[QUOTE=Blazedol;50114595]The radicals must be adressed when talking about these issues, but don't act like just because they're the majority that they redefine feminism. There are still reasonable people in the group and the general philosophies and ideas of feminism are reasonably egalitarian.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't want to say that every single feminist is radical just because some of the key academics are. I acknowledge that a lot of feminists do just want equality between the sexes. But this is why I prefer the term egalitarian to feminist.
As a feminist, there are some general principles you have to follow - there's a set way of thinking, but as an egalitarian all you have to believe is that everyone is equal. If feminism was as simple as believing the men and women are equal I would be a feminist, but it's not.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;50114595]The radicals must be adressed when talking about these issues, but don't act like just because they're the majority that they redefine feminism. There are still reasonable people in the group and the general philosophies and ideas of feminism are reasonably egalitarian.[/QUOTE]
This entire semantic bullshit is really disgusting to me.
"Feminism is about equal rights of men and women."
"You can't differentiate feminists into smaller groups, they all have to be called feminists to maintain that all of feminism is about equal rights and equal rights only."
"Supporting equal rights is identical to being a feminist. All other labels about equal rights are unnecessary."
I'm sorry but feminism has changed. People who are reasonable either call themselves second wave feminists or egalitarians or are unaware of what's going on with feminism today.
[QUOTE=SpartanApples;50114641]Well I don't want to say that every single feminist is radical just because some of the key academics are. I acknowledge that a lot of feminists do just want equality between the sexes. But this is why I prefer the term egalitarian to feminist.
As a feminist, there are some general principles you have to follow - there's a set way of thinking, but as an egalitarian all you have to believe is that everyone is equal. If feminism was as simple as believing the men and women are equal I would be a feminist, but it's not.[/QUOTE]
Oh it's fine to prefer what to be called or associated with. If you're for equality in general than yeah you're an egalitarian, but if you want to get technical about it, that'd mean you're subscribed to all philosophies supporting equality, you dig?
But my advice would to, honestly, not associate yourself with any label. Too many people focus on what your called rather than what you believe in. At least in my experience.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50114650]This entire semantic bullshit is really disgusting to me.
"Feminism is about equal rights of men and women."
"You can't differentiate feminists into smaller groups, they all have to be called feminists to maintain that all of feminism is about equal rights and equal rights only."
"Supporting equal rights is identical to being a feminist. All other labels about equal rights are unnecessary."
I'm sorry but feminism has changed. People who are reasonable either call themselves second wave feminists or egalitarians or are unaware of what's going on with feminism today.[/QUOTE]
Like I said last page, you can be reasonable and a third-wave feminist (and plenty of people are), the latter doesn't just denote radicalism. Second-wave has its own problems and radicals too.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;50114673]But my advice would to, honestly, not associate yourself with any label. Too many people focus on what your called rather than what you believe in. At least in my experience.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with you on this. I think this whole debate has just descended into arguing over definitions rather than the ideas behind them.
The problem is, people believing that feminism just means equality between the sexes makes it invulnerable to criticism. So when you try to challenge radicals who claim to be feminist, you just get called a misogynist.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;50114683]Like I said last page, you can be reasonable and a third-wave feminist (and plenty of people are), the latter doesn't just denote radicalism. Second-wave has its own problems and radicals too.[/QUOTE]
Sure there can be second wave radical feminists but the specific goals of second wave were great.
But when it comes to third wave I haven't really seen much of reasonable arguments.
Point out the reasonable goals and arguments and I will change my mind about the third wave. If it includes the "only men can be sexist" definition of sexism it's not reasonable.
[QUOTE=SpartanApples;50114706]I completely agree with you on this. I think this whole debate has just descended into arguing over definitions rather than the ideas behind them.
The problem is, people believing that feminism just means equality between the sexes makes it invulnerable to criticism. So when you try to challenge radicals who claim to be feminist, you just get called a misogynist.[/QUOTE]
Then challenge individuals who misapply the principles of Social Justice, not the sound ideologies that they stand behind. People misapplying and hiding behind SJ ideologies is an inevitability of social justice and occurs in almost every single instance of it.
What's wrong with her videos again ?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114889]Then challenge individuals who misapply the principles of Social Justice, not the sound ideologies that they stand behind. People misapplying and hiding behind SJ ideologies is an inevitability of social justice and occurs in almost every single instance of it.[/QUOTE]
I would love to see you go into the women's studies department of any Ivy League school and tell the professors that they aren't real feminists.
I like her. Sure, I'd wish she'd expand to more topics because it does get kinda tiring, but it's not like she makes videos that often. And It isn't fair for people to paint her as some /pol//4chan shill, she's even said she has voted for Obama twice, she just clearly has a passion for criticizing modern feminism.
Haha what an epic LOL i had after watching that, it was indeed quite scientifically random! XD for the lols!
:vomit:
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114443]Feminism is merely wanting equal rights for males and females, and that's it. [/QUOTE]
Except that's 100% not true and you fucking know it, feminism as a concept shifts and changes a lot and is interpreted in different ways by different people. The dictionary definition of feminism is nonsense, feminism is not an ideology and neither is gamergate, they are both movements and have no strict dictionary definition or ideology.
Claiming that feminism can't be generalized because it has a word in a dictionary and that gamergate can be because it's more complex is absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50114924]I would love to see you go into the women's studies department of any Ivy League school and tell the professors that they aren't real feminists.[/QUOTE]
I dont know what message they're pushing so you'll have to enlighten me.
I have to ask why a lot of people find it okay to generalize feminism as a whole as "misandrists", "social justice warriors", "radicals" etc., but when someone generalizes or simplifies the movement as "women being equal to men" now feminism is suddenly "complex" and "fluid in meaning".
I am not arguing which definition is right or wrong, but I just always see people treat feminism as if it one hive-mind of individuals. Then when someone states otherwise it's either a "no true Scotsman fallacy" or some how the bad part of the movement must define everyone and those who aren't radicals don't count.
[QUOTE=AbioFlesh;50115341]I have to ask why a lot of people find it okay to generalize feminism as a whole as "misandrists", "social justice warriors", "radicals" etc., but when someone generalizes or simplifies the movement as "women being equal to men" now feminism is suddenly "complex" and "fluid in meaning".
I am not arguing which definition is right or wrong, but I just always see people treat feminism as if it one hive-mind of individuals. Then when someone states otherwise it's either a "no true Scotsman fallacy" or some how the bad part of the movement must define everyone and those who aren't radicals don't count.[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid you're going to have to cite these people who "generalize feminism as a whole" before you make this argument.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50116296]I'm afraid you're going to have to cite these people who "generalize feminism as a whole" before you make this argument.[/QUOTE]
This is a silly request, people do this really frequently online.
The thing is even though they usually don't make the distinction, in context they're almost always referring to third wave feminism/feminists (IE: Anita Sarkeesian). Ask most of the people making the comments and you'll find most of them agree with the concepts and ideals of equality, their criticisms aren't about the ideals, but about how third wave feminists are trying to get there, because third wave feminism is more about burning bridges than building them.
You guys should see the kind of shit that happen(s/ed)) in Israel with their feminist lobbying being a large influence. Anyone paying attention should realize that capitulating to the demands of third wave feminists and other groups like them (BLM, for instance) should be done with extreme caution or consideration to the precedents they'll set.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50115142]I dont know what message they're pushing so you'll have to enlighten me.[/QUOTE]
I'm pushing the idea that you're telling the top people in the recognized field of feminism that they aren't real feminists. It's funny. Feminism isn't like a religion where you can go to the book or documents that lay out the beliefs in order to justify who's a part and who isn't a part of your religion.
Feminism has become a cancerous growth in my personal opinion. In the 50s it made sense but nowadays it has become corrupted by these 3rd wave social justice warriors who hate all men(Pre-dominantly white more than any other) and are trying to push the rights of women instead of taking into account both genders.
They're essentially trying to solve the problem of equality by focusing purely on one side instead of both which doesn't actually solve the problem in the first place.
I'd be more into this chick if all she did wasn't just
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kzsK8kI.png[/img]
the boxxy shtick got old a long time ago
[QUOTE=Zakkin;50119963]I'd be more into this chick if all she did wasn't just
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kzsK8kI.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Everyone has their niche.
[QUOTE=Zakkin;50119963]I'd be more into this chick if all she did wasn't just
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kzsK8kI.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was saying. I like her and she makes a lot of great points, but overall is pretty one-note.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50116364]This is a silly request, people do this really frequently online.
The thing is even though they usually don't make the distinction, in context they're almost always referring to third wave feminism/feminists (IE: Anita Sarkeesian). Ask most of the people making the comments and you'll find most of them agree with the concepts and ideals of equality, their criticisms aren't about the ideals, but about how third wave feminists are trying to get there, because third wave feminism is more about burning bridges than building them.
You guys should see the kind of shit that happen(s/ed)) in Israel with their feminist lobbying being a large influence. Anyone paying attention should realize that capitulating to the demands of third wave feminists and other groups like them (BLM, for instance) should be done with extreme caution or consideration to the precedents they'll set.[/QUOTE]
First: He was making a strawman about people in this thread.
Second: I'm not going to defend other people's arguments or opinions that I disagree with the same way I'm not going to demand from you (assuming you are a feminist) or any other feminists to speak for some self proclaimed feminist making stupid arguments, say Sarkeesian.
Third: I know the distinction. I've made it clear with my posts in this thread. You basically restated my argument in your second paragraph.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
