Radical Feminists Trying to Attack and Desecrate a Cathedral, Peaceful Defenders Attacked.
281 replies, posted
Just some sort of overarching gender movement that aims to get rid of socially constructed gender roles and harmful gender ideals, promote gender equality and all that jazz
helps both women and the lgbt crowd then
Hearing girl's around my age's views on feminism is sort of depressing and something needs to be done
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
The name tag of "feminism" is just harmful in itself
[QUOTE=Laputa;43060835]But what [I]can[/I] we replace such a simple concept with[/QUOTE]
this is probably the most silly perpetuation of an oppressive system.
"we can't solve this problem because the people trying to solve it have a bad reputation, let's create a new movement!"
men's right activists tried to do it, and they ended up in a serious conflict with feminism. now people are saying things like "humanist" or "equalist", ignoring that creating a new movement nearly identical to the old only adds to the internal conflict among egalitarians.
why do we need more conflict and division, again?
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Lain;43060848]you can't replace the movement of equality with anything other than a movement for inequality
people just want the name changed because they're naive and think it means women go above men or something dumb[/QUOTE]
anarchists tried to change their name to "libertarian socialist" to distance the movement from the stereotypical teenage-dynamite-bomb-throwing-thug image.
take a guess about how that turned out.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43060900]
"we can't solve this problem because the people trying to solve it have a bad reputation, let's create a new movement!"
[/QUOTE]
No, just bring a connected but alternative movement to the fore
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43060900]this is probably the most silly perpetuation of an oppressive system.
"we can't solve this problem because the people trying to solve it have a bad reputation, let's create a new movement!"
men's right activists tried to do it, and they ended up in a serious conflict with feminism. now people are saying things like "humanist" or "equalist", ignoring that creating a new movement nearly identical to the old only adds to the internal conflict among egalitarians.
why do we need more conflict and division, again?
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
anarchists tried to change their name to "libertarian socialist" to distance the movement from the stereotypical teenage-dynamite-bomb-throwing-thug image.
take a guess about how that turned out.[/QUOTE]
i dont think the name should be changed i'm just saying people see it as a women>men movement because they're stupid and arrogant
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43060657]'gender equality means i can be just as violent towards women as i am towards men!'[/QUOTE]
Yeah? Thats equality but you shouldn't be violent towards anybody regardless of gender or race.
[QUOTE=RobbL;43060925]No, just bring a connected but alternative movement to the fore[/QUOTE]
there can be no connected movements to feminism because there is nothing that it can connect to without the movements coming into conflict. at least regarding gender/sexual equality. movements connected to feminism are post-marxist theory, anarchism, lgbt, anti-colonialism, antira, and antifa. notice how all of these movements are about different things. none of these movements try to supplant the feminist movement. none of these movements try to make feminism redundant. instead, these connected movements synthesize with feminism to form more specific ways of analyzing the struggles of oppressed people in various contexts.
a new gender equality movement cannot connect to feminism because a connected movement informs and broadens the struggle. if it is agreeable to feminists, the movement will be absorbed into the feminist movement. if it's disagreeable, it will come into conflict with the movement.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Lain;43060948]i dont think the name should be changed i'm just saying people see it as a women>men movement because they're stupid and arrogant[/QUOTE]
"i cant be a feminist because im a man and i need to be masculine. feminism sounds too much like feminine and a manly man like me cannot be feminine."
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43061002]
a new gender equality movement cannot connect to feminism because a connected movement informs and broadens the struggle. if it is agreeable to feminists, the movement will be absorbed into the feminist movement. if it's disagreeable, it will come into conflict with the movement.[/QUOTE]
Feminism isn't completely united behind the idea of equality.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43061058]Feminism isn't completely united behind the idea of equality.[/QUOTE]
wtf does that mean? feminism is the idea that men and women should be equal in society. there is a whole bunch of theory and diversity under that umbrella but equality is the core idea.
Wow it started out pretty bad and then they straight up start dancing around a big fire do they seriously think this will help their cause?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/X2zKC3g.png[/IMG]
made me chuckle
Where is it implied they are Radicals though? Do they call themselves that?
Doing lewd acts and throwing underwear does not sound like anything sanctioned by radical thinking. Anyway this sounds terrible until you think about how misogynist the Catholic Church is.
This debate should be more about whether violence is justified in liberation movements or not, not whether feminists suck or not.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
Nothing bothers me more than people calling any feminist they don't like Radical. It's taking a real movement that has more correct than any other feminist group and lumps them into every straw woman or crazy person ever.
Like, I don't like a good deal of what some Radicals say about trans* issues but I'll say they suck for that reason.
[QUOTE=person11;43061369]
Nothing bothers me more than people calling any feminist they don't like Radical. It's taking a real movement that has more correct than any other feminist group and lumps them into every straw woman or crazy person ever.
Like, I don't like a good deal of what some Radicals say about trans* issues but I'll say they suck for that reason.[/QUOTE]
Radicals don't normally apply the term to themselves because of negative connotations. The application of the term is really based on perspective.
I thought it was ridiculous how those guys just stood there and took it. If it were a man, they would have beaten the shit out of them. Good on them for attempting to be civilized to these banshees though.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43059096]this is a disgusting post and you should be ashamed of it tbh
the idea of punching someone in the face because they spat on you is just fucking ridiculous. that's like whipping out a gun and shooting someone if they push you.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
and then to follow it with "HAH GENDER EQUALITY" just makes you sound like an utter child[/QUOTE]
I understand that you think physically assaulting anyone for any reasons is wrong, but calling someone childish over a natural reaction to a lesser method of offense such as spitting or drawing shit on your face is dumb.
Maybe that's not how you roll and that's perfectly fine (although I doubt you've ever been spit in the face), but get off your goddamn high horse and stop telling people what they should and shouldn't be ashamed of, because THAT is childish.
[QUOTE=person11;43061369]this sounds terrible until you think about how misogynist the Catholic Church is.[/QUOTE]
That's no excuse for acting like fucking savages, it would be like me going off to beat up some English families just because of what their country did to mine in the past.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43061416]Radicals don't normally apply the term to themselves because of negative connotations. The application of the term is really based on perspective.[/QUOTE]
Good point. It will probably prove to be a terrible idea for the Radicals to have called themselves that. Still bothers me that their best ideas are being buried by stuff like this.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;43061469]That's no excuse for acting like fucking savages.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's the crux of the debate. Is any violence justifiable when protesting? These feminists are totally right to be angry at the church, but does that justify this?
[QUOTE=person11;43061369]Anyway this sounds terrible until you think about how misogynist the Catholic Church is.[/QUOTE]
That may be true but they shouldn't give them a point by acting like animals.
I'm so glad that I live somewhere where militant feminism isn't a thing. I mean, feminism aims for an abstract goal but this... it goes beyond fucked.
[QUOTE=person11;43061470]
Yeah that's the crux of the debate. Is any violence justifiable when protesting? These feminists are totally right to be angry at the church, but does that justify this?[/QUOTE]
So what if they were angry at the church? There are more than enough alternatives to getting their "point" across than acting like a complete savage towards another human being who isn't even throwing punches at you for what your doing.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;43061522]I'm so glad that I live somewhere where militant feminism isn't a thing. I mean, feminism aims for an abstract goal but this... it goes beyond fucked.[/QUOTE]
Feminism started with good intentions in the beginning, but it has warped their original ideology to the point where it has almost become blind anger.
[QUOTE=person11;43061470]Is any violence justifiable when protesting?[/QUOTE]
Only if violence is being used to supress said protestors. (hint, it wasn't)
There's a reason the Civil Rights movement mainly used Peaceful Protesting. Violent protesting just gives oppressors a reason to put you down.
edit: Also spitting like that on someone is physical assault.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43061069]wtf does that mean? feminism is the idea that men and women should be equal in society. there is a whole bunch of theory and diversity under that umbrella but equality is the core idea.[/QUOTE]
That's the idea in principle, but in practice it's almost always skewed to serve women's issues over mens.
[QUOTE=person11;43061369]Where is it implied they are Radicals though? Do they call themselves that?
Doing lewd acts and throwing underwear does not sound like anything sanctioned by radical thinking. Anyway this sounds terrible until you think about how misogynist the Catholic Church is.
This debate should be more about whether violence is justified in liberation movements or not, not whether feminists suck or not.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
Nothing bothers me more than people calling any feminist they don't like Radical. It's taking a real movement that has more correct than any other feminist group and lumps them into every straw woman or crazy person ever.
Like, I don't like a good deal of what some Radicals say about trans* issues but I'll say they suck for that reason.[/QUOTE]
they are "radical". radicalism isn't a specific set of beliefs, it's more of a methodology. being a radical means you step outside the box of "acceptable protest". it's generally marked by disillusionment in the electoral system and peaceful protest. a moderate tries to change things within the system, legally. radicals step outside of the system.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;43061430]I understand that you think physically assaulting anyone for any reasons is wrong, but calling someone childish over a natural reaction to a lesser method of offense such as spitting or drawing shit on your face is dumb.
Maybe that's not how you roll and that's perfectly fine (although I doubt you've ever been spit in the face), but get off your goddamn high horse and stop telling people what they should and shouldn't be ashamed of, because THAT is childish.[/QUOTE]
The feminists also retaliated in a "natural" manner. No one is a one-dimensional character who attempts actions without reason. Here's some interesting context from a protester who didn't participate.
[quote]I'm just going to state something that the publisher obviously neglected to tell: This so called protest was scheduled as a pacifist rally, and got violent after a bus that had members of a feminist congress that was taking place in the San Juan province was attacked with stones and glass shards while leaving town. Recently, a far right ultra-catholic group related to this incident, also entered and disturbed the Kristallnacht mass were all the Jewish community authorities at the Buenos Aires Cathedral were.
The congress was about several subjects, one of them being abortion (a change in our civil code was made last week, which makes abortion impossible), minery (which is destroying our country, contaminating our water and leaving people without their homes).
The rally was scheduled to walk by the Cathedral, where it was verbally attacked by the ultra-catholic group stationed near the church. When the women retaliated, some of them answered, while some did not. This video is very careful on what it shows and tells, as it is obviously telling the world half the story here.
San Juan is a very conservative and Catholic province. In this state, the church is above the law, and a lot of the population lives way below the poverty line. Church officials get a lot of money from the state, which is quite unfair considering the manner on which most of the population lives. It is also a place where women are really undermined, and where the wealthy part of the population (people who own much of the land) can do pretty much as they like, even rape women at pleasure because someone from their family works in the city or province's government.
I'm not saying that what this women did was not wrong. No public or historical building should be subjected to this, and certainly not people to this kind of disrespect, but they were challenged, without a doubt, and these men are not innocent little lambs.•[/quote]
Regardless of whether it's natural or not, it also determines whether the public eye would view you in good character or not.
So spitting on men who are only trying to defend what they believe in is going to help us all build a better society and live in a peaceful world. I was really interested at one point with the "radical" feminists going to people like Vladimir Putin and showing their message across their tits, but I thought it was a good way to show everyone that they are here and they have something everyone needs to hear. Then proceed with more politically correct ways of getting through to the government. Instead they just continue to go very popular places like fashion catwalks and run around like headless chickens. I watched a documentary which followed the Ukrainian ones and even they don't seem to know where they're going with all this.
[QUOTE=person11;43061470]Is any violence justifiable when protesting? [/QUOTE]
idk that i agree with the use of violence or anything, but i don't why we have such a taboo against it. it seems like our repulsion with violence is a bit hypocritical and part of the way systems of oppression try to marginalize all of our struggles. it creates this atmosphere where we are constantly trying to defend, denounce, or speak for other people who use violence in their protests because we fear eroding the legitimacy of the entire movement.
is it so hard to see why people who struggle with oppression would employ violence in their struggle? we are threatened with violence all the time. instead of trying to speak on the legitimacy of violent protest, let's just acknowledge that it exists and try to understand the context. by trying to defend the movement or denounce the violent people we are justifying the idea that there is such a thing as a "legitimate protest" and that "illegitimate protest" lowers the legitimacy of the struggle.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;43061587]Only if violence is being used to supress said protestors. (hint, it wasn't)
There's a reason the Civil Rights movement mainly used Peaceful Protesting. Violent protesting just gives oppressors a reason to put you down.
edit: Also spitting like that on someone is physical assault.
That's the idea in principle, but in practice it's almost always skewed to serve women's issues over mens.[/QUOTE]
no it's almost never skewed like that
[editline]4th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43061756]idk that i agree with the use of violence or anything, but i don't why we have such a taboo against it. it seems like our repulsion with violence is a bit hypocritical and part of the way systems of oppression try to marginalize all of our struggles. it creates this atmosphere where we are constantly trying to defend, denounce, or speak for other people who use violence in their protests because we fear eroding the legitimacy of the entire movement.
is it so hard to see why people who struggle with oppression would employ violence in their struggle? we are threatened with violence all the time. instead of trying to speak on the legitimacy of violent protest, let's just acknowledge that it exists and try to understand the context. by trying to defend the movement or denounce the violent people we are justifying the idea that there is such a thing as a "legitimate protest" and that "illegitimate protest" lowers the legitimacy of the struggle.[/QUOTE]
i find it hypocritical that violence was used to establish most modern institutions, but then it's suddenly not even an option when it comes to dismantling them
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43061756]idk that i agree with the use of violence or anything, but i don't why we have such a taboo against it. it seems like our repulsion with violence is a bit hypocritical and part of the way systems of oppression try to marginalize all of our struggles. it creates this atmosphere where we are constantly trying to defend, denounce, or speak for other people who use violence in their protests because we fear eroding the legitimacy of the entire movement.
is it so hard to see why people who struggle with oppression would employ violence in their struggle? we are threatened with violence all the time. instead of trying to speak on the legitimacy of violent protest, let's just acknowledge that it exists and try to understand the context. by trying to defend the movement or denounce the violent people we are justifying the idea that there is such a thing as a "legitimate protest" and that "illegitimate protest" lowers the legitimacy of the struggle.[/QUOTE]
TBH I would be in complete understanding of a woman's violent wishes against a group of men who were open about how they would willingly carry out an acid attack in the name of honour
Oh regarding about Feminism, Have you all seen the interview Japanese Herbivore Man how Feminism affect his life, his country and all men?
[video=youtube;PHWUrUox0R4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHWUrUox0R4[/video]
[video=youtube;gRROUIsRupU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRROUIsRupU[/video]
[video=youtube;kAZLoP0lEIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAZLoP0lEIU[/video]
[QUOTE=lintz;43058762]congratulations, and they wonder why the public eye sees feminism in a bad light.[/QUOTE]
would you use the same argument about Islam
if a lot of people take extremists and cast judgment based on that it's because they're idiots, it's no one else's fault.
Further proof to my theory: The worlds problems don't stem from Christians or Muslims or Jews or feminists or atheists. They stem from Radicals. Radicals, from any background, are the worst kind of people. You get normal people who are content to be feminist/Christian/atheist/whatthefuckever, proud and still civil to everyone else, or you get...that.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43061878]no it's almost never skewed like that[/QUOTE]
How many men's issues can you name that feminism has helped to resolve?
[editline]4th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43061948]would you use the same argument about Islam
if a lot of people take extremists and cast judgment based on that it's because they're idiots, it's no one else's fault.[/QUOTE]
We're not judging all feminists though, just radical/extremist/militant ones.
edit: Violence is not an acceptable method of protest where Peaceful protest is possible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.