Feminist Arrested After Being An Annoying Feminist - General

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45199823] 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] I was questioning their maturity because they bring sweeping societal issues to a gradeschool playground level of "ew girls cuties" by constantly blaming women, egalitarian men, or feminists for problems men face, problems that are increasingly difficult to get actually explained. I'd also argue that a lot of the backlash against MRA's is because they market themselves as an anti-feminist group and came out swinging. That doesn't necessarily defend people (not just feminists, but average joes) from being rude to every single person who individually identifies as an MRA but it does leave the ideology open to criticism and until the ideology shifts away from reactionary anti-feminism and towards legitimate men's rights activism, feminists are going to respond. [editline]24th June 2014[/editline] For the record I don't think there is any problem calling yourself an egalitarian. I consider myself one, But the catalyst to this conversation was people calling themselves egalitarians then saying how feminism isn't egalitarian, which is just wrong. I don't call myself a feminist because I don't think feminism represents me entirely, but I do see it as a useful group pushing for egalitarian social changes. When I see MRA groups doing the same I'll stop criticizing them.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;45203425]I was questioning their maturity because they bring sweeping societal issues to a gradeschool playground level of "ew girls cuties" by constantly blaming women, egalitarian men, or feminists for problems men face, problems that are increasingly difficult to get actually explained. I'd also argue that a lot of the backlash against MRA's is because they market themselves as an anti-feminist group and came out swinging. That doesn't necessarily defend people (not just feminists, but average joes) from being rude to every single person who individually identifies as an MRA but it does leave the ideology open to criticism and until the ideology shifts away from reactionary anti-feminism and towards legitimate men's rights activism, feminists are going to respond. [editline]24th June 2014[/editline] For the record I don't think there is any problem calling yourself an egalitarian. I consider myself one, But the catalyst to this conversation was people calling themselves egalitarians then saying how feminism isn't egalitarian, which is just wrong. I don't call myself a feminist because I don't think feminism represents me entirely, but I do see it as a useful group pushing for egalitarian social changes. When I see MRA groups doing the same I'll stop criticizing them.[/QUOTE] I agree, don't get me wrong a lot of the stuff MRA's engage in deserves to be criticized. However I just think calling them childish or otherwise insulting them, even when such insults have basis in fact, is ill advised. An attempt should still be made to discuss issues with them in a calm and logical manner, even if they don't respond accordingly. Insulting and belittling opponents simply entrenches pre-existing stances and could make it much more difficult in the long run to convince someone of the error of their ways. If your goal is to change someone’s mind, in my experience, the best course of action is always to be tactful and diplomatic, though I admit at times that can be difficult.

Both groups are retarded, the woman acted out that fall its so painfully obvious, this entire thread is a shit hole and I think everyone needs to tuck it easy

Feminism attacks the very real patriarchal society we live in and seeks to fix it. It exists to promote and protect women's rights which are, and have been for centuries, at risk. The concept of egalitarianism has no importance in our world because it shifts focus from pointing out the patriarchy to trying to make it about everyone. It may seem moral and just and egalitarians are thinking in the right direction, but it starts to seem pointless when you realize that most of the problems it discusses are caused by patriarchal society and that there's already a movement that seeks to end the patriarchy.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;45206597]Feminism attacks the very real patriarchal society we live in and seeks to fix it. It exists to promote and protect women's rights which are, and have been for centuries, at risk. The concept of egalitarianism has no importance in our world because it shifts focus from pointing out the patriarchy to trying to make it about everyone. It may seem moral and just and egalitarians are thinking in the right direction, but it starts to seem pointless when you realize that most of the problems it discusses are caused by patriarchal society and that there's already a movement that seeks to end the patriarchy.[/QUOTE] There is no patriarchy.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;45206597]Feminism attacks the very real patriarchal society we live in and seeks to fix it. It exists to promote and protect women's rights which are, and have been for centuries, at risk. The concept of egalitarianism has no importance in our world because it shifts focus from pointing out the patriarchy to trying to make it about everyone. It may seem moral and just and egalitarians are thinking in the right direction, but it starts to seem pointless when you realize that most of the problems it discusses are caused by patriarchal society and that there's already a movement that seeks to end the patriarchy.[/QUOTE] You’ve been sorely misguided if you think all problems are caused by patriarchal systems. A patriarchy simply means a society dominated by men. It would be entirely possible to live in a society which was not dominated by men, and thus not patriarchal, that was still, classist, racist, homophobic, ableist, ageist, trans-phobic etc. A society dominated by women or equally dividing power between the genders would not magically fix all other problems, it would help obviously but it would not be enough. You have neatly demonstrated a point that I was making earlier; to some feminists everything is about the patriarchy. The very real problems the working class, ethnic minorities, LGBT's etc. face are secondary and unimportant to you. You and people like you are why egalitarianism is necessary. The patriarchy needs to be challenged but it isn't everything.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;45206597]Feminism attacks the very real patriarchal society we live in and seeks to fix it. It exists to promote and protect women's rights which are, and have been for centuries, at risk. The concept of egalitarianism has no importance in our world because it shifts focus from pointing out the patriarchy to trying to make it about everyone. It may seem moral and just and egalitarians are thinking in the right direction, but it starts to seem pointless when you realize that most of the problems it discusses are caused by patriarchal society and that there's already a movement that seeks to end the patriarchy.[/QUOTE] Such a load of fucking garbage. Imagine early feminists fighting "patriarchy" instead of you know, real actual particular problems women faced? How much exactly that would've done. A movement that has been more than successful is now dedicated to fighting a concept created behind the walls of academia, fighting by publishing near worthless papers and articles en masse, and everyone else should just shut the fuck up - "they're already working on it". Imagine fucking MLK deciding that "welp, feminism is already fighting for my rights, we should wait". Imagine gays, lesbians, transgender people deciding to not stand up for their rights because "patriarchy" and feminism is already on it.

[QUOTE=gudman;45208642]Such a load of fucking garbage. Imagine early feminists fighting "patriarchy" instead of you know, real actual particular problems women faced? How much exactly that would've done. A movement that has been more than successful is now dedicated to fighting a concept created behind the walls of academia, fighting by publishing near worthless papers and articles en masse, and everyone else should just shut the fuck up - "they're already working on it". Imagine fucking MLK deciding that "welp, feminism is already fighting for my rights, we should wait". Imagine gays, lesbians, transgender people deciding to not stand up for their rights because "patriarchy" and feminism is already on it.[/QUOTE] Maybe if you took the time to read those papers you'd know that patriarchal society is a real problem that women face? First-wave feminism did seek to attain suffrage and legal rights for women (if that's what you mean by "real actual particular problems") but that clearly wasn't enough since they lacked [I]civil[/I] rights. Clearly it has been successful since we're not living in 1960s culture any more and women have progressed in western society.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;45208717]Maybe if you took the time to read those papers you'd know that patriarchal society is a real problem that women face? First-wave feminism did seek to attain suffrage and legal rights for women (if that's what you mean by "real actual particular problems") but that clearly wasn't enough since they lacked [I]civil[/I] rights. Clearly it has been successful since we're not living in 1960s culture any more and women have progressed in western society.[/QUOTE] And what rights, civil or else, and opportunities women lack now? And how exactly load of feminist literature, that no one reads, helps here? And how exactly fighting the patriarchy helps, you know, other disadvantaged groups? Or societal issues and problems in Western society? Not in the long run, some time in the future, when "patriarchy" is going to be brought down and utopia will happen - right now? I may have been, let's say, unnecessarily judgmental towards the whole thing, but the notion that everyone else should just give up and wait, pisses me off to no end.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;45208717]Maybe if you took the time to read those papers you'd know that patriarchal society is a real problem that women face? First-wave feminism did seek to attain suffrage and legal rights for women (if that's what you mean by "real actual particular problems") but that clearly wasn't enough since they lacked [I]civil[/I] rights. Clearly it has been successful since we're not living in 1960s culture any more and women have progressed in western society.[/QUOTE] The whole point is it's not just about feminism and the patriarchy. MLK wasn't fighting against the patriarchy he was fighting against racism, stonewall wasn’t about the patriarchy it was about institutionalized homophobia. Both of those things could still exist within a non-patriarchal society. The patriarchy is a problem, it's just not the only problem. You really need to try and see problem from other perspectives.

[QUOTE=gudman;45208800]And what rights, civil or else, and opportunities women lack now? And how exactly load of feminist literature, that no one reads, helps here? And how exactly fighting the patriarchy helps, you know, other disadvantaged groups? Or societal issues and problems in Western society? Not in the long run, some time in the future, when "patriarchy" is going to be brought down and utopia will happen? I may have been, let's say, unnecessarily judgmental towards the whole thing, but the notion that everyone else should just give up and wait, pisses me off to no end.[/QUOTE] I never personally said everyone else should "wait" until we somehow live in a utopia, nor do I think anyone should just back and wait for the day. I agree with you, if people want change they have to make it. I'm not saying that fighting the patriarchy is a great help for [I]everyone[/I], although it may well help in some way or another I think there are better ways for other disadvantaged groups to fight for their rights. I didn't criticise that part of your post because I didn't disagree with it. If you think that nobody reads feminist literature and that it doesn't help then I wonder why it's been selling so well and doing so well for the past few hundred years. Feminist literature (about as large and diverse as feminism itself) provides a voice for the voiceless - as does all literature. I'll use Angela Carter's The Bloody Chamber as an example because I can make a direct comparison. In the classic fairy tales that we all know, you've usually got strong male characters and helpless female characters. From an early age we're getting the same message, men are powerful and women are weak. Carter rewrites and subverts those stories to provide women with power, attacking the notion that women always play the subversive role. Of course, there's a whole lot of literature that written by other disadvantaged groups that seeks to attain their rights. Literature's a powerful means for fighting for social progress and representing the unrepresented. To name a few rights women lack today from the top of my head: there are huge legal rights, unequal pay still exists and there are countries in the world where women aren't even allowed to vote. Just last year the Church of England rejected women the right to become Bishops. Then there's civil inequality such as how people see men that sleep around as studs yet women who do so are sluts. Masculine qualities are seen as active, feminine qualities as passive. The list goes on. [editline]25th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;45208802]The whole point is it's not just about feminism and the patriarchy. MLK wasn't fighting against the patriarchy he was fighting against racism, stonewall wasn’t about the patriarchy it was about institutionalized homophobia. Both of those things could still exist within a non-patriarchal society. The patriarchy is a problem, it's just not the only problem. You really need to try and see problem from other perspectives.[/QUOTE] Again, I never said patriarchy is the only problem and that fighting it will magically solve everything. I was just saying it [I]is[/I] a problem.

At first I was on the guys side because they tore through her shitty statements and shut her up but then they started whooping and playing the race card and being the most shitty people I can imagine and now I'm just mad. This was not the feel good comedy of the year I was promised.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45208410]You’ve been sorely misguided if you think all problems are caused by patriarchal systems. A patriarchy simply means a society dominated by men. It would be entirely possible to live in a society which was not dominated by men, and thus not patriarchal, that was still, classist, racist, homophobic, ableist, ageist, trans-phobic etc. A society dominated by women or equally dividing power between the genders would not magically fix all other problems, it would help obviously but it would not be enough. You have neatly demonstrated a point that I was making earlier; to some feminists everything is about the patriarchy. The very real problems the working class, ethnic minorities, LGBT's etc. face are secondary and unimportant to you. You and people like you are why egalitarianism is necessary. The patriarchy needs to be challenged but it isn't everything.[/QUOTE] Yes it's possible for a society not dominated by men to be horrible, but that doesn't mean our current society, which is dominated by men, has serious issues. Trying to focus on all problems and trying to be a jack of all trades makes you lack focus. Feminists may be focusing on specific issues, but that's because those issues are important to them and they feel that those issues affect them most, and their focus on specific issues is what makes them more dedicated to solving them. Being a jack of all trades can make sense when you're not working to stop anything, but just simply being supportive doesn't matter. You can't help fight every single battle against oppressors. If you tried to do that, you'd miss a lot of protests and demonstrations you should be involved in. You shouldn't shame a feminist for focusing on mending the injustices women face in the world. They're passionate about that cause and they focus their energy on it. That's what the entire Civil Rights movement was doing. They were furious about the lack of rights minorities faced, and they focused on just that because that issue was extremely important to them. Does that mean they simply don't care about other people's issue? No. It just means they seek to fix specific issues and focus their time and effort on that. And their focus is what made them effective. You can't fight everybody's battles.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45208410]You’ve been sorely misguided if you think all problems are caused by patriarchal systems. A patriarchy simply means a society dominated by men. It would be entirely possible to live in a society which was not dominated by men, and thus not patriarchal, that was still, classist, racist, homophobic, ableist, ageist, trans-phobic etc. A society dominated by women or equally dividing power between the genders would not magically fix all other problems, it would help obviously but it would not be enough.[/quote] i agree with this part. the patriarchal society isn't the source of ALL problems, that's ridiculous. [quote]You have neatly demonstrated a point that I was making earlier; to some feminists everything is about the patriarchy. The very real problems the working class, ethnic minorities, LGBT's etc. face are secondary and unimportant to you. You and people like you are why egalitarianism is necessary. The patriarchy needs to be challenged but it isn't everything.[/QUOTE] i disagree with this, part, though. one group fighting for equality for all other groups is no better than multiple groups doing the same. in fact, i'd even say it's much worse. egalitarianism is by no means necessary [editline]25th June 2014[/editline] maybe as a philosophy, but not as a movement

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;45210902]Yes it's possible for a society not dominated by men to be horrible, but that doesn't mean our current society, which is dominated by men, has serious issues. Trying to focus on all problems and trying to be a jack of all trades makes you lack focus. Feminists may be focusing on specific issues, but that's because those issues are important to them and they feel that those issues affect them most, and their focus on specific issues is what makes them more dedicated to solving them. Being a jack of all trades can make sense when you're not working to stop anything, but just simply being supportive doesn't matter. You can't help fight every single battle against oppressors. If you tried to do that, you'd miss a lot of protests and demonstrations you should be involved in. You shouldn't shame a feminist for focusing on mending the injustices women face in the world. They're passionate about that cause and they focus their energy on it. That's what the entire Civil Rights movement was doing. They were furious about the lack of rights minorities faced, and they focused on just that because that issue was extremely important to them. Does that mean they simply don't care about other people's issue? No. It just means they seek to fix specific issues and focus their time and effort on that. And their focus is what made them effective. You can't fight everybody's battles.[/QUOTE] The problem which I am attempting to address is not the narrow focus of feminism, it is that fact that it is so narrowly focused yet uses the abstraction of intersectionality to claim that they are not narrowly focused without really changing anything and then denouncing others that do not wish to be associated with the problematic aspects of modern feminism. The problem isn't that feminism attempts to challenge the patriarchy but it is that they claim that the patriarchy is the source of all problems when it clearly isn't. Not all feminists claim this but some even in this thread have done so. This undermines broader egalitarian goals. I am also not shaming feminists, I am taking umbrage with beings shamed for not being a feminist and not agreeing with everything the do. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45211842]i agree with this part. the patriarchal society isn't the source of ALL problems, that's ridiculous. i disagree with this, part, though. one group fighting for equality for all other groups is no better than multiple groups doing the same. in fact, i'd even say it's much worse. egalitarianism is by no means necessary [editline]25th June 2014[/editline] maybe as a philosophy, but not as a movement[/QUOTE] I am not arguing that egalitarianism should displace feminism. My point is that if you take issue with some of the more problematic parts of feminism it would be appropriate to identify with a broader term like egalitarianism. If someone has genuine ideological disagreements with much of modern feminism, whilst still believing in the equality of the sexes, you cannot simply expect them to abandon their principles and fall in line. The point isn't to combine all social justice groups, I agree that would never work, the point is that it's okay to have problems with feminist doctrine. This doesn't make you a raging sexist or a tool of the patriarchy. The problem is feminists insulting and smearing anyone who disagrees with them. Time is wasted discrediting potential allies when it could be spent more productively. Also I was reading through some of my earlier posts and I can see why you might think I would want egalitarianism to displace feminism. That was meant as a sophistic counter-point to the supposed brilliance of intersectionality, i.e. if intersectional feminism really does effectively represent everyone why even call it feminism? The point was not to actually rename feminism egalitarianism instead it was supposed to point out the absurdity of suggesting intersectional feminism adequately represented all marginalized groups in society. On reflection that wasn’t a very effective of way of making a point; as it required an explanation.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;45209050]I never personally said everyone else should "wait" until we somehow live in a utopia, nor do I think anyone should just back and wait for the day. I agree with you, if people want change they have to make it. I'm not saying that fighting the patriarchy is a great help for [I]everyone[/I], although it may well help in some way or another I think there are better ways for other disadvantaged groups to fight for their rights. I didn't criticise that part of your post because I didn't disagree with it[/quote] And I didn't say that to you, I was explaining why I said what I said. [quote]If you think that nobody reads feminist literature and that it doesn't help then I wonder why it's been selling so well and doing so well for the past few hundred years. Feminist literature (about as large and diverse as feminism itself) provides a voice for the voiceless - as does all literature. I'll use Angela Carter's The Bloody Chamber as an example because I can make a direct comparison. In the classic fairy tales that we all know, you've usually got strong male characters and helpless female characters. From an early age we're getting the same message, men are powerful and women are weak. Carter rewrites and subverts those stories to provide women with power, attacking the notion that women always play the subversive role. Of course, there's a whole lot of literature that written by other disadvantaged groups that seeks to attain their rights. Literature's a powerful means for fighting for social progress and representing the unrepresented.[/quote] That's, again, a very long-term thing. I agree that culture, as wide and huge as it is, should recognize women as equal to men in every way that matters, yes. That is what feminism should concentrate, instead of writing thousands upon thousands of papers on how patriarchy is so baaaaad. That's exactly my point - concentrate on things that matter today. The history of how evil males oppressed women throughout centuries, it doesn't matter much. That is, in fact, my only problem with modern feminism - way too much derailment inside the movement itself. [quote]To name a few rights women lack today from the top of my head: there are huge legal rights, unequal pay still exists and there are countries in the world where women aren't even allowed to vote. Just last year the Church of England rejected women the right to become Bishops. Then there's civil inequality such as how people see men that sleep around as studs yet women who do so are sluts. Masculine qualities are seen as active, feminine qualities as passive. The list goes on. [/QUOTE] Legal rights, what legal rights women lack in Western society? Name one that specifically discriminates on the basis of gender? "Countries" don't matter, I'm specifically speaking about countries where feminism exists as a strong movement, existed for at least 50 years. Western countries. Well there's no "right" for women to get a job as Bishops... I'm terribly biased on subject of Religions and their respective institutions, so allow me to get there, let's say I agree and leave it at that. Stereotypes fall under previous quote, so what I said earlier applies here. Again, I'm not against feminism as an idea and general movement. What gets me worked up is the notion that I see constantly thrown around that seems to go almost unchallenged, that some movements, and larger "theoretical" movements (ones that do not yet exist as a movement per se, "egalitarism"/"equalism", MRM that only just goes through the stage of any movement's radical infancy) are "redundant" because feminism and "intersectional" faminism already fight for everyone's well being by killing the [del]windmills[/del] hydra of evil patriarchy. In a perfect world, yes, feminism or any other movement could become a base for larger causes to solve issues various groups face in modern society. But the nature of this very same society, from where all the activists come from, often gets in the way, so the best possible solution is for every disadvantaged group to get their own movement that would concentrate on solving immediate problems they face. Without being screamed at or "fire alarmed" down, or just told that they're redundant.

[QUOTE=gudman;45213697]And I didn't say that to you, I was explaining why I said what I said. That's, again, a very long-term thing. I agree that culture, as wide and huge as it is, should recognize women as equal to men in every way that matters, yes. That is what feminism should concentrate, instead of writing thousands upon thousands of papers on how patriarchy is so baaaaad. That's exactly my point - concentrate on things that matter today. The history of how evil males oppressed women throughout centuries, it doesn't matter much. That is, in fact, my only problem with modern feminism - way too much derailment inside the movement itself. Legal rights, what legal rights women lack in Western society? Name one that specifically discriminates on the basis of gender? "Countries" don't matter, I'm specifically speaking about countries where feminism exists as a strong movement, existed for at least 50 years. Western countries. Well there's no "right" for women to get a job as Bishops... I'm terribly biased on subject of Religions and their respective institutions, so allow me to get there, let's say I agree and leave it at that. Stereotypes fall under previous quote, so what I said earlier applies here. Again, I'm not against feminism as an idea and general movement. What gets me worked up is the notion that I see constantly thrown around that seems to go almost unchallenged, that some movements, and larger "theoretical" movements (ones that do not yet exist as a movement per se, "egalitarism"/"equalism", MRM that only just goes through the stage of any movement's radical infancy) are "redundant" because feminism and "intersectional" faminism already fight for everyone's well being by killing the [del]windmills[/del] hydra of evil patriarchy. In a perfect world, yes, feminism or any other movement could become a base for larger causes to solve issues various groups face in modern society. But the nature of this very same society, from where all the activists come from, often gets in the way, so the best possible solution is for every disadvantaged group to get their own movement that would concentrate on solving immediate problems they face. Without being screamed at or "fire alarmed" down, or just told that they're redundant.[/QUOTE] There are also thousands of papers and other academic work on why women are equal to men. Although patriarchal culture isn't as strong as it used to be, it's not just history. It's still present and so it matters today. No problem in writing about it if the fight is still going. I'll admit I didn't use the best examples, they were from the top of my head. The law on Bishops is a law that discriminates by gender though so there's that at least. I think all countries in the world do matter, they shouldn't just be swept aside because they're not western. Anyways, western feminism today is more concerned about civil rights. Altering patriarchal culture is part of that, those two ideals were both born from second-wave feminism and come hand-in-hand. I've never said that other movements are redundant. In the part of my post you dismissed because you weren't addressing me, I claimed the opposite: "I think there are better ways for other disadvantaged groups to fight for their rights". There are, so once again we agree.

Wait a minute, that face.... [img]http://i.imgur.com/DhNzhPh.png[/img] It looks familiar.... [B]WAIT![/B] Can it be?! [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/acT4Rtl.jpg[/thumb]