Feminist Arrested After Being An Annoying Feminist - General

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45180272]so it's not really about equalizing everything then, just a group of people equalism adds in race and class to the equation, i think that's an important thing to[/QUOTE] Its nice to imagine a grassroots movement for a holistically equal society but in practice you'd just be hamstringing a contentious issue into stretching itself too thin to actually do anything. Dismissing feminism because it doesn't also focus on race and class is just shooting the egalitarian goal in the foot.

[QUOTE=Cone;45187875]because feminism is a subset of egalitarianism. egalitarianism intrinsically involves acknowledging those subsets because that's what equality is about, you have to accept everyone who has a legitimate issue so you can fix them and make them equal. reeling away from the bits you don't like and saying "i'm egalitarian EUGH EW BUT I'M NOT A FEMINIST THOUGH" like a lot of people seem to be doing is entirely just hijacking the name without knowing what it means. like you don't necessarily have to go around stating that you're a feminist (because that would be silly and i would be embarrassed if you did) but specifically going to the effort of saying otherwise while also calling yourself egalitarian is the dumbest most contradictory crap ever[/QUOTE] but how does saying "i'm an egaltarian" make you think I hate women or am against feminsm? How the hell do you get that thought in your head, without a presumption on your part? Who is talking about a scenario where we just go around running our mouths about a philosophy? We're in a thread, discussing these things, should I not be able to say I'm an egalitarian? Or do you just get to assume when I do say that, that some how, i'm against feminsm, when I'm not at all. It's annoying people don't want to look past preconceptions in a discussion about any level of equalism. [editline]22nd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;45188345]Its nice to imagine a grassroots movement for a holistically equal society but in practice you'd just be hamstringing a contentious issue into stretching itself too thin to actually do anything. Dismissing feminism because it doesn't also focus on race and class is just shooting the egalitarian goal in the foot.[/QUOTE] who's dissmissing it? Or what it stands for? Not me certainly. I questioned about the name of it, yet now i'm dismissing it? This is what gets me

So essentially your angry that feminism, a movement ostensibly focused on equal rights between men and women, claims to also be for equal rights in general? I'm sure if you asked a feminist what their opinions on class or race were they'd give you something resembling an egalitarian response, [I]because that's what they (broadly) are[/I]. What are you even doing apart from drowning everything in semantic arguments with no relevance to the issue at large?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45188856]but how does saying "i'm an egaltarian" make you think I hate women or am against feminsm?[/QUOTE] because the only people anyone ever encounters saying that are psuedo-intellegent bellends who think their clever and derail discussion with semantics and when you get to see their actual views they tend to be as equal as r/mensrights. and if they're not all like that, find me some! I've looked! I can't find any self identifying egalitarian who isnt just pissing out the ass with semantics or still yodelling about the friendzone.

[QUOTE=Zenpod;45189209]because the only people anyone ever encounters saying that are psuedo-intellegent bellends who think their clever and derail discussion with semantics and when you get to see their actual views they tend to be as equal as r/mensrights. and if they're not all like that, find me some! I've looked! I can't find any self identifying egalitarian who isnt just pissing out the ass with semantics or still yodelling about the friendzone.[/QUOTE] Then you end up doing the same what the people who hate on feminism do.

[QUOTE=Spor;45181515]I loved the cop reaction when they were screaming. [IMG]http://puu.sh/9EQjp/06a9e440eb.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] He looks like Filthy Frank.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45189497]He looks like Filthy Frank.[/QUOTE] More like seth rogen

[QUOTE=Impact1986;45181878][url]http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf[/url] [IMG]http://oi61.tinypic.com/1zzq41s.jpg[/IMG] You call me ignorant when you didn't even read the paper.[/QUOTE] Isn't that statistic skewed from bad survey answers though? I can't exactly find the survey or it's results, but here's an article that claims it had a very skewed statistic from a vague answer [url]http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/MythsGilbert.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Zenpod;45189209]because the only people anyone ever encounters saying that are psuedo-intellegent bellends who think their clever and derail discussion with semantics and when you get to see their actual views they tend to be as equal as r/mensrights. and if they're not all like that, find me some! I've looked! I can't find any self identifying egalitarian who isnt just pissing out the ass with semantics or still yodelling about the friendzone.[/QUOTE] Just so I'm clear, what exactly do you do as a feminist and activist? Oh, and why do you feel the need to constantly attack a strawman position with generalizations?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45186482]you do realize "feminists" isn't a specific group? "feminists take the credit for fighting for everyone"- which feminists? all of the feminists in the world? all of the feminists on tumblr? all of the feminists on fp?[/QUOTE] I am sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant any feminists who claim to be intersectional. Don't get me wrong intersectionality is in theory definitely a good thing, the point I am making is that it is often just tokenism. A way for feminists to maintain the same white middle-class female centered ideology but claim to not only be representing all women but also the entire working class, the lgbt movement, the disabled and all people of all races. In theory this is great but in practice it can often be reductionist and patronizing. Feminism is just one aspect of egalitarian or humanist though, the problem is it seems to be attempting to dominate discourse and close down and assimilate all other conceptualizations and perspectives of oppression. It's happening in this thread, anyone who does not want to be identified as a feminist or has problems with some feminist doctrine is being accused of being a crypto-misogynist.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45188856]but how does saying "i'm an egaltarian" make you think I hate women or am against feminsm? How the hell do you get that thought in your head, without a presumption on your part? Who is talking about a scenario where we just go around running our mouths about a philosophy? We're in a thread, discussing these things, should I not be able to say I'm an egalitarian? Or do you just get to assume when I do say that, that some how, i'm against feminsm, when I'm not at all. It's annoying people don't want to look past preconceptions in a discussion about any level of equalism.[/QUOTE] what gave you the impression that i was talking about you specifically? have you explicitly said that you're against feminism and/or gone onto long, thunderf00t-level tirades against it? if you haven't then you're not the kinda guy i'm talking about, so you can stop going on about preconceptions and all that guff. what i'm saying is, you (not literally you) can't believe in a philosophy that posits equal rights for everyone while also hating feminism and taking any opportunity to harp on it, even when that opportunity is really really dumb. so because of that, calling yourself egalitarian [I]first[/I] is at best no longer credible on its own, at worst the sign of a complete neckbeardy hypocrite. if you really are egalitarian, i.e. you support equality for everyone, then you'll acknowledge and support the different subsets of it that themselves are looking to equalize their respective groups. capiche

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45184688]I'm only complaining because it seems like I've heard feminists on facepunch even, say that feminism is about equalizing everyone, then I hear that you don't think it is. I'd just like to not deal with everyone having their own version of everything and expecting that to be apparent to everyone easily. I also don't get why you'd want to stop at just equalizing one group, isn't that kind of the opposite of equaling things out?[/QUOTE] I would say that a good feminist is someone who is an egaltarian but currently focusing on women's rights because it is more effective to work towards one sector at a time then all of them at once.

Surely this strange obsession some so-called "egalitarians" have with pointing out that they aren't Feminists is totally counter-productive and a great indicator that they aren't actually egalitarian. Egalitarian thought should include Feminist ideals, to go out of the way to say "oh, I'm for equality for everyone, but fuck Feminists" is some kind of weird double-think, you are either Egalitarian and for everything, or you're not Egalitarian, Feminism is merely a subset of Egalitarianism surely. Everybody I've seen call themselves Egalitarian then make the claim that they aren't Feminist has managed to be neither, it's usually the kind of people who don't understand the goals of either (other than the most basic description of the basics of the ideologies).

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45191959]Surely this strange obsession some so-called "egalitarians" have with pointing out that they aren't Feminists is totally counter-productive and a great indicator that they aren't actually egalitarian. Egalitarian thought should include Feminist ideals, to go out of the way to say "oh, I'm for equality for everyone, but fuck Feminists" is some kind of weird double-think, you are either Egalitarian and for everything, or you're not Egalitarian, Feminism is merely a subset of Egalitarianism surely. Everybody I've seen call themselves Egalitarian then make the claim that they aren't Feminist has managed to be neither, it's usually the kind of people who don't understand the goals of either (other than the most basic description of the basics of the ideologies).[/QUOTE] You seem to be missing the point. Egalitarians do support feminism, in so far as feminism supports equality. The point being made is that not everyone agrees with feminist conceptualization of oppression, i.e. the patriarchy, and think issues other than gender are more, or at least as, important, like class, race, sexuality etc. Intersectional feminists make the mistake of viewing all forms of oppression through a patriarchal lens, to them everything is ultimately about gender. The point isn’t "fuck feminists" it is rather that I disagree with the way feminist are attempting to pursue equality and think a more holistic and less tokenistic approach would be more effective and receive less opposition. If feminism wants to be truly representative and about equality it cannot be dominated by one gender. It's easy to argue with straw men but the fact remains feminism has its problems and it's conservative rigidity alongside it's internet defense force are making it worse. Feminism could be a genuine force for good, but too often criticism is flippantly dismissed. Intersectionalism is a good start, if this continues feminism and humanism/egalitarian will be one and the same but if people continue to blindly defend feminism and claim that it is perfect as is; it will be forever lost in a mire of self-congratulatory masturbation.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45190433]Just so I'm clear, what exactly do you do as a feminist and activist? Oh, and why do you feel the need to constantly attack a strawman position with generalizations?[/QUOTE] Me personally? I've attended a few marches, like this [URL="https://www.facebook.com/events/746376182048556/"]one[/URL] (the FB attendance isn't that correct, it was actually more around 150 people) and I've worked on charity gigs for free. I'm not the best at activism but I'm trying. That's more than I've ever seen from any self identifying egalitarian. Those generalizations about egalitarians, I've already stated why I believe in them, because I have never ever seen a single one break those two roles. You're currently in it, you're pissing over semantics. I had a egalitarian friend who turned out to be a fucking MRA. I had another friend who was egalitarian and then realised she didn't need to piss about with semantics and shock horror became a feminist. The Google results for Egalitarianism come up as dictionary definitions and then a load of blog posts about "why I'm egalitarian and not feminist" and then you read those posts and they're all pissing out the ass on semantics. I spent a lot of time trying to find any egalitarian who didnt match those generalizations and couldn't find any. If the egalitarian "movement" wants any bloody respect, it should actually fucking do something. Currently Egalitarianism is like that dude who talks loudly about his book collection in Starbucks, he thinks it makes him look like hot shit but in reality everyone thinks he's a pretentious dick head who ins't a fun person to have around. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE]You seem to be missing the point. Egalitarians do support feminism, in so far as feminism supports equality. The point being made is that not everyone agrees with feminist conceptualization of oppression, i.e. the patriarchy, and think issues other than gender are more, or at least as, important, like class, race, sexuality etc. Intersectional feminists make the mistake of viewing all forms of oppression through a patriarchal lens, to them everything is ultimately about gender.[/QUOTE] I get the feeling you've never met an intersectional feminist. The only time patriachy falls into it is when we're focusing on gender and gender roles, fuck knows where you got a gender issue coming from race? Here, let me breakdown intersectionality for you. Picture we've got a field full of piles of shit, some massive, some utterly tiny. Intersectional feminists tackle the biggest pile of shit first, breaking it down until it's a bit smaller than another pile of shit in the field, then they work on that pile of shit until it's smaller than another bigger one and this repeats until there isnt any shit left in the field. In intersectional feminists case, the biggest pile of shit at the moment is probably trans issues or race issues. This analogy is good for egalitarianism too, becuase you can put them into it. The eligitarian is the pasty little middle class city nerd whos never worked a day in their life, so they'll try and do the minimal work possible. So they'll go over to the tiny piles of shit, get rid of them and leave the massive great piles of shit for "another day" aka fucking never. [QUOTE]It's easy to argue with straw men but the fact remains feminism has its problems and it's conservative rigidity alongside it's internet defense force are making it worse. Feminism could be a genuine force for good, but too often criticism is flippantly dismissed. Intersectionalism is a good start, if this continues feminism and humanism/egalitarian will be one and the same but if people continue to blindly defend feminism and claim that it is perfect as is; it will be forever lost in a mire of self-congratulatory masturbation.[/QUOTE] Have you ever come across the term TERF? Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The feminist movement has a massive war going on against these people, TERFS are excluded from pretty much all feminist spaces and you'll never see a TERF alongside a normal feminist, they are exluded and they are not allowed to represent us. We are working on getting rid of them as soon as possible but it's sorta difficult as they're not easy to find until the trans issue comes up, luckly trans issues are a big focus right now so they're easier to find. Self congratulatory masturbation? if there was any movement to be accused of that, it'd be the humanist/egalitarian movement. Everything eligitarian related seems to be "oh my god look how good we are compared to feminism oh yeah look, we use a bigger word, we look more intellegent, oh yeah, we love equality yeah, sorry what's that? oh you have an issue, OH YOUR A FEMINIST? SORRY YOUR SEMANTICS ARE WRONG, WE CANNOT WORK WITH YOU UNTIL YOUR SEMANTICS ARE CORRECT, OH YES I LOVE SEMANTICS *swallows a barrel of dicks*

I'm on chemo atm from reading this thread

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45191959]Surely this strange obsession some so-called "egalitarians" have with pointing out that they aren't Feminists is totally counter-productive and a great indicator that they aren't actually egalitarian. Egalitarian thought should include Feminist ideals, to go out of the way to say "oh, I'm for equality for everyone, but fuck Feminists" is some kind of weird double-think, you are either Egalitarian and for everything, or you're not Egalitarian, Feminism is merely a subset of Egalitarianism surely. Everybody I've seen call themselves Egalitarian then make the claim that they aren't Feminist has managed to be neither, it's usually the kind of people who don't understand the goals of either (other than the most basic description of the basics of the ideologies).[/QUOTE] Perhaps they want to stray away from the common (albeit falsely constructed) perception of modern-day feminism, instead emphasizing their support of equality?

[QUOTE=Zenpod;45192939] I get the feeling you've never met an intersectional feminist. The only time patriachy falls into it is when we're focusing on gender and gender roles, fuck knows where you got a gender issue coming from race? Here, let me breakdown intersectionality for you. Picture we've got a field full of piles of shit, some massive, some utterly tiny. Intersectional feminists tackle the biggest pile of shit first, breaking it down until it's a bit smaller than another pile of shit in the field, then they work on that pile of shit until it's smaller than another bigger one and this repeats until there isnt any shit left in the field. In intersectional feminists case, the biggest pile of shit at the moment is probably trans issues or race issues. This analogy is good for egalitarianism too, becuase you can put them into it. [b]The eligitarian is the pasty little middle class city nerd whos never worked a day in their life, so they'll try and do the minimal work possible. So they'll go over to the tiny piles of shit, get rid of them and leave the massive great piles of shit for "another day" aka fucking never. [/b] Have you ever come across the term TERF? Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The feminist movement has a massive war going on against these people, TERFS are excluded from pretty much all feminist spaces and you'll never see a TERF alongside a normal feminist, they are exluded and they are not allowed to represent us. We are working on getting rid of them as soon as possible but it's sorta difficult as they're not easy to find until the trans issue comes up, luckly trans issues are a big focus right now so they're easier to find. Self congratulatory masturbation? if there was any movement to be accused of that, it'd be the humanist/egalitarian movement.[b] Everything eligitarian related seems to be "oh my god look how good we are compared to feminism oh yeah look, we use a bigger word, we look more intellegent, oh yeah, we love equality yeah, sorry what's that? oh you have an issue, OH YOUR A FEMINIST? SORRY YOUR SEMANTICS ARE WRONG, WE CANNOT WORK WITH YOU UNTIL YOUR SEMANTICS ARE CORRECT, OH YES I LOVE SEMANTICS *swallows a barrel of dicks*[/b][/QUOTE] This pretty much makes my point. Anyone who doesn’t use a feminist or patriarchal lens to view oppression is automatically wrong to you. You use stereotypes and ad hominem to insult people you would be better served attempting to integrate into a broader movement for equality. I have had some experience with intersectional feminists, some of it has been good and some of it has not. I am not sure if there is a term for it but a female middle class equivalent of mansplaining would be the appropriate way to describe how I have experienced some so called intersectional feminists. I have watched them patronizingly explain to ethnic minorities and LGBT’s why they need feminism and how their own activities are either aiding the patriarchy or are just a waste of time. I may have been unlucky in my admittedly limited interaction with intersectional feminists and I am sure that many of them are level-headed individuals but it has still soured my opinion of them, just as your interaction with self-identified egalitarians has apparently soured your view, even if I agree with general principal behind it. It's not about semantics; it's about trying to be inclusive and effective. Think how much egalitarian (in the general sense) discourse has been based on attempting to change the way we use language for the better, reclaiming words like gay, using alternate pronouns for transsexuals, reducing the amount of implicitly sexist vocabulary etc. I am not, nor do I think anyone else, is arguing that feminism is inherently a bad thing but despite intersectionality it does not successfully represent everyone. Feminism is an ideology, with numerous sometimes conflicting theories surrounding it, but there are some things which mainstream feminism generally agree upon, some of these things can be problematic for some individuals. Take for example a religious women who opposes abortion, but believes in equality of the sexes, could she identify as a feminist? Yes technically but if she were to voice her opinion on the subject at some sort of feminist gathering in most cases I would think she would not receive a positive reaction. She may feel that feminist thought does not adequately represent her views and therefore may not wish to consider herself a feminist. In cases like this more general terms like egalitarian are useful. Similarly more liberal minded individuals may have problems with attempts to ban prostitution and limit the proliferation of pornography advocated by some feminists and whilst this individual may still generally sympathize with feminist views he or she would not wish to be associated with pro-censorship policies. Egalitarianism isn’t a threat, most feminists are egalitarians, insulting and berating those who would help you is genuinely counterproductive. Just because someone doesn’t want to buy into feminist thought wholesale doesn’t mean that they are evil crypto-misogynists. Feminism isn’t and shouldn’t be a dogma, it has changed in the past and will likely continue to change as time goes one. Terfs have not always been as marginal as they are today, when Germaine Greer opposed the entrance of transsexuals into a women’s college many transsexuals were rightly appalled and became more lukewarm towards feminism, some of them doubtless ceased to identify with the movement all together. If we are go back further there were cases of woman’s suffrage advocates in southern America who were pro-lynching as they believed it protected white women from rape. Feminism has been wrong in the past. I think on some issues it is still wrong, you may disagree, and for that reason I don’t identify as a feminist and see other terms like egalitarianism useful in explaining my stance on social issues. That’s not to say I think feminism is inherently wrong, I just don’t think that mainstream feminism adequately represent my views.

I think it has less to do about making everyone a feminist and more the fact that "egalitarianism" as it's being thrown around the web nowadays is basically used as a way to talk down to feminism, itself an unequivocally egalitarian social movement. Honestly I'd describe myself as egalitarian and agree with basically everything Zenpod says. You can't simultaneously call yourself an egalitarian then constantly try to deride feminism, especially since as an ideology egalitarianism has basically done nothing because it's so spread out over a variety of things. It's massively hypocritical and downright ignorant to refer to feminism as simply self-congragulatory masturbation when we can look back in history and see how many milestones it has accomplished while egalitarianism (admittedly as spread out and inconclusive as it is) has done really nothing. Which is okay. I don't think everyone needs to be on the front lines of social change. Just being mindful of the faults in your community is a huge step up in terms of awareness. But this tedious and frustrating process of "egalitarians" and "feminists" hashing it out over pedantic semantics needs to end. True egalitarians and true feminists should be allies, acknowledging that while egalitarians might disagree with feminists on some issues, feminism is still a massive force for good in terms of social equality, no matter how many tumblr SRS SJW straw-feminazi's you can find in thunderf00t videos. And you know what? When (if) the MRA movement moves beyond it's reactionary anti-feminist, anti-women stage and actually pursues men's rights as a useful organization then maybe it will be allowed to sit at the grown-up table too. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] There's no real reason why MRA's and feminists should be mutually exclusive. The overlap on a lot of issues (something feminists attack MRA's over) shows this. They just gotta expand beyond this angsty lashing-out phase. I don't really know what egalitarians would do in terms of physical activism because its such a broad umbrella of ideas.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;45195239]I think it has less to do about making everyone a feminist and more the fact that "egalitarianism" as it's being thrown around the web nowadays is basically used as a way to talk down to feminism, itself an unequivocally egalitarian social movement. Honestly I'd describe myself as egalitarian and agree with basically everything Zenpod says. You can't simultaneously call yourself an egalitarian then constantly try to deride feminism, especially since as an ideology egalitarianism has basically done nothing because it's so spread out over a variety of things. It's massively hypocritical and downright ignorant to refer to feminism as simply self-congragulatory masturbation when we can look back in history and see how many milestones it has accomplished while egalitarianism (admittedly as spread out and inconclusive as it is) has done really nothing. Which is okay. I don't think everyone needs to be on the front lines of social change. Just being mindful of the faults in your community is a huge step up in terms of awareness. But this tedious and frustrating process of "egalitarians" and "feminists" hashing it out over pedantic semantics needs to end. True egalitarians and true feminists should be allies, acknowledging that while egalitarians might disagree with feminists on some issues, feminism is still a massive force for good in terms of social equality, no matter how many tumblr SRS SJW straw-feminazi's you can find in thunderf00t videos. And you know what? When (if) the MRA movement moves beyond it's reactionary anti-feminist, anti-women stage and actually pursues men's rights as a useful organization then maybe it will be allowed to sit at the grown-up table too. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] There's no real reason why MRA's and feminists should be mutually exclusive. The overlap on a lot of issues (something feminists attack MRA's over) shows this. They just gotta expand beyond this angsty lashing-out phase. I don't really know what egalitarians would do in terms of physical activism because its such a broad umbrella of ideas.[/QUOTE] I didn't actually describe feminism as "self-congratulatory" I said "if people continue to blindly defend feminism and claim that it is perfect as is; it will be forever lost in a mire of self-congratulatory masturbation." The point isn't that feminism is bad but rather that it isn’t perfect and blindly defending this imperfection is in no-one’s interest. Some feminists may be unequivocally egalitarian, some however certainly aren’t. Also egalitarianism is just a general nonspecific term to describe any movement for equality, which includes some feminists, so to say egalitarianism hasn't achieved anything is also saying feminism hasn’t achieved anything. The whole point of identifying as an egalitarian is giving support for any group that fights for equality. I can appreciate you not wanting to read mini-essays on video-game forums about social justice but even though your post is framed as in conflict with mine much of it agrees with my post, did you actually read it? As I previously stated there are many legitimate reason why someone may not want to be identified as a feminist but may still generally support their aims and activities and as such egalitarianism is an appropriate term to use in such a context. I agree that egalitarianism can be used as a shroud behind which sexists hide, but the same can also be said of feminism. Also I agree that a considerable amount of MRA content seems to be misogynic in nature, though it does at times also address some real issues. The absolute worst way to address this issue is to insult and belittle them; they already feel as though their masculinity is being questioned. Using terms like "grown-up table" and "angsty lashing-out phase" to infantilize them is foolish and counterproductive. If you do genuinely feel that MRA's and feminist should work together your insults are making that much more difficult. It is a mistake to conceptualize this as war or battle, it’s an ongoing cultural dialogue and the worrying thing it seems to be becoming increasingly entrenched which is not beneficial for anyone.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45195666]I didn't actually describe feminism as "self-congratulatory" I said "if people continue to blindly defend feminism and claim that it is perfect as is; it will be forever lost in a mire of self-congratulatory masturbation." The point isn't that feminism is bad but rather that it isn’t perfect and blindly defending this imperfection is in no-one’s interest. Some feminists may be unequivocally egalitarian, some however certainly aren’t. [/QUOTE] You're being disingenuous when you say only some feminists may be egalitarian. The vast majority are. It just doesn't seem that way because you (you specifically and people on these boards generally) are exposed to far more fringe elements than you otherwise would because people are making blogs and Youtube videos to get that social justice money while it's a hot trend. [QUOTE=Aidan_088;45195666]Also egalitarianism is just a general nonspecific term to describe any movement for equality, which includes some feminists, so to say egalitarianism hasn't achieved anything is also saying feminism hasn’t achieved anything. The whole point of identifying as an egalitarian is giving support for any group that fights for equality [/QUOTE]. I'm saying specifically the people who call themselves egalitarians on the internet when these conversations come up, not the ideology of egalitarianism. Again, "some feminists" are egalitarians is like saying "some pacifists" are against war. [QUOTE=Aidan_088;45195666]I can appreciate you not wanting to read mini-essays on video-game forums about social justice[/QUOTE] I can't tell if you are intentionally misinterpreting my point or not but no, the problem isn't social justice essays. It would actually be really nice if FP could collectively ramp up the quality of debate to essay levels from where it exists now as very thinly veiled (read: out in the open) flaming about social justice warriors. I was talking about the specific pedantry of the "Why call yourself a feminist when you are really an egalitarian feminists only care about womens issuess when egalitarians care about everything so just stop using the word feminist" discussion that comes up. Zenpod put it better than me in his post [QUOTE=Aidan_088;45195666]Also I agree that a considerable amount of MRA content seems to be misogynic in nature, though it does at times also address some real issues.[/QUOTE] Very rarely. I'd also argue that they are rarely outright misogynistic. It's just mostly middle of the road uselessness. [QUOTE=Aidan_088;45195666]The absolute worst way to address this issue is to insult and belittle them; they already feel as though their masculinity is being questioned. Using terms like "grown-up table" and "angsty lashing-out phase" to infantilize them is foolish and counterproductive. If you do genuinely feel that MRA's and feminist should work together your insults are making that much more difficult. It is a mistake to conceptualize this as war or battle, it’s an ongoing cultural dialogue and the worrying thing it seems to be becoming increasingly entrenched which is not beneficial for anyone.[/QUOTE] Emphasis is on "feeling" as if their masculinity has been questioned. Literally no one is doing this. This is a figment of the MRA imagination wherein shadow feminists lurk behind every issue. Yeah, the grown up table one was a cheap shot (far short of what diehard MRA's say and if you think that it's "entrenchment" then boy should you visit Reddit sometime :v:) but yeah, I would describe the nature of the current MRA movement as angsty and lashing out more than successfully fighting for mens rights. If that's belittling or insulting then I'm sorry, I don't really mean to be, but there just isn't any other way to explain how childish their feud is with feminism or egalitarianism. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] More than half of the first posts on the MRA reddit are attacking either women in general or feminists specifically. How else would you describe that other than lashing out? There is no reason for things to be like that but again, because the MRA movement is primarily an anti feminist movement and secondarily a mens rights movements, threads bashing feminism take priority.

people that go "i'm not (or "i'm not JUST") a feminist, i'm an egalitarian" remind me of those people who go "i'm an atheist but not like those extreme, fedora atheists" i mean if you agree with feminist ideologies what's wrong with calling yourself a feminist (or instead not calling yourself anything and focusing on people's ideals rather than their labels)? just sounds like a superiority complex

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45196536]people that go "i'm not (or "i'm not JUST") a feminist, i'm an egalitarian" remind me of those people who go "i'm an atheist but not like those extreme, fedora atheists" i mean if you agree with feminist ideologies what's wrong with calling yourself a feminist (or instead not calling yourself anything and focusing on people's ideals rather than their labels)? just sounds like a superiority complex[/QUOTE] is it impossible someone can like feminist idealogy and prescribe to the larger idealogy it's part of? according to this thread, and all of you, yes, it's just simply impossible. they must be MRA's or something. I know that's snarky but it's just weird to see the comments you guys are saying.

Christ you're a 'holier than thou' idiot. If you prescribe to the larger ideology feminism falls under you should have no issue with what feminism stands for, what it broadly aims to do or even identifying with it. Other oppressed sectors are not the focus here.

I don't have any problem with it. I was asking questions. Thanks for the insults and ad homenim

[QUOTE=Raidyr;45196022]You're being disingenuous when you say only some feminists may be egalitarian. The vast majority are. [/Quote] Terfs have already been brought up, even their detractors refer to them as feminists. Whether or not the majority of feminists are egalitarian or not is irrelevant to my point, some are not. [quote] It just doesn't seem that way because you (you specifically and people on these boards generally) are exposed to far more fringe elements than you otherwise would because people are making blogs and Youtube videos to get that social justice money while it's a hot trend. I'm saying specifically the people who call themselves egalitarians on the internet when these conversations come up, not the ideology of egalitarianism. Again, "some feminists" are egalitarians is like saying "some pacifists" are against war. [/quote] If you can speak only about bad examples of egalitarians on the internet why can I not speak of bad examples of feminists who post on the internet? There are no pro-war pacifists, there are some anti-egalitarian feminists like Terfs and Valerie Solanas, they may be in the minority but again that is not the point. [quote] I can't tell if you are intentionally misinterpreting my point or not but no, the problem isn't social justice essays. It would actually be really nice if FP could collectively ramp up the quality of debate to essay levels from where it exists now as very thinly veiled (read: out in the open) flaming about social justice warriors. I was talking about the specific pedantry of the "Why call yourself a feminist when you are really an egalitarian feminists only care about womens issuess when egalitarians care about everything so just stop using the word feminist" discussion that comes up. [/quote] I really must assume you are not reading my posts because I have made this clear on multiple occasions now. In cases in which one does not agree with feminist doctrine or disproves of popular feminist campaigns, like banning page 3 and the term "bossy" would it not be appropriate to describe oneself as an egalitarian rather than as a feminist? A lot of what feminists do both on the internet and in real life organized campaigns I find repugnant and idiotic, a lot of it I also find worthwhile. So rather than implicitly supporting all of it by identifying as a feminist I instead only support the egalitarian efforts of feminist by identify as an egalitarian. I really don't mean to be patronizing when i say this but I really can't make this any simpler, it's not a complicated concept. [quote] Very rarely. I'd also argue that they are rarely outright misogynistic. It's just mostly middle of the road uselessness. Emphasis is on "feeling" as if their masculinity has been questioned.[b] Literally no one is doing this [/b]. This is a figment of the MRA imagination wherein shadow feminists lurk behind every issue. Yeah, the grown up table one was a cheap shot (far short of what diehard MRA's say and if you think that it's "entrenchment" then boy should you visit Reddit sometime :v:) but yeah, I would describe the nature of the current MRA movement as angsty and lashing out more than successfully fighting for mens rights. If that's belittling or insulting then I'm sorry, I don't really mean to be, but there just isn't any other way to explain how childish their feud is with feminism or egalitarianism. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] More than half of the first posts on the MRA reddit are attacking either women in general or feminists specifically. How else would you describe that other than lashing out? There is no reason for things to be like that but again, because the MRA movement is primarily an anti feminist movement and secondarily a mens rights movements, threads bashing feminism take priority.[/QUOTE] Are you not questioning their masculinity by repeatedly implying that they were childish? Insults from either side are counterproductive, if you agree you won’t begin such fruitless engagements nor will you respond to such insults if they come your way. A lot of MRA stuff is pretty crazy and deluded but not especially more so than tumblr-feminism. A lot of men do feel frustrated, they feel that masculinity is being vilified, if they are wrong in this assumption then it is a problem to be addressed not a phenomenon to be mocked and patronized as you and many others seem to be doing. In practice the MRA movement is currently primarily an anti-feminist movement, in theory there is no reason for this to be the case. If an attempt is made to seriously address some of their legitimate grievances there is no reason why feminists and MRA's can’t work together in the future. Right now it it's just mutually unproductive hatred on both sides. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45196536]people that go "i'm not (or "i'm not JUST") a feminist, i'm an egalitarian" remind me of those people who go "i'm an atheist but not like those extreme, fedora atheists" i mean if you agree with feminist ideologies what's wrong with calling yourself a feminist (or instead not calling yourself anything and focusing on people's ideals rather than their labels)? just sounds like a superiority complex[/QUOTE] I addressed this already, what if a person believes in equality of the sexes but does not agree with the way in which feminist are going about achieving this. Again what of other prominent feminist campaigns; like banning Page 3, banning prostitution or banning the word "bossy" surely it doesn’t surprise you that some people do not agree with such policies, in such cases is it not reasonable to wish to dissociate yourself form such things by using broader more inclusive terms like egalitarian? It's not about superiority, it’s about disagreement and consequent disassociation, it's about genuinely wanting to support equality but without also implicitly supporting a lot of the more problematic actions taken by some feminists, even in the mainstream. It's really that simple. Also if there was a word that meant not believing in a god and also not supporting fedora style extremist atheists I would use that too. As for not calling yourself anything, I suppose that would work but I don’t see how that would any different to identifying as an egalitarian, it would just require an even more long winded explanation.

those campaigns you cited are only a couple out of thousands out there. again: "feminists" is not an organized group, it's an ideology. saying "i agree with the feminist ideology but i'm not a feminist" is like saying "i want weed and gay marriage to be legal but i'm not a liberal". it would make sense to go "i'm not a democrat" though, because THAT's an organized group. wanting to dissociate yourself from the ideology just because you disagree with a few people that follow it is like changing the name of your religion just because it has extremists in it (which you actually suggested, rofl), it's fucking ridiculous. also, if you're an egalitarian, you're also a feminist, to an extent.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45201523]those campaigns you cited are only a couple out of thousands out there. again: "feminists" is not an organized group, it's an ideology. saying "i agree with the feminist ideology but i'm not a feminist" is like saying "i want weed and gay marriage to be legal but i'm not a liberal". it would make sense to go "i'm not a democrat" though, because THAT's an organized group. wanting to dissociate yourself from the ideology just because you disagree with a few people that follow it is like changing the name of your religion just because it has extremists in it (which you actually suggested, rofl), it's fucking ridiculous. also, if you're an egalitarian, you're also a feminist, to an extent.[/QUOTE] Feminism may be an ideology but it often acts as a group and I also only agree with feminist ideology in the broadest sense. Like it or not the popular perception of feminism is affected by loud extremists. I'm also not just talking about minorities, but major campaigns, like “Ban Page 3” and “Ban Bossy”. As I have previously stated it is a matter of association, if I or someone else were to describe themselves as a feminist it would be reasonable to assume they would generally support currently active feminist campaigns, I don’t people to think that about me. Secondarily you seem to have a very limited understanding of political ideology. It is entirely possible to favor gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana and not be a liberal, you could be a socialist, a communist, a libertarian, an anarcho-syndicalist, etc. I know little of Brazilian politics but the American Democratic Party you have cited itself has ideological divisions, there are conservative and liberal Democrats. I want to disassociate myself from feminism because whilst I agree with it in the broadest strokes; I find both some of its current actions and some of the underlying principles behind them as misguided and unhelpful. Also people split religions because they have ideological/doctrinal disagreements all the time; that is why there are hundreds of variations on Christianity even though they all agree with each other in the broadest terms. Also atheism isn’t a religion, it is a term used to denote the absence of religious belief. I know some people can treat it like a religion but that’s not really the point. I suppose I am a feminist to an extent but that is akin to saying a socialist is a communist to some extent, they may agree upon their disdain for capitalism but they have different methods of tackling the problem. I can’t really work out why identifying as an egalitarian rather than as a feminist has caused such ire, it’s not a threat. I will gladly support feminists in their fight for equal rights; I will just avoid all of the silly censorship stuff.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45201905]Like it or not the popular perception of feminism is affected by loud extremists.[/quote] the same thing happens with, say, islam. but people who follow it don't say "i'm a muslim- not like those taliban muslims though!" if someone only judges an ideology based on the extremists that follow it, then it's their problem? i'm not gonna find another label just because the old one was "tainted" because people can't tell extremists from regular folk that follow the ideology. [quote]Secondarily you seem to have a very limited understanding of political ideology. It is entirely possible to favor gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana and not be a liberal, you could be a socialist, a communist, a libertarian, an anarcho-syndicalist, etc. I know little of Brazilian politics but the American Democratic Party you have cited itself has ideological divisions, there are conservative and liberal Democrats. [/quote] that was an example, no need to insult me [quote]I suppose I am a feminist to an extent but that is akin to saying a socialist is a communist to some extent, they may agree upon their disdain for capitalism but they have different methods of tackling the problem.[/QUOTE] not even comparable. the basic idea of feminism is advocating rights for women, and any other meaning people give to it is part of their own, personal philosophy, not feminism itself. egalitarianism also includes the basic idea of feminism (while also advocating rights for everyone else) so, when you define yourself as an egalitarian, you're also defining yourself as a feminist, to an extent.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45202236]the same thing happens with, say, islam. but people who follow it don't say "i'm a muslim- not like those taliban muslims though!" if someone only judges an ideology based on the extremists that follow it, then it's their problem? i'm not gonna find another label just because the old one was "tainted" because people can't tell extremists from regular folk that follow the ideology. that was an example, no need to insult me not even comparable. the basic idea of feminism is advocating rights for women, and any other meaning people give to it is part of their own, personal philosophy, not feminism itself. egalitarianism also includes the basic idea of feminism (while also advocating rights for everyone else) so, when you define yourself as an egalitarian, you're also defining yourself as a feminist, to an extent.[/QUOTE] No but a Sunni or a Sufi may be annoyed if you conflate them with Shia's, even though they agree on most theological issues. Also again my problem is not just with extremists within feminism. There are a number of popular campaigns which I have already discussed that I disagree with. I also didn’t mean to insult you it's just your example didn’t really seem to make sense. I intended to explain why your example didn’t support your point. And again I suppose I am a feminist to some extent, in that I agree with the general principles of feminism but I still disagree with many of the current actions and methods employed by many mainstream feminists. For that reason I think egalitarian is a more useful term, it's much clearer and I am unlikely to be associated with things I do not agree with.