Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Feminism and the emasculation of men
Comments
-
You think the government should be influencing who runs for elected office and massaging it until people vote for the right people?
Government and other parties often influence who runs for elected office. Voters will vote for whoever they think is the best candidate.
Government forcing more Catholics in the RUC/PSNI might be seen by some as a sectarian act. It probably is if you just focus on quotas as a black and white issue and ignore any context.
If you agree having more women as candidates and more Catholics in the PSNI is wrong, fact, well that's fine.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
Parties influence who runs for their party. Governments seek to influence who runs for any party. There is a difference.
You ignored my other point, and you've ignored it before. If you are against quotas full stop, no matter what, fair enough.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
You ignored my other point, and you've ignored it before. If you are against quotas full stop, no matter what, fair enough.
Your wild claim that I am against women candidates or the other thing?
There is a difference between something not being wrong and something being the lesser of two wrongs. Something that isn't wrong can continue forever. Something that is the lesser of two wrongs must be repeatedly reevaluated. I'm pretty sure the PSNI quota system is no longer in place for example.0 -
Your wild claim that I am against women candidates or the other thing?
That's a wild claim to make. Point out where I stated you were against women candidates. I can't fathom why you'd think I did, it's an absurd claim to make. I simply asked if you were against quotas full stop. No need to misrepresent what I posted.There is a difference between something not being wrong and something being the lesser of two wrongs. Something that isn't wrong can continue forever. Something that is the lesser of two wrongs must be repeatedly reevaluated. I'm pretty sure the PSNI quota system is no longer in place for example.
It was used as an initial step, it is now felt the quotas worked so no need for them, so they worked. I don't think 30% of candidates is an onerous amount, up to 70% will be men after all.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
What dictionary are you using? This is what Google says
"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes".
I think they use the Oxford English Dictionary or at least for this one particular word the definitions only differ by case.
That is massively different to advocating for both genders.
Anyway it is in the nature of successful ideas that they get absorbed by society. Very few politicians advocate the end of the welfare state but the few that end up identifying as socialists tend to be on the more extreme end.
It isn't different at all, the key word is equality - when you advocate for equality between two things, that logically means you're advocating it for both.Kyuss, as I mentioned previously, the key point in the definition of feminism is the emphasis on women's rights. That's simply not the same as all round equality. You cant have a full equality agenda coming from that perspective.
If you look at the history of feminism there have been many male advocates for equality who have been actively pushed out of the tent of academic feminism for advocating mens rights should be part of the discussion. Warren Farrell for example was initially pushed out for having the temerity to suggest that men should have parental rights. He's not the only one
The prioritization point isn't down to lack of male involvement, rather the reverse.
If you take the prioritization issue, as having malicious intent or deliberate bias behind it (other than just being incidental - due to women generally, having less knowledge of mens issues - or other non-malicious explanations), then that is not advocating equality, and thus does not fit the definition of feminism.
Advocating the improvement of conditions for only one gender, while deliberately (key word here, as I don't think this can be shown generally) excluding/deferring improvement of conditions for another gender, is not really advocating equality.
The whole idea that one side can become 'more equal' than another, is logically fallacious by its very definition; reminds me of Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
There is no objective way to prioritize any of the issues between genders either, so, since that is entirely subjective, it's always going to be easy to invent a non-existent bias with that argument, no matter what prioritizations there are.
Remember also, that by the dictionary definition, the vast majority of the population is feminist - and thus any crackpots that can be found within those who are politically active on feminist issues, is really just a tiny sample - and it's not surprising that crackpots are more likely to be politically active (hell, by the dictionary definition, the crackpots aren't even really feminists anyway).
I don't really expect people to campaign on issues outside of their own area of knowledge/experience either - not really much they can do if they're not informed by those more knowledgeable.
If mens rights movements want feminist movements to also work on mens issues, then they should probably stop taking a position opposing feminist movements, and start joining them and creating a general gender-rights movement.0 -
Don't label them feminists then, because they aren't really feminists (by the dictionary definition), and you're just assisting them in hijacking the label, and rendering the word meaningless.You can propose all you like, but it's completely irrelevant. The issue is not 'feminism' but 'self identified feminism.'
I can label myself as anything, it doesn't make it so.
Well you'd better tell that to every researcher, on every subject, ever.
Yeah sure, that's the issue. They've no experience or knowledge.
Rather than willfully obstructing any possible progress because it doesn't fit in with their narrow self serving world view.
How does your dictionary define 'naive' by the way?
If a researcher doesn't know how generalizations are logically fallacious, except in very specific circumstances, then he should probably be fired as that's completely unscientific.
I would define 'naive', as having a very inexperienced and overly simplistic view on a topic, such as assuming that you can take a small sample of people, and generalize to the whole (which displays a lack of knowledge regarding logical fallacies, which obstructs the persons ability to even think clearly about an issue).0 -
They're not really feminists then are they though? They label themselves as feminists, hijacking the term, but really - if the groups you're talking about are as discriminatory as you say - then they are not actually feminists.No offense but you appear to me to be completely disingenuous. No one is bothered what some fringe movement thinks. What is causing the problem is not what some fringe group thinks - it is the fact that this so called fringe movement is now basically in control of the agenda of modern politics in the western world and of the media, delivering this fringe agenda through the press and tv on a daily basis. It has also taken control of the justice system where men are treated wholly unjustly and in a totally prejudiced way and of daily social interaction, where all men are increasingly being seen as latent rapists and latent child abusers.
Personally, I wonder if they are being given such a wide platform, because they are a massively useful distraction from more important issues going on, such as the (comparatively boring) economic crisis.
Set one gender against the other: Pretty much a perfect and timeless way to sow division within society, in a divide and conquer fashion.
It is the media outlets who decide to give them the airtime, and who are they owned by, and what are their motives? That's the better question here.
Except that's not feminism, and by labelling it as such, you are tarring an entire group of people with the same brush, and generalizing attitudes onto a lot of people, who don't actually hold them.Yes. Yet the current dominant form of this neo feminism is something that now transcends far beyond women's rights or equality, creating an environment where women having equal rights is no longer enough. Now men must be punished and forced out of careers and positions in order to place women, whether they deserve or or earn it, in their place. It's not enough to have equal rights and equal opportunity any more.
And a world view is now being imposed, and bought in to by the Media and Politicians whereby if any career, job, tv program, film etc does not have 50% women, then there must ergo be some kind of discrimination. It is totally insane. It takes no account of gender preferences. It takes no account of gender skills. It takes no account of gender choices.
And again ... where 90% of a career is taken up by women .. ah well ... they just ignore it as ... ah that's men's problem.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »If mens rights movements want feminist movements to also work on mens issues, then they should probably stop taking a position opposing feminist movements, and start joining them and creating a general gender-rights movement.
Ah ah not so fast, not letting you away with that one Kyuss. Men's rights movements are defined in the same way as women's rights movements. The only difference is to substitute the word men for women. Therefore men's rights movements by your own definition are also about absolute equality and hence it would be absurd to criticise them for being against women's rights.. .
See what I did there? Applied the same generalisation you did, just flipped the mirror. The men's rights movement arose because of how feminism treated men's issues, not the other way around. I've already mentioned the experience if people like warren Farrell (feminist poster boy to accused MRA hate speaker - what a journey). In truth there's very little evidence that womens rights and feminist groups have any interest in anything but, well, women's rights not surprisingly. There are of course those who self identify as feminists who support men's rights also but that's a very different thing.
On the other hand there is a considerable slew of academic feminism, which is the heart of defining feminist theory, that runs little beyond anti men hate speech - and which is somewhat surprisingly tolerated where other forms of hate speech wouldn't be0 -
Ah ah not so fast, not letting you away with that one Kyuss. Men's rights movements are defined in the same way as women's rights movements. The only difference is to substitute the word men for women. Therefore men's rights movements by your own definition are also about absolute equality and hence it would be absurd to criticise them for being against women's rights.. .
See what I did there? Applied the same generalisation you did, just flipped the mirror. The men's rights movement arose because of how feminism treated men's issues, not the other way around. I've already mentioned the experience if people like warren Farrell (feminist poster boy to accused MRA hate speaker - what a journey). In truth there's very little evidence that womens rights and feminist groups have any interest in anything but, well, women's rights not surprisingly. There are of course those who self identify as feminists who support men's rights also but that's a very different thing.
On the other hand there is a considerable slew of academic feminism, which is the heart of defining feminist theory, that runs little beyond anti men hate speech - and which is somewhat surprisingly tolerated where other forms of hate speech wouldn't be
Do men's rights activists say their goal is equality? I thought they say it's men's rights.0 -
Advertisement
-
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Because what I'm talking about is depictions of rape/gang rape, with a side of violence depicted, and verbal abuse. Not sure what's "so-called extreme" about that.
Some people, both men and women, get off to fantasizing about both being the victims AND the perpetrators of that - I know at least two women who have actually told me that they watch that stuff, get turned on by it, and are horribly ashamed of that. It's the kind of thing that only comes out in drunken deep-meaningful-conversations at the ends of nights out, when chats get pretty weird (one thing I'm sure we can agree on
)
Point is, it's not up to either of us to tell them what to get off to. In my opinion, anything can be depicted fictionally as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult - obviously you have a problem with it and that's fine, but the issue arises if you feel that your personal opinion on it should be enforced on the rest of the population.
If we go down that road, where does it end? If some people find something distasteful and others don't, and you believe that something should be banned on those grounds, how can a line possibly be drawn?
Taste should not be legislated for. You and me have the right not to watch something which disturbs or upsets us, but we do not have the right to force others to adhere to our lifestyles in terms of what they watch.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Except that's not feminism
In the case of the pro-censorship lobby I talk of, they self identify as feminists. Who's to tell them that they're not really feminists? This is the problem when you have a movement which is so loosely defined - the problem is, it's an absolute cop out to declare it immune to criticism because some people who use the label take a different meaning from it. The vast majority of feminists I know from generation X for example do in fact believe in various restrictions on the media, the internet, etc - if those in Gen Y don't agree, then they need to use a different label for themselves, and they do. That's not only why I shun the label, but also why a whole crapload of men and women my age shun it as well.
At a certain point one must be able to criticise a political movement based on its most "productive" ideologies (for want of a better word) - the pro-censorship feminists have actually succeeded in imposing legislative and other restrictions on free speech around the world, this is something that's having a real, measurable impact, and therefore cannot simply be dismissed as a fringe thing. It causes an image problem and one does not simply dodge an image problem by saying that particular ideology doesn't apply to them - it applies very widely to the label you've chosen to adopt, so you must either fight it, change the label, or accept that people will probably assume you hold certain beliefs when they hear that label mentioned, until you've qualified that you don't.
As Femme Fatale said, it's unfair to generalize a movement based on a fringe minority - I simply dispute that feminists who want free speech regulated for taste and "offensiveness" are a fringe minority. They seem to be far more pervasive than that.0 -
Do men's rights activists say their goal is equality? I thought they say it's men's rights.
There's a distinction here: feminism mirrored by masculisn and women's rights mirrored by men's rights. It would be wrong to say the two forms are equivalent. Masculism is the direct counterpart of feminism. Within that there seems to be an acknowledgement (largely missing in feminist musings) that the concept can span everything from equal rights for men to 'patriarchy' (jesus I could grow to hate that word the way it gets bandied about)
Neither camp is about absolute equality.0 -
I didn't say mens rights groups are against womens rights, I said mens rights movements should join with womens rights movements, to form a more general gender equality movement.Ah ah not so fast, not letting you away with that one Kyuss. Men's rights movements are defined in the same way as women's rights movements. The only difference is to substitute the word men for women. Therefore men's rights movements by your own definition are also about absolute equality and hence it would be absurd to criticise them for being against women's rights.. .
See what I did there? Applied the same generalisation you did, just flipped the mirror. The men's rights movement arose because of how feminism treated men's issues, not the other way around. I've already mentioned the experience if people like warren Farrell (feminist poster boy to accused MRA hate speaker - what a journey). In truth there's very little evidence that womens rights and feminist groups have any interest in anything but, well, women's rights not surprisingly. There are of course those who self identify as feminists who support men's rights also but that's a very different thing.
On the other hand there is a considerable slew of academic feminism, which is the heart of defining feminist theory, that runs little beyond anti men hate speech - and which is somewhat surprisingly tolerated where other forms of hate speech wouldn't be
I think mens rights supporters - those who seek equality - are (by dictionary definition) also feminists, but the movements are still separate, and if people want the feminist movement to work on mens issues, or for the mens rights movement to work on feminist issues, then the movements need to merge - so that the people with the relevant experience, can contribute their knowledge to whichever movement is lacking that knowledge.
You're saying I'm generalizing about mens rights movements (even though I wasn't...I never said they are against womens rights), and then you go on to generalize about feminist movements...0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I didn't say mens rights groups are against womens rights, I said mens rights movements should join with womens rights movements, to form a more general gender equality movement.
I think mens rights supporters - those who seek equality - are (by dictionary definition) also feminists, but the movements are still separate, and if people want the feminist movement to work on mens issues, or for the mens rights movement to work on feminist issues, then the movements need to merge - so that the people with the relevant experience, can contribute their knowledge to whichever movement is lacking that knowledge.
You're saying I'm generalizing about mens rights movements (even though I wasn't...I never said they are against womens rights), and then you go on to generalize about feminist movements...
You're taking me up wrong. My criticism isn't that youre generalising about men's rights but rather about feminism and what it encompasses. My example was intended to point out a logical fallacy- if feminism in its current form was about equality, then the misalignment of men's and women's rights groups would make no logical sense.
I actually fully agree with you that the more moderate wings of both groups should distance themselves from their current label and come together as a broader equality movement. However that broad label of equality (and I respectfully suggest you've been taken in a bit by this) has been somewhat hijacked by academic feminism, who have managed to label courses as equality studies while they marginalise any 'wrong' groups0 -
It's true that the censorship types are different - you can be pro-censorship, yet still seek equality between the genders.hatrickpatrick wrote: »In the case of the pro-censorship lobby I talk of, they self identify as feminists. Who's to tell them that they're not really feminists? This is the problem when you have a movement which is so loosely defined - the problem is, it's an absolute cop out to declare it immune to criticism because some people who use the label take a different meaning from it. The vast majority of feminists I know from generation X for example do in fact believe in various restrictions on the media, the internet, etc - if those in Gen Y don't agree, then they need to use a different label for themselves, and they do. That's not only why I shun the label, but also why a whole crapload of men and women my age shun it as well.
At a certain point one must be able to criticise a political movement based on its most "productive" ideologies (for want of a better word) - the pro-censorship feminists have actually succeeded in imposing legislative and other restrictions on free speech around the world, this is something that's having a real, measurable impact, and therefore cannot simply be dismissed as a fringe thing. It causes an image problem and one does not simply dodge an image problem by saying that particular ideology doesn't apply to them - it applies very widely to the label you've chosen to adopt, so you must either fight it, change the label, or accept that people will probably assume you hold certain beliefs when they hear that label mentioned, until you've qualified that you don't.
As Femme Fatale said, it's unfair to generalize a movement based on a fringe minority - I simply dispute that feminists who want free speech regulated for taste and "offensiveness" are a fringe minority. They seem to be far more pervasive than that.
The problem there isn't really down to feminism, but down to people having a pro-censorship attitude; that attitude could be targetted at violent movies, violent video games, or anything really, and what it's getting targeted at now is just another in a long line of things pro-censorship types will find fault in.
I think it is automatically wrong to criticize a whole movement, based on fringe groups (which, even though you recognize the problem of generalizing, is still what is happening here) - especially when what they get labelled as (feminists), isn't what some of them actually are (in the case of misandrist/discriminatory types).
There may only be a small number of politically active feminists, who self-identify as part of the feminist movement (even when some of them aren't really feminists), but still I would say that (by the dictionary definition) the vast majority of the population is feminist - so these really are fringe groups (but maybe not fringe, amongst the politically active).
Assumptions about peoples views, based on a label, are also automatically wrong in the exact same way generalizations are - especially when the label is at odds with the dictionary definition of the word.
All of these generalizations and assumptions, make it ever-so-easy for media outlets to manipulate the public, by sowing a divide between genders - pitting them against one another.
I can't shake the idea that this seems to be an almost perfect way to do that, yet which could very easily be disarmed, by a generalized 'gender equality' movement.0 -
By the dictionary definition, I am not generalizing, I am exactly describing feminism, by the only accurate possible criteria: It's definition.You're taking me up wrong. My criticism isn't that youre generalising about men's rights but rather about feminism and what it encompasses. My example was intended to point out a logical fallacy- if feminism in its current form was about equality, then the misalignment of men's and women's rights groups would make no logical sense.
I actually fully agree with you that the more moderate wings of both groups should distance themselves from their current label and come together as a broader equality movement. However that broad label of equality (and I respectfully suggest you've been taken in a bit by this) has been somewhat hijacked by academic feminism, who have managed to label courses as equality studies while they marginalise any 'wrong' groups
When you let the definition of 'feminism' become subjective, it can mean anything and nothing - it becomes basically meaningless, and that it becomes literally impossible to discuss feminism rationally, because people only then speak in general terms (i.e. they are automatically wrong, no matter what they say, because generalizations are - with few exceptions - nearly always wrong...).
The feminist movement may be filled with a lot of groups that aren't looking for true equality, but then (by the dictionary definition) they aren't really feminists, and shouldn't be allowed to hijack the label - and people shouldn't assist them in doing that, by labelling them feminists (regardless of if they want to self-identify as that).
Feminism by definition is about equality, just people shouldn't start mixing that up, with people who are against equality, yet still label themselves feminists - they're not feminists, they're either discriminatory or (in some cases) outright misandrists, and shouldn't be conflated with feminism at all.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Feminism by definition is about equality, just people shouldn't start mixing that up, with people who are against equality, yet still label themselves feminists - they're not feminists, they're either discriminatory or (in some cases) outright misandrists, and shouldn't be conflated with feminism at all.
This is where I think we'll simply have to disagree. feminism is technically about the promotion of equal rights for women. You believe that the idea of equality for women is by definition equivalent to equality for all (thats your interpretation rather than the dictionary definition). I and a number of other posters disagree with that interpretation.
I would suggest that there is also considerable evidence that an influential segment that promotes itself as feminist would also disagree, as evidenced by their words and deeds.
Now you're perfectly entitled to say these aren't really feminists, but how pervasive do they have to be before we have to concede that their goals form part of the definition of feminism. Thats not to dismiss moderates, but to give an ( admittedly more extreme) example, communism is, on the face of it a relatively noble ideology. It also has many moderate supporters. But its pretty difficult to say Stalin and mso weren't really communists....0 -
This is where I think we'll simply have to disagree. feminism is technically about the promotion of equal rights for women. You believe that the idea of equality for women is by definition equivalent to equality for all (thats your interpretation rather than the dictionary definition). I and a number of other posters disagree with that interpretation.
I would suggest that there is also considerable evidence that an influential segment that promotes itself as feminist would also disagree, as evidenced by their words and deeds.
Now you're perfectly entitled to say these aren't really feminists, but how pervasive do they have to be before we have to concede that their goals form part of the definition of feminism. Thats not to dismiss moderates, but to give an ( admittedly more extreme) example, communism is, on the face of it a relatively noble ideology. It also has many moderate supporters. But its pretty difficult to say Stalin and mso weren't really communists....
One area that women don't have equality is prison sentencing, why aren't feminists trying to promote equality for women in this area.0 -
One area that women don't have equality is prison sentencing, why aren't feminists trying to promote equality for women in this area.
To be fair, if feminists are interested in equality for women I don't see why they would - turkeys and Christmas springs to mind.
As a side note, one of the more prominent feminist voices in Ireland, Ivana Bacik, has suggested that prison sentences are inappropriate for women...
(And yes I do realise that even many who identify as feminist facepalm when Bacik opens her mouth)0 -
Advertisement
-
No, that's the definition of equality...if you think making "A more equal to B" doesn't also mean making "B more equal to A", then you don't know the meaning of equal...This is where I think we'll simply have to disagree. feminism is technically about the promotion of equal rights for women. You believe that the idea of equality for women is by definition equivalent to equality for all (thats your interpretation rather than the dictionary definition). I and a number of other posters disagree with that interpretation.
I would suggest that there is also considerable evidence that an influential segment that promotes itself as feminist would also disagree, as evidenced by their words and deeds.
Now you're perfectly entitled to say these aren't really feminists, but how pervasive do they have to be before we have to concede that their goals form part of the definition of feminism. Thats not to dismiss moderates, but to give an ( admittedly more extreme) example, communism is, on the face of it a relatively noble ideology. It also has many moderate supporters. But its pretty difficult to say Stalin and mso weren't really communists....
It doesn't matter who self-identifies as feminist, if they don't know what the word 'equal' means, they are still wrong - not all people who self-identify as feminist, are actually feminist (by the dictionary definition); that doesn't mean they can just hijack the dictionary definition of the word, neither does it mean anyone else can do that.
The number of ideologies which can fit the definition 'Communist' is vast - the number of ideologies which can fit the definition 'feminist' is limited to those which promote equality for women.
I'm not going to accept anyone redefining words. I've already explained, several times, that when you redefine a word so that it's meaning becomes totally subjective, then it is meaningless, and you're only ever going to be speaking in general terms which is automatically wrong.
People in the thread, are basically debating over whether or not they are right to make sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, by redefining the word 'feminism' - which is inherently logically wrong, no matter what way you try to justify it.
Feminists are not just a bunch of fringe movements, some with extreme views - by the dictionary definition, quite probably the vast majority of the population are feminist.0 -
There's a distinction here: feminism mirrored by masculisn and women's rights mirrored by men's rights. It would be wrong to say the two forms are equivalent. Masculism is the direct counterpart of feminism. Within that there seems to be an acknowledgement (largely missing in feminist musings) that the concept can span everything from equal rights for men to 'patriarchy' (jesus I could grow to hate that word the way it gets bandied about)
Neither camp is about absolute equality.
And therein lies the reason feminists are often regarded with such derision.
We hear again and again how self identified feminists want equality, but they don't really, it's a smokescreen, hence they lose their credibility.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »No, that's the definition of equality...if you think making "A more equal to B" doesn't also mean making "B more equal to A", then you don't know the meaning of equal...
It doesn't matter who self-identifies as feminist, if they don't know what the word 'equal' means, they are still wrong - not all people who self-identify as feminist, are actually feminist (by the dictionary definition); that doesn't mean they can just hijack the dictionary definition of the word, neither does it mean anyone else can do that.
The number of ideologies which can fit the definition 'Communist' is vast - the number of ideologies which can fit the definition 'feminist' is limited to those which promote equality for women.
I'm not going to accept anyone redefining words. I've already explained, several times, that when you redefine a word so that it's meaning becomes totally subjective, then it is meaningless, and you're only ever going to be speaking in general terms which is automatically wrong.
People in the thread, are basically debating over whether or not they are right to make sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, by redefining the word 'feminism' - which is inherently logically wrong, no matter what way you try to justify it.
Feminists are not just a bunch of fringe movements, some with extreme views - by the dictionary definition, quite probably the vast majority of the population are feminist.
Kyuss, it goes back to the question of prioritisation, which I and others have posed to you. Or as I less charitably stated it in a more recent post, turkeys voting for Christmas.
If equal priority was assigned to male and female inequality then you could argue feminism = equality. When one aspect of inequality is effectively ignored that becomes much more difficult. I already addressed your positing that men simply don't have critical mass in the feminist movement - many feminists advocates have been marginalised for advocating rights for men.
An equality movement would absolutely campaign for equal sentencing policies for example . A (one) feminist viewpoint instead argues to abolish prison for women entirely. It's not a question of the merit or otherwise if that position, its simply untenable to increase an inequality with the intent to eliminate it.
You can of course argue that these aren't feminists, but when you start removing these from the pool you have a pretty small number of feminists left- as opposed to the near universal sample that you posit.
What you call feminists I call, I don't know, equalists. They may share the goal of equal rights for women with feminism but they also aspire to equal rights for all, and on the basis that all groups are entitled to be prioritised fairly.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Don't usually resort to the emotive but sometimes to get a point across... you wouldn't like your female relative being aggressively f'ucked (and it's real ****ing, not just a depiction) as happens in movies depicting rape/gang rape/accompanying violence and verbal abuse.
If that was her fantasy that would be her business, I don't see how what I like or don't like has even the tiniest relevance to the sexual choices a female relative (or indeed any other human being) might make.0 -
One area that women don't have equality is prison sentencing, why aren't feminists trying to promote equality for women in this area.
Equality where it suits seems to be the ethos of feminism for a certain amount of feminsts.
Egalitarianism and feminism are two separate entities, why is that?0 -
Ok we just seem to be running up against the same conflation between feminism 'the word' and feminism 'the collection of political movements' (to the point that you seem to be close to redefining feminism, to completely remove the actual dictionary definition of equality - so that, by definition, feminism can only be bad), and I've previously addressed all of the points you raise here - particularly the prioritizing, I specifically addressed that earlier - and inherently wrong generalizations (that I've been pointing out for pages now) still seem to abound (even though, by the dictionary definition, most of the population can be considered feminist), so am going to leave it there.Kyuss, it goes back to the question of prioritisation, which I and others have posed to you. Or as I less charitably stated it in a more recent post, turkeys voting for Christmas.
If equal priority was assigned to male and female inequality then you could argue feminism = equality. When one aspect of inequality is effectively ignored that becomes much more difficult. I already addressed your positing that men simply don't have critical mass in the feminist movement - many feminists advocates have been marginalised for advocating rights for men.
An equality movement would absolutely campaign for equal sentencing policies for example . A (one) feminist viewpoint instead argues to abolish prison for women entirely. It's not a question of the merit or otherwise if that position, its simply untenable to increase an inequality with the intent to eliminate it.
You can of course argue that these aren't feminists, but when you start removing these from the pool you have a pretty small number of feminists left- as opposed to the near universal sample that you posit.
What you call feminists I call, I don't know, equalists. They may share the goal of equal rights for women with feminism but they also aspire to equal rights for all, and on the basis that all groups are entitled to be prioritised fairly.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »
Except that's not feminism, and by labelling it as such, you are tarring an entire group of people with the same brush, and generalizing attitudes onto a lot of people, who don't actually hold them.
That is just an easy get-out. They call themselves feminists. They label themselves as feminists. They write as feminists. They call their campaigns feminist.
So the reality is that they are indeed the face of modern feminism.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I think it is automatically wrong to criticize a whole movement, based on fringe groups (which, even though you recognize the problem of generalizing, is still what is happening here) - especially when what they get labelled as (feminists), isn't what some of them actually are (in the case of misandrist/discriminatory types).
There may only be a small number of politically active feminists, who self-identify as part of the feminist movement (even when some of them aren't really feminists), but still I would say that (by the dictionary definition) the vast majority of the population is feminist - so these really are fringe groups (but maybe not fringe, amongst the politically active).
Assumptions about peoples views, based on a label, are also automatically wrong in the exact same way generalizations are - especially when the label is at odds with the dictionary definition of the word.
All of these generalizations and assumptions, make it ever-so-easy for media outlets to manipulate the public, by sowing a divide between genders - pitting them against one another.
I can't shake the idea that this seems to be an almost perfect way to do that, yet which could very easily be disarmed, by a generalized 'gender equality' movement.
I think you are wholly and completely wrong and getting submerged by your confusion with semantics.
For me the meaning of feminism is what we see in front of our faces, not what some silent majority decides it is.
This kind of what I call neo-feminism has completely taken over the media and it's power. It has also taken over the political process. So what you say the silent majority thinks about or labels themselves as, is really not very important.
In 2014, feminism is the cause of the ongoing attack on men, on our rights and our careers. It is feminism that is labelling all men as latent rapists and child abusers. It is feminism that is causing men enormous problems walking in a park where children play, or attending school sports events ... and a long list of other activities, for fear of being considers pedophiles. It is feminism that is creating a completely false world view that anything in life that is not 50:50 among the genders must entails prejudice and therefore men should be disadvantaged as a result.0 -
If equal priority was assigned to male and female inequality then you could argue feminism = equality. When one aspect of inequality is effectively ignored that becomes much more difficult. I already addressed your positing that men simply don't have critical mass in the feminist movement - many feminists advocates have been marginalised for advocating rights for men.
When was the last time we saw any criticism or action from any feminist movement on the subject of primary school teachers and the feminisation of the primary school environment ? I would suggest never.
No brand of feminism in existence cares about equality. They are caught up in an aggressive campaign for 'equivalence', and forced equality in the face of whet people may chose. Women have different priorities, different desires and goals. It is preposterous to present a world view that forces 50% of every job and every career and every position to be female, despite women clearly not wanting those choices.
Decades ago the key campaign was for equality of opportunity. That has now been jettisoned in favour of equality of results, a completely false and prejudicial concept.
Decades ago the campaign was for fairness and justice. That has been jettisoned in favour of men being labelled as evil, prejudiced, aggressive, abusive and dangerous.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're tying yourself up in knots here.KyussBishop wrote: »The feminist movement may be filled with a lot of groups that aren't looking for true equality, but then (by the dictionary definition) they aren't really feminists, and shouldn't be allowed to hijack the label - and people shouldn't assist them in doing that, by labelling them feminists (regardless of if they want to self-identify as that).
How can they be in the 'feminist movement' if they're 'not really feminists'?
The point that you're willfully avoiding while flicking through your dictionary is we don't care what they call themselves. 'They' are a self identified group who choose to label themselves 'feminist'.
They could call themselves spider monkeys for all I care, it is the group of people we are talking about.
Just because they don't satisfy your criteria to be called feminists is irrelevant.
Incidentally, is there only one dictionary? Do all of the dictionary definitions agree?
How does your dictionary define 'marriage' for example?
Do all those couples who are not 1 man & 1 woman have to wait until the OED get around to changing the definition to be considered married?0
Advertisement