Male student forced to step down after democratically elected as women’s officer at TUU
134 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sableye;47490201]Feminist theory believes that a society that is more feminine will be somehow less aggressive, more inclusive and more peaceful, I don't see how more women in power or a hypothetical society run entirely by women will change human nature.
More women sounds more inclusive but what if you replace 10 fundamental christian male leaders with 10 fundamentalist christian females, they're both going to say gays are evil and gender dysphoria is caused by the gay agenda. Ignoring physical sex there's nothing making women any less biggoted or spiteful than men[/QUOTE]
It is kinda funny how on the one hand they say that no one should put all feminist under one label because of these incidents, but on the other hand they generalize the whole male population of earth of being run by their genitals, only trying to one up each other and fight for resources like animals.
If that was the case, the third planet of the solar system would be an irradiated hell, sterilized by atomic fire. And there wouldn't be the word diplomacy in the dictionary.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47490201]Feminist theory believes that a society that is more feminine will be somehow less aggressive, more inclusive and more peaceful, I don't see how more women in power or a hypothetical society run entirely by women will change human nature[/QUOTE]
Again, that's just not what feminism is after. It's the philosophy that women could run for office or any position of authority with the same connotations as a man, [I]if a woman wants to[/I]. This isn't about dethroning men, and claiming superiority. It's hard to argue that life wouldn't be more peaceful if everyone was treated equally and fairly, no matter what gender they are. It's about bringing everyone UP, not knocking men down to make it "fair."
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;47490201]Feminist theory believes that a society that is more feminine will be somehow less aggressive, more inclusive and more peaceful, I don't see how more women in power or a hypothetical society run entirely by women will change human nature.
More women sounds more inclusive but what if you replace 10 fundamental christian male leaders with 10 fundamentalist christian females, they're both going to say gays are evil and gender dysphoria is caused by the gay agenda. Ignoring physical sex there's nothing making women any less biggoted or spiteful than men[/QUOTE]
In response to your edit, that's just a group of assholes being replaced by another group of assholes. Eliminating bigotry and homophobia is yet again, another goal of feminism.
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47490256]It is kinda funny how on the one hand they say that no one should put all feminist under one label because of these incidents, but on the other hand they generalize the whole male population of earth of being run by their genitals, only trying to one up each other and fight for resources like animals.
If that was the case, the third planet of the solar system would be an irradiated hell, sterilized by atomic fire. And there wouldn't be the word diplomacy in the dictionary.[/QUOTE]
What are you even on about
[QUOTE=djshox;47490262]Again, that's just not what feminism is after. It's the philosophy that women could run for office or any position of authority with the same connotations as a man, [I]if a woman wants to[/I]. This isn't about dethroning men, and claiming superiority. It's hard to argue that life wouldn't be more peaceful if everyone was treated equally and fairly, no matter what gender they are. It's about bringing everyone UP, not knocking men down to make it "fair."
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
In response to your edit, that's just a group of assholes being replaced by another group of assholes. Eliminating bigotry and homophobia is yet again, another goal of feminism.[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't be feminism its a stupid way to look at that only comes from one angle. Call it a gender equality movement allowing all to be part. Considering you are a brain after all not a body.
[QUOTE=DELL;47490285]Shouldn't be feminism its a stupid way to look at that only comes from one angle. Call it a gender equality movement allowing all to be part. Considering you are a brain after all not a body.[/QUOTE]
Call it whatever you want, along with egalitarianism.
[QUOTE=DELL;47490285]Shouldn't be feminism its a stupid way to look at that only comes from one angle. Call it a gender equality movement allowing all to be part. Considering you are a brain after all not a body.[/QUOTE]
Changing the name is an utterly meaningless gesture. It is called feminism because women have had, and in some cases still have, it worse in society. The idea being to lift women up to the same level as men, eradicating the worse parts of the gender roles is just a logical continuation of the whole thing.
This is why people who post shit like "uggh don't call me a feminist, I'm an [I]~~~egalitarian~~~[/I]" are obnoxious fucks. No. You're still a feminist. Feminism is a subset of the egalitarian ideals. I'll call you a fucking feminist if you're expressing feminist ideals and I will be the one who is correct.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490077]But it really hasn't done any of that in reality. Maybe in your head, maybe to your favourite internet communities, but not in reality.
The second you start being sexist against men when flying under the banner of feminism, you've stopped being a feminist. It's really quite that simple. There are divisions amongst feminists sure, some who take a more radical stance to getting shit done, but in the grand scheme of things they are a super-minority. They have little actual impact outside of sometimes making the headlines when they charge into a place topless.[/QUOTE]
If this is truly the case, and the feminists I speak of are a small vocal minority, then why did that petition get over a thousand signatures? This is the exact point James Ritchie is trying to make. What he was trying to do was progressive. Maybe too progressive for even "modern feminists".
His attempt at consolidating a human issue, rather than a women's issue was met with hostility by the very group he was trying to represent.
I think that's the problem. Even women still see this as a "women's issue" and not a human issue. You can't progress in a two sided endeavour without both sides being on board.
I don't see this as a small vocal minority. I see this as widespread overcompensation in the form of hatred.
I also think that believing in equality in genders does not make you a feminist, it makes you a considerate human fucking being. Feminism is a buzzword, and now, it's a misguided, misused buzzword. It is widely used as a tool for social high-horsing. You can find all the proof you need by visiting tumblr. Tumblr of course is the most blatant and disgusting example of social high-horsing, but it does exist outside of the walls of the internet.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;47490319]If this is truly the case, and the feminists I speak of are a small vocal minority, then why did that petition get over a thousand signatures? This is the exact point James Ritchie is trying to make. What he was trying to do was progressive. Maybe too progressive for even "modern feminists".
His attempt at consolidating a human issue, rather than a women's issue was met with hostility by the very group he was trying to represent.
I think that's the problem. Even women still see this as a "women's issue" and not a human issue. You can't progress in a two sided endeavour without both sides being on board.
I don't see this as a small vocal minority. I see this as widespread overcompensation in the form of hatred.
I also think that believing in equality in genders does not make you a feminist, it makes you a considerate human fucking being. Feminism is a buzzword, and now, it's a misguided, misused buzzword. It is widely used as a tool for social high-horsing. You can find all the proof you need by visiting tumblr. Tumblr of course is the most blatant and disgusting example of social high-horsing, but it does exist outside of the walls of the internet.[/QUOTE]
He ran for the position of 'Women's Officer', good intentions or not, does it not seem more logical and reasonable for a woman, someone who actually has to experience women's problems every day of her life, to take that position?
It's not particularly hard to a petition to get thousands of signatures, people will sign damn near anything as long as it makes them feel right. And most of the responses I saw were along the lines of "really a woman should be representing the women on campus...". It's not a "human issue" when it is something that can only be experience by one gender (in general at least). It becomes an issue people of that gender experience. Not humans as a whole.
And yes, it is still a small, vocal minority. Even if every single signature on this petition was from one of these fabled "Tumblr feminists", that's still only a thousand or so people. That's nothing.
To think feminism is a buzzword is completely asinine and makes me think you really have done no research into what feminist ideologies have done historically or what they are still doing now. It's largely an academic pursuit at the moment, but it is in no way a buzzword.
To be fair it seems better to have someone representing you who has first hand experience of the problems you face
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490375]It's not a "human issue" when it is something that can only be experience by one gender (in general at least). It becomes an issue people of that gender experience. Not humans as a whole.
[/QUOTE]
Disregarding everything else in that post, I can no longer argue my points as long as you believe that women are the only ones to benefit from an equality movement.
You've missed the entire point of #heforshe
The division of genders continues. Division breeds hatred.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490303]Changing the name is an utterly meaningless gesture. It is called feminism because women have had, and in some cases still have, it worse in society. The idea being to lift women up to the same level as men, eradicating the worse parts of the gender roles is just a logical continuation of the whole thing.
This is why people who post shit like "uggh don't call me a feminist, I'm an [I]~~~egalitarian~~~[/I]" are obnoxious fucks. No. You're still a feminist. Feminism is a subset of the egalitarian ideals. I'll call you a fucking feminist if you're expressing feminist ideals and I will be the one who is correct.[/QUOTE]
that's kind of a hostile attitude to take over something that is supposedly as meaningless as a name change
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
like if you believe the same things, why get in a huff about the different name?
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;47490416]Disregarding everything else in that post, I can no longer argue my points as long as you believe that women are the only ones to benefit from an equality movement.
You've missed the entire point of #heforshe[/QUOTE]
I have never said that at all? Where the almighty fuck did you even get that from?
I explained why feminism is called feminism, because the majority of the focus is on issues women face. I never mentioned anything along the lines of "lol fuck mens issues tho". And I am usually one of the first to point out "hey you fucks, if feminism actually succeeds where it needs to everyone benefits in the end".
But that doesn't change why the movement is called what it is. Also you're gonna have to explain how I've missed the point of heforshe. A movement aimed to get men and women to work together to level the playing field. Because I don't think I've missed the point of that. Men can still take part and work towards the goals of feminism, but that doesn't necessarily mean men are fit to represent women at this point in time.
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47490436]that's kind of a hostile attitude to take over something that is supposedly as meaningless as a name change
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
like if you believe the same things, why get in a huff about the different name?[/QUOTE]
You call it a huff, I call it "telling it like it is". If you're expressing feminist views, you're a feminist. That doesn't stop you being an egalitarian. But getting uncomfortable when people do then call you a feminist is ridiculous.
I completely and utterly disagree with the premise that someone of the opposite gender could not represent the wishes of the other population. It's arguable about [I]best[/I] representation maybe, but who's to say that a man can't be attuned to the needs of the female population, esp. at something as small in scale as a university?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490457]You call it a huff, I call it "telling it like it is". If you're expressing feminist views, you're a feminist. That doesn't stop you being an egalitarian. But getting uncomfortable when people do then call you a feminist is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
maybe they feel that there is a difference enough to signify a different label. by disregarding what they may kindly ask you to call them, you may seem like you're disregarding any alternate views they may have. you're telling them what they are, and even though feminist isn't a bad label, people don't seem to like being called things they think they are not
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
like, if someone insisted on calling you egalitarian, wouldn't you get annoyed?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47490614]maybe they feel that there is a difference enough to signify a different label. by disregarding what they may kindly ask you to call them, you may seem like you're disregarding any alternate views they may have. you're telling them what they are, and even though feminist isn't a bad label, people don't seem to like being called things they think they are not
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
like, if someone insisted on calling you egalitarian, wouldn't you get annoyed?[/QUOTE]
Not really, because I can also hold egalitarian beliefs. One is a superset of the other, being annoyed when someone refers to some of your beliefs as feminist because you also believe in racial, physical, and sexual equality is silly. If you don't hold the full set of egalitarian beliefs, then being annoyed at someone calling you an egalitarian makes sense. The reverse really doesn't.
Calling someone who is expressing feminist beliefs a feminist, despite what else they believe, isn't ignoring their other beliefs. It's just using one of the possibly numerous labels that applies to the beliefs they hold.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490375]To think feminism is a buzzword is completely asinine and makes me think you really have done no research into what feminist ideologies have done historically or what they are still doing now. It's largely an academic pursuit at the moment, but it is in no way a buzzword.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if you have done that research yourself. It would be useful to know that many things that third and fourth wave feminism fight against were made by the first and second wave feminists.
Doesn't the idea that a man can't represent women and do right by them kind of fly in the face of the whole equality thing?
"Men and women should have the same opportunities! But if a man tries to represent women's needs then so help me GOD, heads will roll."
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490652]Not really, because I can also hold egalitarian beliefs. One is a superset of the other, being annoyed when someone refers to some of your beliefs as feminist because you also believe in racial, physical, and sexual equality is silly. If you don't hold the full set of egalitarian beliefs, then being annoyed at someone calling you an egalitarian makes sense. The reverse really doesn't.
Calling someone who is expressing feminist beliefs a feminist, despite what else they believe, isn't ignoring their other beliefs. It's just using one of the possibly numerous labels that applies to the beliefs they hold.[/QUOTE]
that may be how you see it, but the other person may not necessarily see it that way. telling them how the two are actually quite similar is fine, but correcting them like this
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490303]This is why people who post shit like "uggh don't call me a feminist, I'm an [I]~~~egalitarian~~~[/I]" are obnoxious fucks. No. You're still a feminist. Feminism is a subset of the egalitarian ideals. I'll call you a fucking feminist if you're expressing feminist ideals and I will be the one who is correct.[/QUOTE]
will put people off of your idea. it is way too aggressive for something so minor, especially to someone who is supposed to be an ally
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
so if someone told you you were actually an egalitarian in that manner, you'd just say "yes i agree"?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47490800]so if someone told you you were actually an egalitarian in that manner, you'd just say "yes i agree"?[/QUOTE]
If someone calls me a fucking egalitarian when I express egalitarian ideals, disagreeing would be kinda stupid to be honest.
But that's because being called an egalitarian can hardly be seen as an insult. My entire point with that, and the issue I have is the people who claim to be egalitarians seem to be offended if someone points out they are also feminists. As if them being known by that is somehow a detriment to them.
[editline]9th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;47490749]Doesn't the idea that a man can't represent women and do right by them kind of fly in the face of the whole equality thing?
"Men and women should have the same opportunities! But if a man tries to represent women's needs then so help me GOD, heads will roll."[/QUOTE]
And no doubt a bunch of men would get pissed off if a woman tried to represent the needs of men. Shit, a bunch of men get pissed off when a woman does anything that doesn't involve men, MRAs are fucking lunatics.
This is fucking sad. Our society is really shitting me up the wall at the moment. Everyone is accusing everyone of else of being a racist, misogynist, anti-semitic or is triggered by the smallest little joke someone says that doesn't even relate to them personally.
I made the mistake of trying to have a discussion about feminism with some feminists before. Holy shit, bad idea.
In minutes I had like 8 woman abusing me on facebook when I said that the guy who beat up christy mack probably didn't need the label "misogynist" because that gets thrown around far too much and it's getting to the point where apparently every man on earth hates and despises woman.
One of the things they tried to say was "You don't what it's like being having men treat you like this, because you're not a woman" yet despite anything I said I was continually wrong and actually abused, so by the end of it I just gave up and turned a discussion into a troll session and got them really riled up.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490904]If someone calls me a fucking egalitarian when I express egalitarian ideals, disagreeing would be kinda stupid to be honest.
But that's because being called an egalitarian can hardly be seen as an insult. My entire point with that, and the issue I have is the people who claim to be egalitarians seem to be offended if someone points out they are also feminists. As if them being known by that is somehow a detriment to them.[/QUOTE]
you're missing my point. it isn't that being called a feminist is an insult, it may be that in their minds the term "feminist" comes with some points they don't necessarily agree with, and by calling them that, in their mind you are calling them something they are not. perhaps they are not as well educated on the subject matter as they could be, but open hostility isn't a way to get them to learn or change their views
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;47490495]I completely and utterly disagree with the premise that someone of the opposite gender could not represent the wishes of the other population. It's arguable about [I]best[/I] representation maybe, but who's to say that a man can't be attuned to the needs of the female population, esp. at something as small in scale as a university?[/QUOTE]
If your atheist students are feeling under-represented, do you put the vote to the whole school, and let Christian students vote in a fundamentalist Protestant to represent the atheists? What is that supposed to accomplish?
If you're looking for someone to represent a particular group, extending the vote beyond that particular group is the wrong way to do it. A representative should be someone that the group they're representing trusts, not an outsider appointed to represent them. No idea what the school was thinking here. If the women of the campus truly felt that this guy would best represent them then I'm all for it, but the article gives me the impression that that was not the case.
Such is the problem with anything democratic, you just need numbers, not the value of what they're trying to accomplish.
What was the issue? That a man represented women? A man who got elected into the position by the people he is in charge of representing? Holy shit
Is there even a gender-neutral word that specifically refers to wanting gender equality?
Like, "androgynist" is the closest I could think of, given "feminist" but I'm pretty sure that's not right?
[QUOTE=Gum100;47491057]Is there even a gender-neutral word that specifically refers to wanting gender equality?
Like, "androgynist" is the closest I could think of, given "feminist" but I'm pretty sure that's not right?[/QUOTE]
Egalitarian. But so help you god if you use it, because apparently it cheapens the feminist struggle or some shit like that.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;47491081]Egalitarian. But so help you god if you use it, because apparently it cheapens the feminist struggle or some shit like that.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't that, linguistically speaking, refer to equality across the board? Like, "gender-egalitarianism" would be a compound synonymous with the word I'm looking for.
[QUOTE=Gum100;47491117]Doesn't that, linguistically speaking, refer to equality across the board? Like, "gender-egalitarianism" would be a compound synonymous with the word I'm looking for.[/QUOTE]
It does, and I guess you could just go with "Gender Egalitarianism", as I don't think there is a snappy way to say what you're looking for in one term.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47491026][B]If your atheist students are feeling under-represented, do you put the vote to the whole school, and let Christian students vote in a fundamentalist Protestant to represent the atheists?[/B] What is that supposed to accomplish?
If you're looking for someone to represent a particular group, extending the vote beyond that particular group is the wrong way to do it. A representative should be someone that the group they're representing trusts, not an outsider appointed to represent them. No idea what the school was thinking here. If the women of the campus truly felt that this guy would best represent them then I'm all for it, but the article gives me the impression that that was not the case.[/QUOTE]
This is such a ridiculous straw-man, for a really stupid argument. First, for your analogy to be valid, women would have to be less than 20% of the student body at the University, and they would have had to vote in an MRA activist without the support of that 20%. Except that isn't what happened at all.
Secondly, I don't think discriminating based on religion would help and I have the ability to see that a fundamentalist Christian could represent atheists on campus just fine, if he did his duties properly. So unless his religion prevents him from doing them, then they should not be voted in. Do you believe that because he's a man he couldn't have been effective in his position?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490077][B]But it really hasn't done any of that in reality.[/B] Maybe in your head, maybe to your favourite internet communities, but not in reality.
The second you start being sexist against men when flying under the banner of feminism, you've stopped being a feminist. It's really quite that simple. There are divisions amongst feminists sure, some who take a more radical stance to getting shit done, but in the grand scheme of things they are a super-minority. They have little actual impact outside of sometimes making the headlines when they charge into a place topless.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the article? or even the title?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47490303]This is why people who post shit like "uggh don't call me a feminist, I'm an [I]~~~egalitarian~~~[/I]" are obnoxious fucks. No. You're still a feminist. Feminism is a subset of the egalitarian ideals. I'll call you a fucking feminist if you're expressing feminist ideals and I will be the one who is correct.[/QUOTE]
I've posted this elsewhere but I'll try to make the point more clear here.
The problem with the word "feminism", is what it has historically represented, how people feel in general now, and what it should potentially mean in the future to radicals, and how the egalitarians can't prevent that change.
Feminism has historically been used for the purpose of increasing the legal rights of women to be equal with those of men, with the presupposition that females were [i]always[/i] the underclass. This isn't a "feminism = women's rights activist" statement, it's fact. Men did not need protections when women couldn't drive or vote, women needed those protections.
These days, men also have some points - but feminists of either variety don't tend to focus on those issues, and I believe the presupposition in the minds of people who self-identify as feminist is still that they're for women achieving equal rights of men, working up towards the rights men have, not peeling back their own rights or increasing the rights of men, even if men are disadvantaged.
Which is totally fine, if you are saying it is a movement by women for women. I have no issue with that, but that isn't how it's normally being presented.
Somebody once told me "if you're an egalitarian, you're a feminist", but I've never identified as that. Why? Because a [i]majority[/i] of people today (in the west anyway) believe in equal rights between the sexes. This just isn't a point of contention much anymore. Sure there are definitely people who don't think this way, but by and large this is how people feel. "Women should not be oppressed by our legal system" isn't a statement that is controversial, that's just not being a normal human being who isn't a prick.
This presents an interesting problem for "feminists", because now that everyone generally agrees that is the case you have to either change your message to remain relevant, or simply proclaim everyone is a feminist and being done with it.
This makes it [i]highly[/i] advantageous for the radicals who would rather change the message.
There is almost no opportunity for the feminist, with opinions that reflect most of societies', to declare themselves a feminist but to dispel the radicals because normal people will never disagree with them.
The radical feminist however has [b]plenty[/b] of opportunities to self-label, self-identify and kick up dust. Their problems with contemporary society which holds that women should be [i]legally[/i] equal is endless. That isn't good enough.
If you're a feminist academic who disagrees with the way things are being corrupted and you're labeled anti-feminist by the people who have corrupted the word for disagreeing (some people come to mind), you've now completely ruined your status in society. You're now an MRA or a misogynist or something. People don't like to take that step.
So, I really think that the ability to defend the term from this radicalization is crippled very much by the fact that society has changed and the people talking about feminism now control the narrative because they're mostly the only people making points, stupid as they may be, about the subject. These radicals by nature of being the only ones left with shit to talk about are feminist icons. That being the case, whether it's now or later, I think feminism really isn't a term that will represent people well. I mean the popular and vocal leaders outside of academia are completely insane already, I don't really know where it's going from here, but I sort of doubt it's heading back toward egalitarianism without a huge backlash from popular academic feminists which leads to putting pandora back in the box.
In my opinion the cards are so far stacked in the favor of the radicals from a societal point of view, shedding the term is more of a self-defense against being lumped against those who will eventually control the term, if they don't already. Feminism doesn't exactly have a positive reputation on college campuses for a reason.
You know you guys say that this is bullshit, but if I show you a picture of this saudi arabian women's rights conference full of men:
[img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02601/Untitled-1_copy_2601702b.jpg[/img]
you say "that's bullshit; how can women really be enfranchised when their advocates are nothing but men?"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.