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
-
KyussBishop wrote: »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.
Dictionary definitions are not the be all end all, there is also the vernacular to consider and what is popular agreement.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Not sure what the "cop on" is about. Where is the "Over 60 per cent" bit?
If you can't see how hardcore movies depicting rape (and using real aggressive sex - comparing it with a TV show is moot) is not extreme, then I guess there's no further talking to you.
The majority?
I'm not a fan of those movies so I'm not entirely sure what they look like (although I can imagine) but I know a little bit about BDSM and even know a few people involved in that scene. From what I can gather, there are more than a few girls out there who fantasize about that, so I assume there may be a female market out there for those movies, and that they're not all necessarily made for male fantasists or misogynists. It's also my understanding that more adult movies are being made by women these days - although whether or not any of those extreme types of movies are being made by women I don't know. It's possible though, if some of them have that fantasy. I think the term within the community is ''consensual non consent'', which is obviously not rape but roleplay with safe words.
Some people will read this and put both fingers into their ears and sing and pretend it doesn't happen, but in reality it does happen and it's worth noting. I have no statistics but I think a lot of those girls are educated liberal types with good careers etc.0 -
BDSM is consenting. Rape porn depicts lack of consent - therein lies the fantasy. I know people can fantasise about and fetishise absolutely anything, not denying that. My concern though is actors genuinely being harmed/damaged. THAT is a reality about a corner of the (huge and varied) pornography industry which can cause fingers sticking into ears and "lalalalalala, can't hear you!"0
-
It's not a 'get out' at all - it's the definition of the word.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.
They can call themselves what they like, but if they don't fit the definition of the word, then it's wrong to tar all feminists using generalizations about this subset of people - as posters have been doing.
There is zero confusion, there is feminism 'the word' and feminism 'the collection of political movements' (not all of which fit the definition of the word); really simple.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.
What the silent majority thinks is the most important part about feminism, simply because they are the majority, and they dwarf the politically active fringe elements that are being talked about here.
So really, people need to stop generalizing about 'feminists', as it prevents any kind of rational discussion - generalizing from part to the whole like that is wrongly tarring a whole group.
Have you got any non-anecdotal evidence to back this? (like actual statistics surveying the feminist movement?)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.
Remember, media outlets deliberately seek out crazies, because they sell newspapers and make for divisive/interesting news, so what you see in the media shouldn't be taken as representative.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »BDSM is consenting. Rape porn depicts lack of consent - therein lies the fantasy. I know people can fantasise about and fetishise absolutely anything, not denying that. My concern though is actors genuinely being harmed/damaged. THAT is a reality about a corner of the (huge and varied) pornography industry which can cause fingers sticking into ears and "lalalalalala, can't hear you!"
Oh that's different, of course. If that is happening without consent and laws are being broken then that needs to be tackled and the people behind it need to be brought to justice. But if it's legal I have no problem with it. I thought you meant that you had a problem with all of it - legal or otherwise.0 -
Advertisement
-
Femme_Fatale wrote: »My concern though is actors genuinely being harmed/damaged. THAT is a reality about a corner of the (huge and varied) pornography industry which can cause fingers sticking into ears and "lalalalalala, can't hear you!"
If it happens or has ever happened.0 -
-
KyussBishop wrote: »
They can call themselves what they like, but if they don't fit the definition of the word, then it's wrong to tar all feminists using generalizations about this subset of people - as posters have been doing.
There is zero confusion, there is feminism 'the word' and feminism 'the collection of political movements' (not all of which fit the definition of the word); really simple.
Definitions mean nothing. Whats written in a book means nothing. What matters is what happens in real life. When feminism changes over time, then the meaning of feminism changes, irrespective of what definition some dictionary uses.
No. People need to realise that the meaning has changed. Modern feminism is now something completely different and to have a rational and meaningful discussion, we need to recognise that fact.So really, people need to stop generalizing about 'feminists', as it prevents any kind of rational discussion - generalizing from part to the whole like that is wrongly tarring a whole group.
Then how come the courts exercise the law in the fashion designed and determined by what you choose to call crazies ?Remember, media outlets deliberately seek out crazies, because they sell newspapers and make for divisive/interesting news, so what you see in the media shouldn't be taken as representative.
No. It's not crazies. It is the modern thrust of feminist activism.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Wow. Naivety or denial.
Two words: "Max hardcore".
Where is the evidence of your claim ?0 -
Sigh. You've got google (you're the one who was telling me to "cop on" for not googling). It's grim that you won't acknowledge this reality - I mean you cannot genuinely think nobody ever has been harmed by involvement in very hardcore porn... :-/Where is the evidence of your claim ?
Once again: look up Max Hardcore.0 -
Advertisement
-
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Sigh. You've got google (you're the one who was telling me to "cop on" for not googling). It's grim that you won't acknowledge this reality - I mean you cannot genuinely think nobody ever has been harmed by involvement in very hardcore porn... :-/
Once again: look up Max Hardcore.
I had a quick look - not enough to base a firm judgement on. It looks like there were no actual laws broken, but it was deemed immoral because the girls who were of legal age were pretending to be younger. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not what I'd watch, and I doubt I'd want to have a pint with the guy. But that case doesn't look clear cut. Like I said though, I only read a bit of the Wiki page and another small piece. There is definitely exploitation in the sex industry. It's a murky world.0 -
Watch the documentary Hardcore... before I saw it, I thought all porn, no matter what, was hunky dory too. Not my cup of tea, but no abuse involved. It's not quite so simple when it comes to the very hardcore stuff though...0
-
You're tying yourself up in knots here.
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?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
Oxford English dictionary will do - 'marriage' is not a word identifying a group of people, so isn't exactly comparable.
That's true, the problem is that people don't have any problem stretching the meaning of 'feminism', in order to generalize about an entire group of people - even when that group of people encompasses (likely) the majority of the population.clairefontaine wrote: »Dictionary definitions are not the be all end all, there is also the vernacular to consider and what is popular agreement.
Picking out subsets of the feminist movement is grand, but wholesale generalization about 'feminists' is just inherently logically wrong.0 -
No, you're just (intentionally or not) tarring all feminists with the same brush - and to facilitate this, you're stretching the definition of the word.Definitions mean nothing. Whats written in a book means nothing. What matters is what happens in real life. When feminism changes over time, then the meaning of feminism changes, irrespective of what definition some dictionary uses.
No. People need to realise that the meaning has changed. Modern feminism is now something completely different and to have a rational and meaningful discussion, we need to recognise that fact.
Then how come the courts exercise the law in the fashion designed and determined by what you choose to call crazies ?
No. It's not crazies. It is the modern thrust of feminist activism.
To have a rational and meaningful discussion, people have to stop generalizing about feminists, and actually use words with their proper meaning, and stop conflating subsections within the feminist movement, as representative of the whole.0 -
What does 'comparable' mean, is it only words that you specify where we have to be constrained by the dictionary definition?KyussBishop wrote: »Oxford English dictionary will do - 'marriage' is not a word identifying a group of people, so isn't exactly comparable.
Who made the OED the arbiter of the meaning of every word? You do know there's other dictionaries right? Do they agree on the meaning of each and every word?
Oh I see. Because according to you, the 'majority of the population' are feminist, those activists, campaigners, quango members, lobbyists and media commentators who are 'feminist' but actually oppose 'equality' when it is not in their favour are a minority and therefore don't represent 'feminism'.KyussBishop wrote: »That's true, the problem is that people don't have any problem stretching the meaning of 'feminism', in order to generalize about an entire group of people - even when that group of people encompasses (likely) the majority of the population.
It's a new one, I'll give you that.
Since you're so exercised by logical fallacies, look up 'appeals to authority'.KyussBishop wrote: »Picking out subsets of the feminist movement is grand, but wholesale generalization about 'feminists' is just inherently logically wrong.0 -
Quit being obtuse Henry9 - find me an authoritative dictionary, that doesn't define feminism as equality between men and women.What does 'comparable' mean, is it only words that you specify where we have to be constrained by the dictionary definition?
Who made the OED the arbiter of the meaning of every word? You do know there's other dictionaries right? Do they agree on the meaning of each and every word?
Oh I see. Because according to you, the 'majority of the population' are feminist, those activists, campaigners, quango members, lobbyists and media commentators who are 'feminist' but actually oppose 'equality' when it is not in their favour are a minority and therefore don't represent 'feminism'.
It's a new one, I'll give you that.
Since you're so exercised by logical fallacies, look up 'appeals to authority'.
Insisting that people can't just magically redefine words whenever they like, isn't an "appeal to authority" - and dictionaries are based on etymology (the study of the history of words), not on something as weak as 'authority'.
It seems that people just want to get on with making sweeping generalizations about 'feminists', without care to making any distinction of the subgroups they are basing the criticism on.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Quit being obtuse Henry9 - find me an authoritative dictionary, that doesn't define feminism as equality between men and women.
Insisting that people can't just magically redefine words whenever they like, isn't an "appeal to authority" - and dictionaries are based on etymology (the study of the history of words), not on something as weak as 'authority'.
It seems that people just want to get on with making sweeping generalizations about 'feminists', without care to making any distinction of the subgroups they are basing the criticism on.
Jesus Kyuss, this is just getting silly. Look, Oxforddictionaries.com definition!
Feminism:
The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Now note that there's a little bit more there than in your definition, namely the first five words.
Now here's the important bit:
Advocacy:
Public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy
So feminism is the support of women's rights. Just that, no mention of men's rights. Any interpolation to say that men are included either by accident or design is just your interpretation.
Now I know you say that 'being more equal fixes men's issues too (therefore were all feminists.) However this is simply false. An example- let's say we have 10 instances of inequality, 6 affecting women, 4 men. Addressing the 6 exclusively will make us more equal in aggregate (in the sense of reducing the total number of inequalities rather than the imbalance). However it does nothing to address the issues affecting men.
Its ok by for a body to advocate equality for a particular group (albeit I'd favour a broad equality church) My issue is more the uncriticised hate speech (and actions) coming from academic feminism and they way they've hijacked the word equality (taking in souls like yourself along the way)0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »BDSM is consenting. Rape porn depicts lack of consent - therein lies the fantasy. I know people can fantasise about and fetishise absolutely anything, not denying that. My concern though is actors genuinely being harmed/damaged. THAT is a reality about a corner of the (huge and varied) pornography industry which can cause fingers sticking into ears and "lalalalalala, can't hear you!"
That's a very real and serious issue certainly, but it doesn't justify censorship, rather it underlines why proper regulation is needed across the entire sex industry.
Imagine if things like that were de-stigmatized enough that you could actually hav a sex workers' ombudsman who would ensure that while non consent can be depicted, all of the actors had in fact consented to what they were doing and could enforce strict penalties on anyone found to have violated that?
Of course, that's not going to happen in the UK for example where Cameron wants to ban it altogether, forcing it underground and ensuring, just like the drug trade, that it will be subject to ZERO regulation.
Anyway I think we see eye to eye at last, you don't seem to be advocating censorship on the grounds that there are some things even consenting people shouldn't be allowed to do or depict, or that there are some things it isn't ok to fantasize about. A lot of the pro-censorship lobby does in fact advocate this and it comes spookily close to invoking the concept of "thought crime" - if you look at the campaigns over lads' mags for instance, they usually come with a rather chilling blurb about how young men need to be "programmed" differently.
Take a look at this actually:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-fleet/26-lessons-your-sons-future-spouse-will-thank-you-for-teaching-him_b_4816341.html
Basically implying that lads should be raised to womens' "specifications" if you will.
Now can we both agree that if an article was written advocating the reverse, it would probably get censored in the media for a start and that feminists would be absolutely outraged about it?
If so, where's the backlash over this?
Now THAT, my friends, is a double standard.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:The Article wrote:1. Teach your son to respect women as equals, or better yet, as superior beings.0 -
Ok, multiple things I disagree with here, but sticking at just one bit: In your example, if some feminists deliberately exclude the idea of working on mens issues (as in, actively oppose it), then they're not really about equality.Jesus Kyuss, this is just getting silly. Look, Oxforddictionaries.com definition!
Feminism:
The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Now note that there's a little bit more there than in your definition, namely the first five words.
Now here's the important bit:
Advocacy:
Public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy
So feminism is the support of women's rights. Just that, no mention of men's rights. Any interpolation to say that men are included either by accident or design is just your interpretation.
Now I know you say that 'being more equal fixes men's issues too (therefore were all feminists.) However this is simply false. An example- let's say we have 10 instances of inequality, 6 affecting women, 4 men. Addressing the 6 exclusively will make us more equal in aggregate (in the sense of reducing the total number of inequalities rather than the imbalance). However it does nothing to address the issues affecting men.
Its ok by for a body to advocate equality for a particular group (albeit I'd favour a broad equality church) My issue is more the uncriticised hate speech (and actions) coming from academic feminism and they way they've hijacked the word equality (taking in souls like yourself along the way)
Feminists focusing on advocating womens rights, doesn't mean they don't support mens rights also - doesn't mean they have to be politically active about that, simply because they may not be knowledgeable about it.
I don't see any hijacking of the word 'equality' - it's such a well defined word, that it's not really possible to hijack; I'd posit, that people are using a 'hijacked' form of the word feminism, and using it to generalize way too much.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Feminists focusing on advocating womens rights, doesn't mean they don't support mens rights also - doesn't mean they have to be politically active about that, simply because they may not be knowledgeable about it.
Then they do not advocate full equality as they claim to, only in certain focused areas. That's the issue. If there was honesty about this, there wouldn't be so much bickering about it.0 -
Advertisement
-
They advocate what they're knowledgeable about presumably, I think there are many pretty innocent explanations for that; some within the feminist movement are probably dishonest and are against mens issues (thus against equality), but just because many feminists don't advocate on mens issues, doesn't mean they'd be opposed to that - many could easily be open to advocation on mens issues, if informed about them.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Then they do not advocate full equality as they claim to, only in certain focused areas. That's the issue. If there was honesty about this, there wouldn't be so much bickering about it.0 -
Which is exactly the point I and others have been making.KyussBishop wrote: »Ok, multiple things I disagree with here, but sticking at just one bit: In your example, if some feminists deliberately exclude the idea of working on mens issues (as in, actively oppose it), then they're not really about equality.
Feminism is about (dictionary definition) advocating women's rights from an equality perspective. If men's inequality issues arise then you are two options I) reduce women's rights to the male level or ii) increase male rights to the female level. On the first, a dictionary defined feminist can't do this as it goes against advocating for women on the second a dictionary defined feminist can't do this because their interest is in women's rights. Sorry but I'm afraid I'm beating you with your own stick here- what I'm using is the dictionary definition of feminism.
(Thats not to say that many who identify as feminist cant also support men's rights)Feminists focusing on advocating womens rights, doesn't mean they don't support mens rights also - doesn't mean they have to be politically active about that, simply because they may not be knowledgeable about it.
see above. I'm fully aware that there are those who identify as feminist and also support men's rights to varying extents. There are also a section of the feminist community who actively speak and act against mens rights. These are also feminists in spite of their hateful ideology
(And yes there are similar groups within MRA's though with the way many in academic feminism shout then down you'd think this was all that MRA's consisted of (even though many members have historic links with academic feminism, the irony))I don't see any hijacking of the word 'equality' - it's such a well defined word, that it's not really possible to hijack; I'd posit, that people are using a 'hijacked' form of the word feminism, and using it to generalize way too much.
Its very easy to hijack- offer a course in the academic feminism i mention above under the label of equality studies for example.0 -
Uhm, no you're just selectively reading the dictionary definition. Promoting womens rights for equality, doesn't mean defending womens rights that may be unequal, and it is compatible with advocating the removal of unequal womens rights.Which is exactly the point I and others have been making.
Feminism is about (dictionary definition) advocating women's rights from an equality perspective. If men's inequality issues arise then you are two options I) reduce women's rights to the male level or ii) increase male rights to the female level. On the first, a dictionary defined feminist can't do this as it goes against advocating for women on the second a dictionary defined feminist can't do this because their interest is in women's rights. Sorry but I'm afraid I'm beating you with your own stick here- what I'm using is the dictionary definition of feminism.
(Thats not to say that many who identify as feminist cant also support men's rights)
see above. I'm fully aware that there are those who identify as feminist and also support men's rights to varying extents. There are also a section of the feminist community who actively speak and act against mens rights. These are also feminists in spite of their hateful ideology
(And yes there are similar groups within MRA's though with the way many in academic feminism shout then down you'd think this was all that MRA's consisted of (even though many members have historic links with academic feminism, the irony))
Its very easy to hijack- offer a course in the academic feminism i mention above under the label of equality studies for example.
You're mixing up later on, feminism 'the word' and feminism 'the collection of political movements' once again - if the people you speak of, don't support equality, it's not right to generalize them as representative of feminism, because there are way more feminists who truly do support equality.
An academic feminism course can't hijack the word 'equality' - if part of the feminist movement is against equality, yet masquerades as supporting equality, then 'equality' isn't just going to suddenly change meaning - it's a well defined word.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Uhm, no you're just selectively reading the dictionary definition. Promoting womens rights for equality, doesn't mean defending womens rights that may be unequal, and it is compatible with advocating the removal of unequal womens rights.
I'm afraid I'm not the one been selective in my reading. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word advocacy. What you're suggesting would constitute advicaing against rather than for.You're mixing up later on, feminism 'the word' and feminism 'the collection of political movements' once again - if the people you speak of, don't support equality, it's not right to generalize them as representative of feminism, because there are way more feminists who truly do support equality.
Nope not mixing them up at all. Once again, feminism and equality are not equivalent, not even in the dictionary. Actually you're the one who seems to be flip flopping here. Is it dictionary definition you want to characterise feminism by or what 'way more feminists' say they believe
By the way, how do you reconcile 'way more feminists' supporting equality with your previous point about feminists not being aware of men's issues? Is this the hypothetical 'they would if only someone could enlighten them' arguement?An academic feminism course can't hijack the word 'equality' - if part of the feminist movement is against equality, yet masquerades as supporting equality, then 'equality' isn't just going to suddenly change meaning - it's a well defined word.
Well at least we have a first here- your concession that they may be part of the feminist movement.
Hijacking isn't about changing the meaning, its about co-opting it for a purpose far removed from the meaning while implying that the meaning is unchanged. Its pretending to represent equality while promoting speech and policy that is anything but.0 -
Here is the definition you quoted, with your reading of it being restricted to the bolded part below, deliberately ignoring the rest:I'm afraid I'm not the one been selective in my reading. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word advocacy. What you're suggesting would constitute advicaing against rather than for.
Nope not mixing them up at all. Once again, feminism and equality are not equivalent, not even in the dictionary. Actually you're the one who seems to be flip flopping here. Is it dictionary definition you want to characterise feminism by or what 'way more feminists' say they believe
By the way, how do you reconcile 'way more feminists' supporting equality with your previous point about feminists not being aware of men's issues? Is this the hypothetical 'they would if only someone could enlighten them' arguement?The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
You're basically trying to claim that the very definition of feminism is inconsistent, and are laboriously trying to put forward the same misrepresentations of feminism (even to the point of selectively ignoring the dictionary definition) to back that.
Advocating womens rights on the grounds of equality, means advocating womens rights which promote equality, and is compatible with advocating the removal of any right/privileges women may have, where it is incompatible with equality, and it's also compatible with supporting mens rights.
If you claim that feminists are against equality, you have to show this (and with something better than anecdote) - you have to show that they are against it, not that they fail to advocate for mens rights issues (which has other more innocent explanations).
This is particularly difficult, given that - by the very definition of feminism - the vast majority of the population can be considered feminist, and considered as supportive of both men and womens rights.
You don't have to be knowledgeable of mens issues to be supportive of equality based on mens issues as well as womens - you can't politically advocate for something you're not knowledgeable about, yet this doesn't make you any less supportive of equality.
Eh, I've said this all along, it's not a 'concession' it's your continued misreading of me - people can be part of feminism 'the collection of political movements', yet not really be feminist by the dictionary definition - and the vast majority of the problem in this debate, is people taking crackpot fringe elements in the political movement, and generalizing them to all of feminism.Well at least we have a first here- your concession that they may be part of the feminist movement.
Hijacking isn't about changing the meaning, its about co-opting it for a purpose far removed from the meaning while implying that the meaning is unchanged. Its pretending to represent equality while promoting speech and policy that is anything but.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Here is the definition you quoted, with your reading of it being restricted to the bolded part below, deliberately ignoring the rest:
You're basically trying to claim that the very definition of feminism is inconsistent, and are laboriously trying to put forward the same misrepresentations of feminism (even to the point of selectively ignoring the dictionary definition) to back that.
Advocating womens rights on the grounds of equality, means advocating womens rights which promote equality, and is compatible with advocating the removal of any right/privileges women may have, where it is incompatible with equality, and it's also compatible with supporting mens rights.
If you claim that feminists are against equality, you have to show this (and with something better than anecdote) - you have to show that they are against it, not that they fail to advocate for mens rights issues (which has other more innocent explanations).
This is particularly difficult, given that - by the very definition of feminism - the vast majority of the population can be considered feminist, and considered as supportive of both men and womens rights.
You don't have to be knowledgeable of mens issues to be supportive of equality based on mens issues as well as womens - you can't politically advocate for something you're not knowledgeable about, yet this doesn't make you any less supportive of equality.
Eh, I've said this all along, it's not a 'concession' it's your continued misreading of me - people can be part of feminism 'the collection of political movements', yet not really be feminist by the dictionary definition - and the vast majority of the problem in this debate, is people taking crackpot fringe elements in the political movement, and generalizing them to all of feminism.
My reading isn't restricted to the bolded part- my emphasis on the bolded part is due to you completely ignoring it. Its a key part of the definition that you've ignored to suit your interpretation. You may want feminism to equal universal equality- it doesn't, simple as. You pointed to the dictionary definition to support your poi t but take issue when others point out you're being flawed and selective in which parts of that definition you use.
Your point on advocation of removal of female rights is frankly nonsense both on the dictionary definition of what it means to advocate for something and also the empirical evidence of what feminism actually (quite understandably in this case) campaigns for
You also seem to have great difficulty settling on whether you want to think in terms if a dictionary technical definition of feminism or the group that actually identifies as feminists. Since you have flip flopped liberally between them for the last while its difficult to know which you're defending at any given time.
If you want to take examples of elements within the latter being against men's rights, radical feminism has a slew of examples of just that. As one example let's take the case of warren farrell , who was marginalised by academic feminism because he believed fathers should have inherent rights in custody cases. Am I to assume that his detractors simply were unaware of the issues?
(Maybe you could now provide me with a counter example of feminists protesting to remove an area of existing women's rights)
Of course I fully expect you to flip flop again and tell me that they're not true feminists and its all about equality and were all feminists really.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Eh, I've said this all along, it's not a 'concession' it's your continued misreading of me - people can be part of feminism 'the collection of political movements', yet not really be feminist by the dictionary definition - and the vast majority of the problem in this debate, is people taking crackpot fringe elements in the political movement, and generalizing them to all of feminism.
Which is totally untrue of course. The fact is that what you call the crackpot fringe has taken over the agenda. So men need to deal with the people who have control of the agenda. The feminists.0 -
You explicitly restricted your reading to the bolded part, pointing out the first five words and leaving out the rest - I've shown exactly how the part you picked out, is consistent with equality that can advance both mens rights, and roll-back womens rights where they are unequal.My reading isn't restricted to the bolded part- my emphasis on the bolded part is due to you completely ignoring it. Its a key part of the definition that you've ignored to suit your interpretation. You may want feminism to equal universal equality- it doesn't, simple as. You pointed to the dictionary definition to support your poi t but take issue when others point out you're being flawed and selective in which parts of that definition you use.
Your point on advocation of removal of female rights is frankly nonsense both on the dictionary definition of what it means to advocate for something and also the empirical evidence of what feminism actually (quite understandably in this case) campaigns for
You also seem to have great difficulty settling on whether you want to think in terms if a dictionary technical definition of feminism or the group that actually identifies as feminists. Since you have flip flopped liberally between them for the last while its difficult to know which you're defending at any given time.
If you want to take examples of elements within the latter being against men's rights, radical feminism has a slew of examples of just that. As one example let's take the case of warren farrell , who was marginalised by academic feminism because he believed fathers should have inherent rights in custody cases. Am I to assume that his detractors simply were unaware of the issues?
(Maybe you could now provide me with a counter example of feminists protesting to remove an area of existing women's rights)
Of course I fully expect you to flip flop again and tell me that they're not true feminists and its all about equality and were all feminists really.
You're basically now trying to spin this around, and accuse me of what I've already shown you doing.
To highlight again, what you are doing: You're trying to selectively interpret the word 'feminism', to explain-away equality as a part of the very definition of feminism.
I have shown how the definition of 'advocating womens rights in terms of equality', is perfectly compatible with advocating against aspects of womens rights that do not respect equality.
There's no flip-flopping, just your deliberate conflation of the definition of feminism, with the feminist political movement - you're jumping between one and the other, whenever it suits your argument, and you seem to want to generalize from one (fringe parts of the political movement), to the other (feminists in general).0 -
'The feminists' is anyone who fits the definition of feminism, which (being about equality between genders) arguably fits the majority of the population - so if you want to take issue with the crackpot fringe, say that, rather than taking pot-shots at feminists in general.Which is totally untrue of course. The fact is that what you call the crackpot fringe has taken over the agenda. So men need to deal with the people who have control of the agenda. The feminists.
That people deliberately seek to justify inherently wrong generalizations, seems to indicate a kind of dishonest intent really - that the crackpots within the feminist movement, are just an excuse to take potshots at the whole movement.
It takes nothing for people to just not generalize, and specifically call out the parts of the feminist movement they are talking about - labelling them appropriately ('misandrists within the feminist movement', 'PC pro-censorship feminists', 'positive-discrimination feminists' etc., really simple).0 -
Advertisement
-
Boo hoo OP.
What does this even mean btw 'In my experience when a man is sexualised it is a big laugh generally with an undertone of 'you go girl', when it's the opposite the man is a pathetic sleaze.'0
Advertisement