami should fight to take it back. That's what I'm seeing, but why. It's not his word, you guys fight and take it back.

Feminism is dumb and a waste of time. Abandon it and move onto "everyone is equalism" I don't know it's name.

 

Here's something else on-topic for those that wish to view it: http://hellogiggles.com/tk-male-celebrity-feminists-love

Humanism. You're thinking of Humanism.

Which is fine. Everyone's a humanist in theory.

Humanism includes Feminism, however. Saying we should abandon Feminism in favor of Humanism is dumb, because the definition of Humanism requires that we be Feminists. We aren't defined by our radicals. Would you assume that every middle-eastern man on a plane is a terrorist, just because it's the terrorists that everyone remembers? I assume you would not, so don't be so insensitive here, either. The reason why I told Yami he should "take back Feminism" was mostly because, allegedly, his ideals actually do fall in line with real Feminism; he's talked about being a Humanist before, too. So, in a way, it is his word. Even if it wasn't, he shouldn't be actively supporting and recognizing people who are an ignorant and hurtful minority of a group as defining that group; that only gives them validity and is offensive to everyone in the group. And we are fighting to take it back, that was the whole premise of our conversation with him in the first place. But people who choose to be willfully ignorant are always going to be a roadblock in progressive and humanistic movements, which Feminism is, whether you personally recognize it or no.

 

Egalitarian was the word I was looking for.

You can abandon it, keep it or whatever. True equality is impossible, it's like having a utopia. It just can't happen, now I'm guessing that isn't what everyone is fighting for or maybe it is, I dunno.

"We aren't defined by a radicals" I like that line, it's similar enough to "not all _____" Like how people say not all men do that or not all atheist think that way, not all bronies. The think about that kind line and logic is that mostly feminist seem to think it goes on the way they won't it to. Now I'm not saying you think that way, just your majority. They seem to be the problem. If I count up the feminist I've ever met and label them good or bad, the majority are bad. Do I think all middle eastern people are terrorist, nope. Then again I can't say I've ever met a middle eastern person. I've met a lot of feminist though, but I've done that point already. If the minority of feminist are the true ones then maybe they need to pull the reins on the radical ones, but I've said that as well. If my view on feminist and their movement causes a road block, I'm more then glad to stand in the way. It matters not to me what becomes of the word, it's meaning or movement.

I should say that I had a anti-SJW blog for 6-7 months. I'm well aware of the radical types, I've been called names for trying to have a simple discussion. It takes just a simple "I disagree" to get me blocked. Now I disagree with their views on things and whatnot, but I didn't hate them. I tried to be reasonable with them. Which is currently what you seem to be doing. Which is nice, though I don't thing you count as a SJW.

Did you know that feminist once stole a bunch of swimsuit calendars because it oppressed women. That was great, really stuck it to the man.


Like I dunno man, we'll see where this goes. I'm open to your ideas and such, I'm just not really into the whole thing. I probably agree with you on most things anyway, just I'll never call myself a feminist.

 

I, too, appreciate the civility of our current discussion.

The stealing of swimsuit calenders is really just an immature person lashing out at the world; they might have politically correct ideals, but their execution is wrong. Those kinds of self-proclaimed Feminists are the definition of a "rebel without a cause" which I'm sure is a phrase you've heard before. They'll lash out at anyone they don't like and justify it by a cause whose definition doesn't actually associate itself with their actions. They're just immature. The real Feminists among us can't really do a lot about them; they're going to say what they say, and we just have to keep trying to educate people and let them know better (kind of like myself and a handful of others have been attempting to do in this thread).

I do appreciate that you brought up the "Not All Men" commentary. I'd like to mention something that most people don't seem to want to admit about the "Not All Men" statement; it isn't technically incorrect, and therefore its validity is contained within its relevance to the discussion in which it is being said. To put it plainly, "Not All _____" is only a facile argument when it doesn't address the prompt. Below are some examples of what I mean.

BAD:

Person A: "Men shouldn't put down women based on their appearances."
Person B: "Not all men do that!"
Person A: "That doesn't change the fact that it happens, or the fact that there is a link between the instances where it occurs."

GOOD:

Person A: "Men shouldn't put down women based on their appearances."
Person B: "I agree. And since not all men put down women based on their appearances, we can infer that this behavior is learned. Maybe we should try to figure out why some men do this. It might solve the problem."
Person A: "Okay, that sounds helpful."

The difference is typically just that: is the person making the "Not All _____" argument adding to discussion by trying to recognize what the other person is saying and find a solution to the problem, or are they using the "Not All ______" argument to defensively distract from the discussion without adding anything helpful?

You say that what happens to the word "Feminism" doesn't matter to you, but what happens to the movement does.

I disagree. I think you're focusing on words as opposed to actions.

Think about it. For the premise of this next example, let's say I tell everyone that I'm a Conservative Republican (I'm referencing United States political parties, for anyone following along). I keep telling everyone I'm a Conservative Republican. However, I only vote for Democrats. I only give my support to Liberal companies. I only advocate Liberal policies. I run for office as a Democrat, but tell everyone, "I'm a Conservative Republican." I get elected as a Democrat and push Liberal policies, all the while repeating the same statement, "I am a Conservative Republican."

You'll notice that in that example, there's a disconnect with what I tell you I am and the things I'm actually doing. Just because someone says something to you doesn't mean that they're telling the truth. I might like the idea of identifying as a Conservative Republican, but at some point or another that just becomes untrue when I only support Democratic politicians and Liberal policies. It's a matter of fact versus fiction.

Well, some of the people claiming to be Feminists are just like that. They might say that they're Feminists, but their actions contradict their words. Look at their actions and you will soon understand what sort of person they are; don't let yourself be fooled. There are two types of meaning in the English language: denotative and connotative. Denotative meanings are dictionary definitions. Those are the meanings of a word that everyone shares. We can all be made aware of what the dictionary says about a word. Connotative meanings, however, are a little different. The connotative meaning is the context inside a person's head that they give to that word when it is said; these secondary meanings are usually rooted in personal emotions. Most of the anti-Feminist things I read on the internet are reactions to the connotative meanings of the word, "Feminism." Feminism has developed a negative cultural connotation, partly because it was so opposed to the mainstream culture during the time it was created, and partly because there are very many people who falsely say they are Feminists while doing things that aren't congruent with the denotative meaning of Feminism.

Both denotative meanings and connotative meanings can change over time, and the development of each affects the other. Words, however, are very slow to take on a new denotative meanings, whereas connotations change with the seasons. A connotation can flip around in a single day. So, understand that your personal negative feelings surrounding Feminism are rooted in these misleading things; you and many others have been guided to a definition of Feminism that is rooted in your own personal feelings and is not based in reality, both because it is merely a connotation and because its inception was caused by people of ill will.

 

Now, this is a thread I can get behind.

I am feminist, yes. However, I don't believe in the idea of feminine supremacy, but rather, I advocate for the concept of equality in terms of biological sex, that none of the three sexes are at any inherent disadvantage due to the crapshoot that is a Punnett square. I do not believe in granting either sex more rights than are deserved, that neither can be endowed with rights that infringe upon those of others.

I do think better of women as people in general, yes, but that is because I have met nearly without exception only men who are either exceptionally horrid and cruel human beings or complete boors. This, however, is a statement of personal subjectivity, and that is not to say that my position is immutable and cannot be changed by seeing significant proof to the contrary.

I'm going to stop this post before I completely wreck whatever point I was trying to make.

 

I haven't read the topic - in my experience, topics like this become inflammatory very quickly - but in a way, I am both feminist and anti-feminist. (To put this in perspective, I am male.)

I recognize many many many instances the world over where females are simply treated like crap, especially younger ones. A personal friend of mine has been beaten by her family and schoolmates. I'm enraged when I see men trivialize the suffering of women in comparison to whatever challenges their fragile masculinity.

In middle-eastern countries, they practice female circumcision, here defined as "gross mutilation of the female body without consent, anesthetics, or sterilized equipment." When average men are told about this they immediately begin downplaying it in the mistaken belief that modern, professional, male circumcision is so much worse. It is not. Male circumcision is ****ing nothing. From what I can see, this fallacy is just because men are scared of anything that threatens their manhood. It's cowardly, pathetic, and disgusting.

Feminism is also one of the best poster childs for the worst face principle. "Bad" feminists are some of the worst bad people there are, and as in any other group, they are also the loudest. This means that, despite most likely being a minority of extremists, they overshadow feminism and make it look like an evil, because people like to hear bad news more than they like to hear good news (so long as it is about somebody else.)

These bad feminists piss me off because they are, ironically, sexist against women. They are merely enforcing a different standard than the one they are fighting against.

 

I wouldn't say that male genital mutilation is worse than female genital mutilation, nor would I say it's easier. It's cutting off part of an unconsenting person's genitals. That is horrendous either way. I quite don't understand you saying that it's "Nothing." It is the exact same thing. The idea that men not wanting their genitals to be mutilated is just, and I quote, "cowardly, pathetic, and disgusting" is actually rather cruel.

I do agree that your idea of "bad feminists" are incredibly toxic and backwards. However, I do not think there is such thing as a "good feminist." At best, there are gender egalitarians who call themselves feminists, like Christina Hoff Summers. I wouldn't call them feminists because they understand that men face inequality in this world too and that it isn't okay. The worst I could say about her though is that maybe she is using the wrong term.

 

Dude, you're kinda my hero for this paragraph alone.

 

My opinion,

Feminism in modern western countries is for the most part, attention-whoring and the result of people not having anything better to do, as well as a social media fad. In modern western countries, there is no reason for feminism to exist. Women already possess equal rights to men and are overrepresented in certain fields just like men are overrepresented in others. As for the wage gap, any wage gap that exists is there because men and women to difference of jobs that men and women tend to pursue. Heavy manual labor jobs like working on an oil rig are obviously going to be paid better than a job as a daycare attendant, for instance. When comparing people of both genders in the same field, with the same experience, women tend to earn the same amount of money. In many places, women actually have more opportunities than men because of women-only scholarships and affirmative action.

That's not to say that some private companies sometimes discriminate, but in general, that is by far not the norm, and many modern feminists don't even challenge these issues, instead focusing on the superficial such as guys hitting on them in the street or guys preferring skinny models.
There is no valid reason for feminism to exist in the 21st century in the west.

The rest of the world, the question is different...but how often do you hear today's facebook feminists protest and scream at the plight of women in Iran? Not often, because that issue is serious and requires a lot more effort to fight, and they aren't interested in fighting, they just want the attention and something to do. Of course, there are exceptions, but I am talking about the movement as it shows on the internet in the modern day.

By our nature, biology, men and women ARE different and still possess different roles to play in society. Men and women have certain biological instincts and tendencies. It's in our DNA. When society messes with it, society becomes weaker on the whole.
I don't oppose Feminism, as it is in it's traditional role of promoting equal opportunity and rights for both genders, but I oppose modern "youtube feminism" of attention whoring and the "hate all men" movement of trying purposefully to appear unattractive and act argumentative.

Just my 2 cents.

 

responding to OP, I call myself a feminist.

To me, the word means equality and justice. It especially means having the freedom to be what you want to be.

Feminism isn't solely for women. It's for me as well. I gain benefits from treating women with respect. Many of those benefits are intangible, but some are very much not.

I have been granted an amazing array of rights and privileges that a few hundred years ago would have been reserved for kings. I find it transcendentally meaningful to fight not for my own rights, but for the rights of others.

Do women need the help? No. They can do it on their own. But I like women, and I believe that everyone deserves the chance to be true to themselves without society's inappropriate interference. So even if the tiny bit of will I have is unneeded, I'm still going to place it in what I think is right.

I want to know what new planets of our potential will be found when women are represented well in leadership, are treated with dignity everywhere, and are allowed to pursue their happiness unhindered by the rules of human society.

 

Okay let's get down to business...

I see many feminists out there saying that the online feminist community are misguided and are not true feminists and I call Bull**** on that one!
That's the True Scotsman fallacy saying that someone is not associated with you or your group in anyway because you view them as embarrassing or wrong. A good example is Christianity funny enough. There are loads of belief systems who believe in God and Jesus and they are Catholics, protestants, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Baptists. They have very different views but all have the same core beliefs which are they all worship God, Jesus and the holy Spirit however they all still say that one is not a true a christian because they are wrong in one aspect or their beliefs alter slightly and this is essentially the same with passive Feminists and extreme Feminists.

Right on to the controversial topic of Abortion. Dun Dun Dunnnn so menacing I know!

Right first off I am pro-choice and I bet many here will agree with me. If say a woman is sexually assaulted and in fact gets impregnated I believe that she has the choice to abort it or not instead of horrifyingly go through labour and conceive a horrid accented which will torment you for life...unless you end up like that Irish woman who could not get aborted in Ireland (Massive Catholic influence) and thus conceives the baby and a few months later police found out she travels to the outback of Australia and threw the baby out of the car and left him for dead.I also disagree that it should be use as a substitute for birth control, I can make exceptions if the condom snapped or that the pill somehow didn't work (but then you should get better brands and not just ****!)
Now I also believe that two consenting adults should make the decision. The man and the woman both equally should decide that faith...if not then that defeats the purpose of feminism You may argue that it's the woman's body so it's her choice and I am with you there but as Ripley Wolf said.

And he sums up the topic quite nicely. ( I will put in that there is a difference from a two week old fetus and a one month old baby outside the womb. One is just a construct of cells and is hardly sentient, doesn't feel anything....yet. The other is a baby whom feels pain, has emotions, thoughts and ideas.)

*Stands up and claps loudly* Bulaladh Bos, I agree with you one hundred percent! Oh I wish more where like you.

Hoho, well this is were we differ in opinions I'm afraid..

Right so when someone attends a party you obviously drink, unless it's like a birthday party of course. Now tell me why can you be be accountable for DUI but then will not be countable for consenting to sex while drunk? Yes one you obviously drove to the pub and drank knowing you will drive home and thus causing accidents all over the place........but.... What if you were planning on getting a taxi or calling a friend? Well you would be intoxicated so you would not make rational decisions and when on your seventh point you gave the barman a fifty and happily chirped "Keep the change!" Well obviously this would cause problems no?
So is it their fault that they are too intoxicated or is it their fault that they weren't responsible to count their intake?? The answer is Yes!

So in regards to the person too drunk to give consent then it is their fault to some degree, they should be more responsible with their alcohol intake however I would agree that it is the mans fault for advancing on her while she is intoxicated and I agree if the plausible thing happens (Many feminists disagree though) that it happens to men as well when they're intoxicated. (Gasp a male saying it's another males fault? Impossibuluuuu) I still say it's partially their fault and it's the other woman's fault for advancing while the other was drunk (Or it could be man on man or women on woman.)

 

Wow, so much of that last post was rude that even reading it left a dirty taste in my mouth. Please try not to be so aggressive and volatile when expressing your opinions here.

In regards to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you don't seem to understand it. In logic, that fallacy applies where there is no definition for the "Scotsman" in question, but the statement that the extremist feminists are not true feminists is based in a dennotative definition of feminism, and thus that fallacy does not apply. Do you judge all Christians by the standards of the ancient crusaders? Do you judge all Muslims by the standards of Al Qaeda? Do you judge all White Americans by the standards of the Ku Klux Klan? If not, you may wish to reconsider your sweeping judgements of feminists. If the answer is yes, then perhaps you have more than one view to reconsider.

That's all I'm willing to say at this point. I don't mind having disagreements but please come back when you can post without peppering inflammatory phrases and instigatory comments; those are not appreciated here.

 

Well I apologize if the last comment seemed rude and offensive I assure you I did not mean anything by it. My point was made not out of malice but of me thinking about the situation, seeing how you did not refute it makes it seem like you agree to some extent. I was not trying to victim blame, it may appear to be the case but I am not. What I am trying to say is that if you are at a party with strangers and you fear of being take vantage of then why consume so much alcohol? If they were merely to drink a few cans then that would lower the risk of giving consent when in fact you are too drunk to be able to give it. The way I see it they are both at fault. The man more so for advancing on someone who is unable to give consent.

You claim to be a Feminist. You say that men are equal and gender is not an issue. Online feminists argue saying men are Misogynistic and all are not redeemable. You agree life for women in America is not completely equal but is better then third world countries were they are practically objects and stay at home and cook and clean and wear the Hijab, not showing any of her face bar her eyes. Online tumbler feminists seem to think that men are all privileged and women are dirt!
Now since you seem to say that feminism is about equal rights and not women superiority and you see that life for women in the western world is far better then women in the middle east. You don't think all men are Misogynistic you say

I believe the "No true Scotsman Fallacy does appear here. No true Scotsman is use to distinguish one bad egg from a group. Anthony flew who created the phrase describe a Scotsman who learned a fellow Scotsman done a violent act, upon hearing this he then said "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
There is smaller versions that do with keeping an image and lively hood of a certain group or thing. Say no Catholic, no Brony or yes no Feminist would say or believe a certain thing making a argument saying that they are not truelove the thing they claim to be.
See here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I

Do I judge all white Americans for the KKK? Yes, the white Americans who started it and shared the belief in the twentieth century that now died with their dying organisation. Do I judge all Christians on the crusades? Do I judge Muslims on the actions of Al Quida or Isis? Of course not. I judge their religion and the message it spreads not the people who follow it. Now I never attacked feminism or acted judgmental of it I am only saying that you denied twitter and tumbler feminists as real feminists, I pointed this out and all of the sudden you jump on my back saying I am hostile and I discriminate against feminists?

Well you may see it like that but I did not, or tried not to be malicious full of hatred, acquisitive.....

 

I really hate being in these threads, but after misclicking and seeing this post, I can say this essentially sums up my whole stance on the topic.

 

I really don't enjoy threads like this too much, not because of the topic but because of how negative some responses can be. While I can say that some people do wrong things in the name of "feminism," I don't think it's right to slander the whole movement. I feel like feminism is actually a good thing, and while women do have the same rights as men, that does not mean that they are always given proper respect or even access to these rights. Sexism is still very alive, just as racism is. Since the beginning of gender roles, women have been treated as objects and possessions. They have been stereotyped and ridiculed just because of biological factors they cannot control. I think feminism wouldn't have to be such a "radical" movement if people just worked off of the implicit agreement that sexism, like racism, is bad; and actually try to break down gender stereotypes and biases instead of bickering over why women shouldn't be fighting for the overall respect they deserve.