Are you a feminist?

Cathy.C

osarusan wrote: »

I've been following this thread in progress for the last couple of days, and I wanted to make a couple of points.

Firstly, if you are a feminist who believes in addressing situations in which women do not have equal opportunities, the great, go ahead and focus on that, nobody should be criticizing you for what you don't do or say about men's issues.

Secondly, if you are an feminist but also see yourself as an egalitarian, and you do focus on instances where both men and women suffer from inequality, great, well done.

But if you claim to be an egalitarian feminist, but only focus on situations where women are treated unfairly, then criticism for this is valid, in my opinion.

I don't subscribe at all to the argument that 'if you want more done about men's rights go ahead and do it yourself, and stop complaining about feminism.' Anybody has a right to criticize a movement whose actions don't match its words, regardless of their own involvement, or lack of involvement, with the issue itself.

That's all I wanted to say.

I would agree with above post. I worked for the NWCI on and off for over four years and when I left, I no longer identified as a feminist. This was after doing so for the previous twelve years. I just felt that they had become more about point scoring, than addressing any real issues of inequality. I was privy to much of the discussions when we objected to Stringfellows being granted their licence and I have to be quite honest and say that I never felt for one second that the motivation for the objection, was to prevent the sexual exploitation of women. I truly believe that what they really took issue with was the sexual gratification aspect of things. That men would be going to this club, enjoying the show and that they wanted to prevent that from happening and not for the reasons which they purported. Many times arguments about male strip shows throughout the country would be put to many of the women that worked there, often times by there own family and they would just be treated as if one was a million miles from the other and that the people making those arguments, were misogynists. osarusan said what I wanted to really but I will echo his sentiments again, as I do find myself cringing when feminists focus on instances where both men and women suffer from inequality, or inhuman treatment in the world but yet speak out for the women involved. If a men's rights group highlighted a situation where women were just as prone to mistreatment, or abuse, and only spoke of the men that were affected, they would be castigated. I'm a humanist and I feel it's only from a humanist pov that true progress will ever be made with regards to inequality, of any kind.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's highlighting the movement, rather than highlighting the people that the issue affects that the movement advocates for. I understand where you're coming from, I work with a number of different charities in the course of my work, and it can be unmercifully frustrating to get them to remember WHO they're supposed to be advocating for, as opposed to WHAT they're advocating for.

You don't seem to understand that sometimes you need to do both. Fathers4Justice DID SOMETHING to highlight that a group existed that fought against unfair family law. That gitvtheir policies and aims into the mainstream in a way that no amount of patient representation of the victims had achieved and indeed forced an indifferent of even hostile establishment to acknowledge their existence and by extension the existence of an issue they felt the need to campaign against

Czarcasm

Cathy.C wrote: »

osarusan said what I wanted to really but I will echo his sentiments again, as I do find myself cringing when feminists focus on instances where both men and women suffer from inequality, or inhuman treatment in the world but yet speak out for the women involved. If a men's rights group highlighted a situation where women were just as prone to mistreatment, or abuse, and only spoke of the men that were affected, they would be castigated.

oranusan left out one group though -

People who claim to be egalitarian, yet only care about men, and any time someone who identifies as feminist would care to speak about an issue from a woman's perspective, the so-called 'egalitarians' aren't long reminding her to think of the issue from a man's point of view. That's whataboutery.

I'm a humanist and I feel it's only from a humanist pov that true progress will ever be made with regards to inequality, of any kind.

Nobody was bringing religious philosophy into the discussion at all, but seeing as you did, you're not saying anything egalitarians, feminists, masculinists, and even humanitarians, haven't said already.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

oranusan left out one group though -

People who claim to be egalitarian, yet only care about men, and any time someone who identifies as feminist would care to speak about an issue from a woman's perspective, the so-called 'egalitarians' aren't long reminding her to think of the issue from a man's point of view. That's whataboutery.


.

Plenty of whataboutery coming from all sides around here

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that sometimes you need to do both. Fathers4Justice DID SOMETHING to highlight that a group existed that fought against unfair family law. That gitvtheir policies and aims into the mainstream in a way that no amount of patient representation of the victims had achieved and indeed forced an indifferent of even hostile establishment to acknowledge their existence and by extension the existence of an issue they felt the need to campaign against

And have they managed to change any legislation since their inception? Nope.

Have they utterly destroyed any credibility they might have had as an organization if they hadn't engaged in stupid publicity stunts? Yes.

I think politicians were aware of single fathers long before F4J were ever around. All they are is a bunch of thuggish Peter Pan fantasists who never grew up into mature adults, still behaving children.

Fortunately for most single fathers, F4J represent nobody but themselves. They disbanded once, they'll inevitably do so again when two of them want to wear the only Batman costume.

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

Plenty of whataboutery coming from all sides around here

Like talking about MRA's in a thread that was supposed to be a discussion about feminism?

Whatever about the whataboutery, the passive-aggressive around here is off the charts!


:pac:

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

And have they managed to change any legislation since their inception? Nope.

Have they utterly destroyed any credibility they might have had as an organization if they hadn't engaged in stupid publicity stunts? Yes.

I think politicians were aware of single fathers long before F4J were ever around. All they are is a bunch of thuggish Peter Pan fantasists who never grew up into mature adults, still behaving children.

Fortunately for most single fathers, F4J represent nobody but themselves. They disbanded once, they'll inevitably do so again when two of them want to wear the only Batman costume.

Now I realise wikipedia isn't always the greatest source but.....

In April 2010, Fathers4Justice aligned themselves with the Conservative Party, as the party had promised legislation if they won a majority at the 2010 general election.[31] However, the Conservatives did not win an overall majority and formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. The Coalition Agreement included aspects which Fathers4Justice regarded as favourable to their agenda. This included "encouraging shared parenting" and promised "a comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents".[32] In accordance with the Coalition Agreement, the Government initiated a number of reviews, including the Family Justice Review conducted by David Norgrove,[33] and the Co-operative Parenting Consultation, to which the Government responded.[34] After the consultations, the Government brought forward the Children & Families Bill, designed to legislate on a number of areas, including the family legal system; specifically on contact orders, improving post-separation mediation, and on the issue of shared parenting, plans to amend the Children Act 1989 to introduce a new presumption in favour of a child having a relationship with both parents - all areas upon which Fathers4Justice has campaigned, and on which the Conservative Party had agreed to act if elected to power.[35] Whilst legal experts[who?] said these proposals were a considerable improvement on the previous situation, other experts expressed worry that the new legislation could put children at risk, if abusive or violent parents were given contact with the family. Anne Hurst, spokeswoman for Maypole Women, an organisation that supports women through divorce, said: "The proposed change will increase children’s exposure to conflict and abuse, increase economic inequality, and create no incentive for fathers’ increased involvement from their child’s birth. Children who actively reject a parent – either the abusive or non-abusive parent – usually do so in a context of high parental conflict and domestic abuse. Cutting off contact can be a response to alienation tactics, or a coping mechanism."[36] It also did not fully reflect the position of Fathers4Justice, and the group criticised the Coalition for not implementing its agenda in full.

Granted they later walked away from supporting the bill, but the above doesn't really tie in with your description of them as 'thuggish peter pan fantasists' does it. Actually it sounds more like a mature group eager to bring about change to benefit their members!

They've also had other motions brought before the house of commons on their behalf.

Dare I say it but it sounds like they DID SOMETHING!!

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

Like talking about MRA's in a thread that was supposed to be a discussion about feminism?

Whatever about the whataboutery, the passive-aggressive around here is off the charts!


:pac:

Why do people keep misunderstanding what this thread is about. Its not about feminism its about are you a feminist and why/why not. That's a hell of a lot broader. I think you must realise that C

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

Now I realise wikipedia isn't always the greatest source but.....



Granted they later walked away from supporting the bill, but the above doesn't really tie in with your description of them as 'thuggish peter pan fantasists' does it. Actually it sounds more like a mature group eager to bring about change to benefit their members!

They've also had other motions brought before the house of commons on their behalf.

Dare I say it but it sounds like they DID SOMETHING!!

No I'll accept the Wiki info, I'm not that much of an arse in fairness. It still doesn't point to anywhere they changed legislation though, which in fairness was specifically what I asked. You've done that a few times (answered a question I never asked), but I've let it slide for the sake of thread flow, but if this were an offline discussion, I'd be asking you for evidence that F4J has been of any real benefit to men who become single fathers. I can't do that though as it's derailing the thread, supposed to be about our support, or not, for feminism, and if not, why not? (That poll is an arse btw, should've just been a yes/no to make it easy).

At this point I think I'd only be going round in circles to repeat myself. Anyone care to start an "Are you a masculinist?" thread?

Daveysil15

Czarcasm wrote: »

Anyone care to start an "Are you a masculinist?" thread?

Only if its easier to follow than this one. I haven't been this overwhelmed since the Lisbon treaty. :eek:

Shakespeare's Sister

I dunno. Right now I'm seeing some really crap stuff online that demonises men - the men's rights movement being depicted as entirely made up of misogynistic, homophobic nutters. It disgusts me and I want no part of such misrepresentation.

The Elliot Rodger case held up as purely the result of misogyny when it is far, far more complex than that and it is shameful to misrepresent it - his misogyny was a symptom, not the disease in and of itself.

The #yesallwomen campaign having hostile overtones towards all men - plenty of the points made by it are valid, but some of it downright plays into the hands of the notion that there are countless dangerous men lurking all over the place here in the West, and we women are constantly in a state of fear. How on earth is this not gonna make guys feel misrepresented? It can be said over and over that "It doesn't mean all guys" and so on, but those who champion it should put themselves in men's shoes, and I'm not always a fan of reversing the genders, but I know if there was a similar campaign in the reverse, I'd be fairly "Wtf" even though I'd know it's not aimed at all women.


However... that doesn't mean I'll therefore abandon what I believe are worthy concerns for women. I saw posts by Iwantmydinner in response to the question posed by this thread's title and she was only answering the question; she wasn't saying the same stuff doesn't happen to men. Why can't it be grasped by some that people can be aware of the issues that affect both men and women, and to focus on one doesn't mean not caring about the other/not believing the other exists? I worked in an office too where I was expected to make all the tea and coffee for the regular meetings and then the wash-up. It was head-wrecking - I had enough to be doing. And no, it wasn't easy for me to just say "Go make your own". A fairer system would have been a rotation of tea/coffee-making between a few of us. It's not a huge feminist issue but it *was* just because of me being the only woman. It was in a university too, usually so gender-correct towards women. I'd completely understand a guy being annoyed at being singled out all the time to do something that's deemed "guy"-ish when anyone could do it.

But there are still horrible attitudes towards women at times (even though I know it's obviously far better for women in the West than in e.g. parts of Africa and Asia) and while there are also horrible attitudes towards men at times, neither cancels the other out. As long as there is stuff like the Steubenville case there is a place for feminist ideology that does not seek to put all men down, just stamp out such attitudes from a minority.

Pwindedd

Precious flower wrote: »

Just thought I'd link this here. We could do with some positive feminsm spin. It was posted by Precious Flower in TLL yesterday. It does seem to cover a lot of the points we've discussed in this thread, you may not agree with all of what she says, but I don't think you'll disagree with all of it either. She's definitely my type of feminist.

Elmer Blooker

alroley wrote: »

Feminism is wanting equal rights.

And?.......... aren't there laws and legislation guaranteeing women equal rights and opportunities? Feminism has gone as far as it can go in our part of the world. I have two teenage daughters and they seem to be more interested in their appearance than in what they'll do after secondary school despite the fact that they are both very bright, its in their genes and theres nothing that can be done about it! I have to agree with this article, in my opinion the status of women is going backwards rather than forward.
http://eawrap.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/women-objectify-themselves/

ancapailldorcha

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

And?.......... aren't there laws and legislation guaranteeing women equal rights and opportunities? Feminism has gone as far as it can go in our part of the world. I have two teenage daughters and they seem to be more interested in their appearance than in what they'll do after secondary school despite the fact that they are both very bright, its in their genes and theres nothing that can be done about it! I have to agree with this article, in my opinion the status of women is going backwards rather than forward.
http://eawrap.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/women-objectify-themselves/

Some laws can be tricky. Here, you don't list you date of birth on your CV as some sort of anti-ageism measure. However, anyone can roughly estimate your age based on when you did you finished education.
From a feminist perspective, how do you know why a woman didn't get a job? Was it because she is a woman or that there was a male candidate with a better CV or who gave a better interview.

iwantmydinner

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't think you're a misandrist, I think you're actually quite representative of many women who identify as feminists because they appreciate the world the movement helped to give them yet fail to appreciate that the the movement is now causing more harm than good.

Here's a question that I'd genuinely appreciate if you could give some thought: how is feminism a better tool than egalitarian approach?


When we leave the issue of equality to opposing movements, I'm afraid that's exactly what it becomes: a competition for media attention, funding and rights/privileges.


I agree with you that feminism has done a lot for our society in much the same way that the republicanism of the 1920's did a lot for all of us. As the latter group's modern equivalents show, however, movements that were originally forces for good can become harmful.

As long as feminism continues to be the tool used by women to address sexism, it leaves no space for an egalitarian movement. Feminism is a massive industry and those that make their living from it (typically the extremists in my experience) will fight tooth and nail to ensure that they continue to dominate the soapbox and hoover up whatever funding governments are prepared to spend on equality.

So in between work and life, I've finally had a chance to mull this over properly.

Firstly, it's pretty clear that you have made up your mind about feminism. It seems reasonable, based on your posts in this thread and my memory of previous posts in other, related, threads, to assume that my answer to your question, no matter how well thought out or expressed, is unlikely to change your mind about feminism. It's my opinion, not an attempt to convince you to think like me.

None of this is to be read as a criticism of egalitarianism either.

Now to the actual question: for me, feminism is the best tool for a variety of reasons which I will attempt to outline - emotional, historical, political. Importantly though, for me feminism is more than the sum of its parts.

Feminism is literally the reason why I am currently sitting at a lovely desk in a beautiful building, armed to the teeth with honours degrees, achieving away in a satisfying, fun, exciting career which holds many opportunities for the future and which will fund a happy, comfortable life, no matter what my marital status is.

Think about that. I was born in 1985. If I had been born in 1885 I wouldn't have had access to ANY of that. Any of it. That blows my goddamn mind every time. And feminism hasn't lost that power to effect serious change.

All of the best people I know are also feminists. They're smart, realistic, ambitious, energetic. They have gravitas and good ideas. Any movement which can count us as members is still a force to be reckoned with and can make things happen.

Feminism is adaptable. The prevailing landscape informs the different shapes feminism takes and its priorities. Feminism is Ireland has a different focus to feminism in Nigeria, for example (referencing the brilliant video posted by Precious Flower). Through this it remains sharp and effective and relevant.

A little fuzzier, perhaps, but worth mentioning all the same - feminism houses a space for those who need it, and a community. Being an effective force for social change is one thing; creating a space for people who need to talk when they've been on the receiving end of sexism, or gender-based violence, or hatred, is quite another, and feminism does both.

Now, I also have a question. How do you think feminism is doing me more harm than good?

py2006

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Feminism is literally the reason why I am currently sitting at a lovely desk in a beautiful building, armed to the teeth with honours degrees, achieving away in a satisfying, fun, exciting career which holds many opportunities for the future and which will fund a happy, comfortable life, no matter what my marital status is.

Nice post. However, is feminism the reason you are in a good job and enjoying your life? Did you have any concept of feminism when you were younger? Not saying you didn't, I am just asking. You sound to me like a determined and intelligent woman who is more than capable of achieving what you have so far without the need for feminism. I mean, did you face many barriers on your path? The kind of barriers, that as a feminist, you needed to break down?

I realise, historically it was something some women had to fight for. I'm trying to get around the old and new feminist thingy!

iwantmydinner

py2006 wrote: »

Nice post. However, is feminism the reason you are in a good job and enjoying your life? Did you have any concept of feminism when you were younger? Not saying you didn't, I am just asking. You sound to me like a determined and intelligent woman who is more than capable of achieving what you have so far without the need for feminism. I mean, did you face many barriers on your path? The kind of barriers, that as a feminist, you needed to break down?

I realise, historically it was something some women had to fight for. I'm trying to get around the old and new feminist thingy!

I don't understand the questions here, py. Without feminism, it literally wouldn't matter how smart or capable I was. Feminists fought for all women, not just themselves. I would have been someone's property if I was born in 1885.

Also, yes. Feminism has been part of my worldview for as long as I can remember. I was fairly politically and socially aware from a relatively young age. For example, I rejected religion, sub-consciously first, and then consciously, before I had left primary school.

iwantmydinner

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Self-styled feminists do this every single time people try to discuss injustices suffered by men.

I know I certainly don't, but does the fact that some people do, mean it should be done?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Czarcasm wrote: »

Like talking about MRA's in a thread that was supposed to be a discussion about feminism?

How many times does it need to be said to you:

Discussion of men's rights are (and always will be) pertinent to a debate on Feminism. Feminism defines itself as an gender equality movement which is seeking "equal" rights.. equal rights to men. It's preposterous to suggest that mentioning the very rights which Feminism attempts to obtain (according to them) .. is somehow 'whataboutery'. The very notion of it is laughable in fact. Would be akin to saying that any mentioning a United Ireland would be derailing in a thread discussing Nationalism. Having equal rights to men has always been one of Feminisms main goals and so those very rights (...or the lack of them) will always be relevant in debates on Feminism. It beggars belief that some people cannot grasp that.

Czarcasm wrote: »

People who claim to be egalitarian, yet only care about men..

I haven't seen any user so far who said they were egalitarian, post anything whatsoever that would lead me to believe they "only care about men". This. is. in. your. head. For some reason you seem to think that when men (or women) complain about something being made a gender specific issue, when it most certainly shouldn't be, that this somehow means (in Czarcasam world) that they don't care about women. The truth is: they care about both genders, equally, and don't like it when issues (which effect both sexes) are highlighted with the concern of only one gender in mind. To say that this is indicative of them not caring about women is.. senseless.

iwantmydinner

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

And?.......... aren't there laws and legislation guaranteeing women equal rights and opportunities? Feminism has gone as far as it can go in our part of the world. I have two teenage daughters and they seem to be more interested in their appearance than in what they'll do after secondary school despite the fact that they are both very bright, its in their genes and theres nothing that can be done about it! I have to agree with this article, in my opinion the status of women is going backwards rather than forward.
http://eawrap.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/women-objectify-themselves/

Sorry, what??

Women are to blame for objectification?

Your daughters are more interested in their appearance than their futures and you think it's ok to just let that be?

The status of women is going backwards... But feminism is no longer needed?

NONE of this makes any sense.

Cathy.C

Czarcasm wrote: »

Nobody was bringing religious philosophy into the discussion at all, but seeing as you did, you're not saying anything egalitarians, feminists, masculinists, and even humanitarians, haven't said already.

Excuse me,but I did no such thing. Do you know even what humanism is? That's a rhetorical question, as you obviousily do not.

From just reading your posts on this one thread,you seem to have a distinct habit of misrepresenting people's opinions. Once or twice and I would just put it down to speed reading or confusion but you must have done it a dozen or more times on the thread now,in one form or another and so I can only assume that for some odd reason, you're doing it deliberately.

kiffer

Cathy.C wrote: »

Excuse me,but I did no such thing. Do you know even what humanism is? That's a rhetorical question, as you obviousily do not.

From just reading your posts on this one thread,you seem to have a distinct habit of misrepresenting people's opinions. Once or twice and I would just put it down to speed reading or confusion but you must have done it a dozen or more times on the thread now,in one form or another and so I can only assume that for some odd reason, you're doing it deliberately.

Czarcasm is not The Russian King of Chasms for nothing...

St890

On the topic of "objectification", can someone define it and explain why people think it is immoral?

Czarcasm

Cathy.C wrote: »

Excuse me,but I did no such thing. Do you know even what humanism is? That's a rhetorical question, as you obviousily do not.

I know what humanism is, closer related to religious and spiritual philosophy than social ideology (which is why I thought you meant to say humanitarianism, which the closest equivalent social ideology to humanist philosophy). Clearly it transpires that just like some posters who identify as egalitarians on this thread, you have no idea of the ideology you choose to identify yourself with either (tends to happen when groups try to integrate unrelated concepts into their ideology, like feminists talking about male circumcision) -

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism and with non-theistic religions. Historically however, this was not always the case.

From just reading your posts on this one thread,you seem to have a distinct habit of misrepresenting people's opinions. Once or twice and I would just put it down to speed reading or confusion but you must have done it a dozen or more times on the thread now,in one form or another and so I can only assume that for some odd reason, you're doing it deliberately.

You could put it down to my being dyslexic if you like, and you'd still be wrong. I understand perfectly the differences between the various ideologies and philosophies and have studied them for years, long before the modern "Internet Social Justice Warrior Movement" that tries to be all things to all people by encompassing all manner of social injustices into their misguided interpretations of the ideology they choose to identify themselves as.

I'm not misrepresenting anyone, nor have I attempted to do so, I'm only pointing out the fallacy of an egalitarian that says "but it happens to <insert opposite gender here (or in Germany, a third gender)> too", or the fallacy of the humanist that doesn't understand the difference between social and spiritual philosophy.

I'm not confused at all about whatever people choose to label themselves, have at it, but you've no right to complain when you get up on your high horse and try and tell people they just don't get it when you don't understand your own philosophy or ideology.

Czarcasm

kiffer wrote: »

Czarcasm is not The Russian King of Chasms for nothing...

Ahh no kifffer, I'm not likely to tsar everyone who misguidedly identifies themselves a certain way with the same brush

Honestly though, that's why I despise labels, and people who label themselves as this, that, or the other, because people are more complex than any amount of labels could ever apply to one person. It becomes twice as bad when the person themselves doesn't know what the label they chose for themselves means.

diveout

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ahh no kifffer, I'm not likely to tsar everyone who misguidedly identifies themselves a certain way with the same brush

Honestly though, that's why I despise labels, and people who label themselves as this, that, or the other, because people are more complex than any amount of labels could ever apply to one person. It becomes twice as bad when the person themselves doesn't know what the label they chose for themselves means.

Sometimes I think ideology offers a very convenient way to be very uncreative about yourself and offers a cookie cutter identity for the lazy.

GalwayGuy2

I'm not misrepresenting anyone, nor have I attempted to do so, I'm only pointing out the fallacy of an egalitarian that says "but it happens to <insert opposite gender here (or in Germany, a third gender)> too", or the fallacy of the humanist that doesn't understand the difference between social and spiritual philosophy.

Hmmm, it's an easy way to point out hypocrisy.

kiffer

St890 wrote: »

On the topic of "objectification", can someone define it and explain why people think it is immoral?

At the core objectification is treating people like or as if they have no thoughts or feelings of their own...
while you are not literally thrinking of them as non-humans, you aren't treating them as people.

Now, in terms of sexual objectification you might think "of course I think of them as people, if I thought she wasn't a person wouldn't want to sleep with her"

You're not thinking about the other person's wants or needs, only your own.
It's not "I like this person and they are also physically attractive, we could have a great time together, I wonder if she'd like to do XYZ sometime".

but rather, "what steps could I take in order to reach a point where I get to get up on that"


Also the eye of the beholder is important so a person might be thinking one thing and displaying a behaviour that says "you are nothing except a factor drone, a pair of legs, nice rack".

... I'm out of time, how'd I do?

Foxhound38

Foxhound38 wrote: »

So what do ye reckon AH? Do you identify as a feminist?

Tell me what you think it means and I will tell you if I see myself as one or not.

As with most "isms" of this magnitude however what I expect is you will list some number of attributes and I will say yes to some majority of them but no to some significant minority of them.

Aside from how I interact with them during a sexual encounter - I treat men and women essentially equal in all ways in all things.

If that makes me a "feminist" then so be it. I doubt I will ever rush to use the term myself.

Foxhound38

Here's another article a feminist friend of mine posted today...

An open letter to privileged people who play devil's advocate

tl;rd - "How DARE you men ever ask questions of my assertions ever. If you suggest that demonizing 50% of the worlds population with a broad generalizations that make them out to be creeps and inherently sexist is a tad unfair and counter-productive, then you're clearly just too much of a privileged, ignorant bigot to understand the concept.

Shut up and let me rail, sh*tlord!" :rolleyes:

Uh huh... not narrow and closed and extreme at all so, nope...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTqncgRnpyU

tritium

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Here's another article a feminist friend of mine posted today...

An open letter to privileged people who play devil's advocate

tl;rd - "How DARE you men ever ask questions of my assertions ever. If you suggest that demonizing 50% of the worlds population with a broad generalizations that make them out to be creeps and inherently sexist is a tad unfair and counter-productive, then you're clearly just too much of a privileged, ignorant bigot to understand the concept.

Shut up and let me rail, sh*tlord!" :rolleyes:

Uh huh... not narrow and closed and extreme at all so, nope...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTqncgRnpyU

Saw the title of the link and knew it would be bad

Saw the first paragraph and wished I'd listened to my better instincts.

Crock of sh1t attention seeking basically - ooh let's find some tragedy I can make relevant to my social beliefs and **** the victims. After all its all about me and what I believe!

Usually has the bitter irony of a postgrad student describing someone from the more mainstream body of society as privelidged....

Second irony is when they accuse everyone else of whataboutery....

Shakespeare's Sister

someone insisting that I consider the idea that Elliot Rodger could have been a madman and an anomaly, not at all a product of a white supremacist and misogynistic society.

Well that's what I think. Not EVERYTHING is the result of "the patriarchy".
God, that woman is unpleasant.

FTA69

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Here's another article a feminist friend of mine posted today...

For those devil’s advocates who are trying to learn, I suggest you explore other avenues. Consider that you are not paying your friends to break down concepts that are often painfully lived experiences for them, and be mindful of their time and energy. Be grateful (and show it), and listen carefully and thoughtfully when they are generous enough to talk about these experiences with you.

Can't agree with this to be honest. If feminism is to be a live political force for change then it needs to be able to articulate itself and expose power structures etc. Saying "I shouldn't have to explain this and you're stupid for not knowing this already and burdening me" just isn't going to cut it.

FTA69

Yeah "articles" like that remind me why I'm reluctant to openly identify as a feminist or get involved with those kind of movements. I don't wanna turn into a self-hating white male who opens every conversation with a trigger warning and harps on more about the oppression felt by middle-class American women with blogs than the suffering of schoolgirls in Nigeria or rape victims in India.
Though I obviously know not all feminists are like that. ("Not All Feminist" should be "Not All Man"'s crime fighting partner. :pac: )

FTA69 wrote: »

Can't agree with this to be honest. If feminism is to be a live political force for change then it needs to be able to articulate itself and expose power structures etc. Saying "I shouldn't have to explain this and you're stupid for not knowing this already and burdening me" just isn't going to cut it.

:mad: OMG YOU'RE SUCH AN OPPRESSIVE MANSPLAINER! Y U NO CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE? :mad:

Foxhound38

Deleted User wrote: »

:mad: OMG YOU'RE SUCH AN OPPRESSIVE MANSPLAINER! Y U NO CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE? :mad:

WHY WAS I BORN A WHITE MALE!? WHY CAN'T I JUST STOP OPPRESSING OTHER PEOPLE!?

Foxhound38

OK, the same woman wrote a tract here about how an app that lets you rent out your apartment parking space in San Francisco is sexist because it provides an "example of how white men are taught that they are entitled to land, space, and women’s bodies."

Business strategies like MonkeyApp remind us that for centuries and centuries, men and white people have been told that they have the right – or the obligation – to exploit the land and bodies around them.

Jesus wept... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: