• Radical Feminists Trying to Attack and Desecrate a Cathedral, Peaceful Defenders Attacked.
    281 replies, posted
The thing is nobody knows the circumstance of the video for sure. First, we lack the social and political insight of Argentina, second we only have a fragment video of "evidence", if you can call it that. Right wing media will probably stand for the catholics and left wing media will probably look for a reason for the feminist actions. The thing is, besides playing the "who's the real catholic and extremist catholic" and "who's the real feminist and the extremist feminist" the input most of us can give is nothing more than a vague opinion based on each one's naive notions of morality. I find this situation kind of sad as a whole but will I let this be used to shape my opinion on Catholics or Feminists? Hell no.
Who would have thought radical feminism would outnumber radical religion
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43070927]On the real though that's not an example of No true Scotsman because he's talking about the literal definition of the word. Saying "No true Scotsman doesn't live in Scotland and has no Scottish blood whatsoever" is not fallacious.[/QUOTE] To be fair, he didn't say that till a later post which I didn't see so I realize my mistake now. While this doesn't apply to him or you, just a thing in general I've seen in parts of the internet, I don't get when self-proclaimed internet activists cling so religiously to the denotative/dictionary definition of feminism and act like definitions never change but then in the same breath reject the denotative/dictionary definition of racism, sexism, etc. saying "The current definition of [insert racism, sexism, etc. whatever you like] is heavily outdated, doesn't represent the whole picture, and needs to change so I refuse to use it.". Can you explain that to me?
[QUOTE=zizzleplix;43071080]To be fair, he didn't say that till a later post which I didn't see so I realize my mistake now. While this doesn't apply to him or you, just a thing in general I've seen in parts of the internet, I don't get when self-proclaimed internet activists cling so religiously to the denotative/dictionary definition of feminism and act like definitions never change but then in the same breath reject the denotative/dictionary definition of racism, sexism, etc. saying "The current definition of [insert racism, sexism, etc. whatever you like] is heavily outdated, doesn't represent the whole picture, and needs to change so I refuse to use it.". Can you explain that to me?[/QUOTE] dictionary definitions should probably never be used in an argument (though I've been guilty of it). However, I think it's pretty safe to say women who don't believe "women should have the right to an equal footing in the world free" aren't feminists. Of course, no large group of self-proclaimed feminists nor Andrea Dworkin actually don't believe this and I have no idea what Rangergxi was trying to imply.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43070782] Hold on. The media is showing a vocal minority of people who call themselves feminists. People go "yeah, a true face of feminism" then you and people like you go "but it's a vocal minority, do some research you lazy misogynist before you judge entire movement". So you do have some kind of criteria of a "bad feminist" or at least the one who gives feminism a bad name. [/quote] that's sorta irrelevant even if i do. the only people i would actually consider "bad feminists" are people who use feminism to gain power or wealth without really fighting injustice. i can disagree with someone without thinking they are "bad" at being a feminist. [quote]Agree but it's way easier to do that if you have batshit crazy people claiming to be part of the movement and then people from the movement not distancing themselves from that vocal minority. With a new name and division you can have a stricter definition. Then you could say that these and those people are not true whatever because they are violent or they don't advocate equality or whatever. Apparently unlike feminism because feminism could be pretty much anything. Stop simplifying so much. First of all if calm equal rights supporters and militant "castrate all men" rioters are both called feminists then you have confusion. Second, it's way easier to discredit the former that way, you just have to paint everyone as the latter. Third, you're saying it's a deliberate effort done by media to create that image for feminism, and in defense to this you just say "well people are stupid to believe this" and do nothing to fight that, you even help them by not distancing yourself from those who only call themselves feminists but actually don't stand for it's values or do it in a manner that throws everyone off. Forth, human stupidity and falling for propaganda is a conceivable obstacle on your way of getting to gender equality, why the hell ignore it? By giving people strict definition you can weaken the influence of it. The idea that there should be no gender roles should get as many supporters as possible. You can do that by having a movement that doesn't share the name with those who are used to paint feminism as "war on men" and give it stricter definition. It would be harder to abuse it that way.[/QUOTE] this isn't really valid. the extremists are not the problem with feminism. the problem with feminism is that it is an egalitarian movement that exists in an unequal society. the principle of feminism, the idea that men and women should be equal, is the point of resistance most of the time. the whole "feminists want to castrate men" is a strawman used, but it isn't created to attack extremist or radical ideology. it's more like a loaded phrase or codeword that has an implied meaning to most men: "feminism wants to take away what makes you a man in society" and it isn't that men hate the idea of being equal with women, it's that men are privileged and part of privilege is often being ignorant of your own privilege. when someone else tries to take away that privilege so we can all be more equal, it is perceived as an attack against you. these are the fundamental problems and they are not solved by changing the name or adding identical movements with different names.
I can bet you no one in that crowd is actually a real feminist [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] fucking disgraceful to the cause
[QUOTE]And here is where the whole business turns nasty. The souls of men --their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character-- must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo --the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central natural passion in men's souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty-- was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. The feminists were only completing the job done by Hobbes in his project of taming the harsh elements in the soul. With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family. Thus once again men must be re-educated according to an abstract project. They must accept the "feminine elements" in their nature. A host of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep types invade the schools, popular psychology, TV and the movies, making the project respectable. Men tend to undergo this re-education somewhat sullenly but studiously, in order to avoid the opprobrium of the sexist label and to keep peace with their wives and girlfriends. And it is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them "care" is another thing and the project must inevitably fail. [I]The Closing of the American Mind, p.129.[/I][/QUOTE]
Great paragraph. Men should abandon all man things but women stay the same kkkkk?
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43070927]On the real though that's not an example of No true Scotsman because he's talking about the literal definition of the word. Saying [B]"No true Scotsman doesn't live in Scotland and has no Scottish blood whatsoever" is not fallacious[/B].[/QUOTE] Yes but saying that someone is not a feminist because they disagree with another feminist is a fallacy.
Those guys have spectacularly huge balls to stand there and pray in spite of all that. Those women are disgusting. I'm not religious myself but I wouldn't desecrate a holy site for some 'social statement'
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43071821]that's sorta irrelevant even if i do. the only people i would actually consider "bad feminists" are people who use feminism to gain power or wealth without really fighting injustice. i can disagree with someone without thinking they are "bad" at being a feminist.[/QUOTE] If feminism is against judging people based purely on gender and it's against demanding things from people based on gender and it's against double standards, then everyone who goes men this men that, or it's okay to hit a guy but not woman is a bad feminist in my opinion. And this is part of what I'm talking about. Apparently you can't really say that these and those people shouldn't call themselves feminists, because lots of people with different ideologies and measures can call themselves that. [QUOTE=yawmwen;43071821]this isn't really valid. the extremists are not the problem with feminism. the problem with feminism is that it is an egalitarian movement that exists in an unequal society. the principle of feminism, the idea that men and women should be equal, is the point of resistance most of the time. the whole "feminists want to castrate men" is a strawman used, but it isn't created to attack extremist or radical ideology. it's more like a loaded phrase or codeword that has an implied meaning to most men: "feminism wants to take away what makes you a man in society" and it isn't that men hate the idea of being equal with women, it's that men are privileged and part of privilege is often being ignorant of your own privilege. when someone else tries to take away that privilege so we can all be more equal, it is perceived as an attack against you. these are the fundamental problems and they are not solved by changing the name or adding identical movements with different names.[/QUOTE] I never said that changing the name will fix everything. Feminism faces 2 obstacles. It's opposed by people who don't want equal rights and losing privileges. And it's misunderstood, portrayed as something else which takes away a good chunk of support. Having this broad name where you can't really say who's a feminist and who really isn't is part of the reason for it. Stop simplifying everything to one problem. People want a non-radical movement about getting rid of gender roles beneficial to both genders that isn't associated with the image the feminism has right now. By being that and having a strict definition it would get more support than the castrate all men movement. What's so wrong about it? You'd rather have less support and keep the struggle for equal rights associated with war on men just not to have a division to avoid internal conflict? You need that division. There's lots of people who oppose gender roles but don't want to call themselves a feminist, because of the associations with the name, both false image and actual people from the movement that they disagree with.
..... back to the story, let's hope that those who committed wrongdoings are punished accordingly
[QUOTE=xxncxx;43073927]Yes but saying that someone is not a feminist because they disagree with another feminist is a fallacy.[/QUOTE] Well gee it's a good thing no one said that then!
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43058835]Besides the fact they pretty much ruined everyone's clothes and tried to provoke them, the moment the they spat in their faces is when I would respond and knock them out cold. Maybe that will teach them what the extent of gender equality truly is.[/QUOTE] this is the funniest thing ive read in a while, you're really gonna act macho on a videogame forum about punching women in the face. that's incredible [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;43061554] 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] they used to riot in the street [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SnakeHead;43064189]I know of course on Facepunch I'm going to get hate for this, but this is what happens when radical feminism is left unchecked. We need things like the Men's Rights Movement (as stupid as some of it may be) to counter some of the more radical elements.[/QUOTE] you just had the moderator of the forum talk about punching women in the face dude sorry to tell you this but facepunch not exactly on the cutting edge here
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;43061554]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] My relatives wrecked shit heavier than this on goverment buildings, the Daily Mail and god knows what, and got forcefed in prison as a result just for the right to bloody [I]vote[/I], this is nothing These people couldn't hold a candle to the shit that happened a century ago A note found in a bag belonging to Helen Craggs, apprehended outside the foreign secretary's house along with oil, matches and other such firestarting equipment, read "I myself have taken part in every peaceful method of propaganda and petition ... but I have been driven to realise that it has all been of no avail, so now I ... have done something drastic...." Shows only how far these "good intentions" will get you
[QUOTE=Starpluck;43058835]Besides the fact they pretty much ruined everyone's clothes and tried to provoke them, the moment the they spat in their faces is when I would respond and knock them out cold. Maybe that will teach them what the extent of gender equality truly is.[/QUOTE] Spitting on someone = facepunch(ed) I agree 100%.
I read another thread about the demonstrations in Ukraine yesterday, and I imagined what would happen if these feminists tried to pull off this shit with the Ukranian special (riot) police. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nUTg8DU.jpg[/IMG] I mean these guys look like henchmen from an American action movie.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;43061554] 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] you have no idea what you're talking about, do you? [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] also, radical feminism doesn't just mean very outspoken feminism. google it.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43070787]Uh, I dunno if you'd not punch someone cause you're a bitch or something. But if someone spat on me i'd probably cave their fucking skull in.[/QUOTE] so macho mmm
[QUOTE=thisispain;43076542] you just had the moderator of the forum talk about punching women in the face dude sorry to tell you this but facepunch not exactly on the cutting edge here[/QUOTE] i dislike how you're emotionally charging the word women here, presumably because starpluck isn't punching them because they're a woman it's not important that he's punching a woman, it's important that he basically admittedly being an overly violent prat wanting to punch anybody in the face makes you a prat but yeah facepunch seems to be hugely feminist or hugely anti-feminist from poster to poster (at least in the vocal ones)
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43075609]If feminism is against judging people based purely on gender and it's against demanding things from people based on gender and it's against double standards, then everyone who goes men this men that, or it's okay to hit a guy but not woman is a bad feminist in my opinion. And this is part of what I'm talking about. Apparently you can't really say that these and those people shouldn't call themselves feminists, because lots of people with different ideologies and measures can call themselves that.[/quote] i can't really call them a bad feminist though. if we got rid of every person who works towards egalitarianism but has some oppressive idea about the world, then there would be no egalitarians left. we sorta need to argue about that sorta stuff within the movement. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] also by that measure you couldn't have men work within the feminist movement.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43078182] also by that measure you couldn't have men work within the feminist movement.[/QUOTE] Not all men participate in "oppressing" women. [QUOTE=thisispain;43076542]this is the funniest thing ive read in a while, you're really gonna act macho on a videogame forum about punching women in the face. [/QUOTE] Punching men is good. Punching women is always bad.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43078211]Not all men participate in "oppressing" women. [/QUOTE] just about every one of us do. i would make the claim almost all women also participate to a lesser degree. simply being privileged is oppressive. legitimizing oppressive gender roles is oppressive. most people don't know how their thoughts or actions are oppressive.
All men are bad please cut off my testicles so that I can become a pure
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43078182]i can't really call them a bad feminist though. if we got rid of every person who works towards egalitarianism but has some oppressive idea about the world, then there would be no egalitarians left. we sorta need to argue about that sorta stuff within the movement. also by that measure you couldn't have men work within the feminist movement.[/QUOTE] All the more reason why branching is reasonable. Seriously, you advocate that there should be an argument within the movement, but oppose dividing into movements that want to achieve the same goal but with different means, even though it would mean more support of the original cause.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43079364]All the more reason why branching is reasonable. Seriously, you advocate that there should be an argument within the movement, but oppose dividing into movements that want to achieve the same goal but with different means, even though it would mean more support of the original cause.[/QUOTE] there already is branching! some feminists are radical, some are moderate, some are reformists, some are gradualists, some hate transgender people, some believe in community action. what i'm saying is that each branch shouldn't have a unique name. they are all movements within the feminist movement.
[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;43073135]And here is where the whole business turns nasty. The souls of men --their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character-- must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo --the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central natural passion in men's souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty-- was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. The feminists were only completing the job done by Hobbes in his project of taming the harsh elements in the soul. With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family. Thus once again men must be re-educated according to an abstract project. They must accept the "feminine elements" in their nature. A host of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep types invade the schools, popular psychology, TV and the movies, making the project respectable. Men tend to undergo this re-education somewhat sullenly but studiously, in order to avoid the opprobrium of the sexist label and to keep peace with their wives and girlfriends. And it is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them "care" is another thing and the project must inevitably fail. The Closing of the American Mind, p.129.[/QUOTE] "The Closing of the American Mind is a 1987 book by Allan Bloom. It describes "[B]how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students.[/B]" He focuses especially upon the "openness" of relativism as leading paradoxically to the great "closing" referenced in the book's title. [B]Bloom argues that "openness" and absolute understanding undermines critical thinking and eliminates the "point of view" that defines cultures."[/B] k.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43079680]there already is branching! some feminists are radical, some are moderate, some are reformists, some are gradualists, some hate transgender people, some believe in community action. what i'm saying is that each branch shouldn't have a unique name. they are all movements within the feminist movement.[/QUOTE] But if these branches dont have any names, how would you know which one is which?
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;43080015]But if these branches dont have any names, how would you know which one is which?[/QUOTE] By understanding their philosophy. But that's hard work, having to understand what people are promoting. Then you can't just look under their header or a catalog and say "This person is x, they believe in y." It's this sort of thing that exactly causes the problem of factionalism. There's this theory in liberation philosophy/theory that's called intersectionality. The idea is that p much all/any liberation struggle, be it anything from civil rights, feminism, animal rights, class struggle, whatever, is all intertwined and based out of the same sorts of problems, and that to nail it down to one or two issues is to ignore all the others and create a problem of branching and factionalism in what would otherwise be natural allies. You don't have to promote every issue or even believe in it, but the fact of the matter is that rejecting it does more harm than good and is the cause of the problem. yawmwen said it in another way with the paraphrase of "argue in private, united in public". Often times we left-wingers tend to reject intersectionality in the "serious" doctrines of the left, and to show for it we have more factions than a tree has branches, each with its own name, product code, manual, congress, rule books, dictionary, thesarus, etc etc and we've gotten nowhere from it but infighting.
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;43080015]But if these branches dont have any names, how would you know which one is which?[/QUOTE] they do though. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.