Man when you say that someone who hasn't introspected that much may not understand themself that much that just gets me angry.
You assume a lack of introspection... why? I just don't see how you can have a proper debate with someone when your attitude is, "You're wrong... Go think about it and get back to me when you've realized I'm right."
I assume a lack of introspection because you say that privilege is a tool for introspection. Is it teleological? Clearly not, because as it's been said in this thread no feminist agrees with another over what feminism precisely means. But if you go through the introspection process of privilege, if you try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have the advantages you have, and still argue the same points that you made before you went through that process, then yeah you need to think about it more. An introspection process would suggest something changing, some greater amount of self awareness, or a changed behavior. To go through a transformational process without changing wouldn't make sense.
You're doing it here. You're working off the assumption that there's a right and wrong answer, and you're right, and that everyone else should think about it some more. You leave no room for the possibility of people thinking, considering, and deciding on a different (but rational) course of action. Your default position is that your point of view is *so right* that anyone who seriously thinks about it will agree with you, and there's going to be problems when you definite your movement this way.
Honest exchanges of opinion do not happen this way.
Introspection is primarily an evaluation or reevaluation of your currently held beliefs (often in light of new information). It is not innately indicative of change. Don't think that just because you lay out facts in front of someone, they're going to arrange them in the same pattern as you.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
This is my core problem with the feminism I’ve run across online. Although I’m completely in favor of policies that improve women’s equality (whether it’s the Lilly Ledbetter Act, electing more women to Congress and the Supreme Court, better access to family planning resources, subsidized maternity leave, etc), I don’t call myself a feminist because the label has a huge amount of baggage. And from the polls I’ve come across on even staunchly liberal forums, I know that a very large percentage of people in favor of gender equality avoid the feminist title for that reason as well.
Basically from what I’ve seen, being in favor of women’s equality isn’t enough to be a real feminist. Real feminism now is knowing feminist theory and doing meta-analysis of everything in terms of power and privilege. Unsurprisingly, this starts quickly excluding supporters of gender equality from the feminist movement. But even if you know your Dworkin and Steinem and set aside time every day to consider your white / middle class / abled / first world / cis-gendered / hetero privilege, if you’re a guy you’re risking “mansplaining” and drowning out underprivileged women’s voices with every opinion you say or write, even if it’s otherwise in perfect accord with whatever branch of feminist thought you support.
Obviously this is not how all feminists define feminism, but it seems prevalent enough that I find it’s better to just leave feminism to the true believers.
Man when you say that someone who hasn't introspected that much may not understand themself that much that just gets me angry.
You assume a lack of introspection... why? I just don't see how you can have a proper debate with someone when your attitude is, "You're wrong... Go think about it and get back to me when you've realized I'm right."
I assume a lack of introspection because you say that privilege is a tool for introspection. Is it teleological? Clearly not, because as it's been said in this thread no feminist agrees with another over what feminism precisely means. But if you go through the introspection process of privilege, if you try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have the advantages you have, and still argue the same points that you made before you went through that process, then yeah you need to think about it more. An introspection process would suggest something changing, some greater amount of self awareness, or a changed behavior. To go through a transformational process without changing wouldn't make sense.
You're doing it here. You're working off the assumption that there's a right and wrong answer, and you're right, and that everyone else should think about it some more. You leave no room for the possibility of people thinking, considering, and deciding on a different (but rational) course of action. Your default position is that your point of view is *so right* that anyone who seriously thinks about it will agree with you, and there's going to be problems when you definite your movement this way.
Honest exchanges of opinion do not happen this way.
Introspection is primarily an evaluation or reevaluation of your currently held beliefs (often in light of new information). It is not innately indicative of change. Don't think that just because you lay out facts in front of someone, they're going to arrange them in the same pattern as you.
I don't assume that. Change has to come from within. And I never implied that there was a 'right' answer, but I did imply that there was a wrong one: it's similar to how people attack Fukuyama for saying that liberal democracies are now the best form of government, ignoring how many different kinds of liberal democracy there are out there. Specifically 'American' or specifically 'German' democracy isn't the "right" answer to what is the best form of governance, but "Syria" is a good example of a wrong answer.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
This is my core problem with the feminism I’ve run across online. Although I’m completely in favor of policies that improve women’s equality (whether it’s the Lilly Ledbetter Act, electing more women to Congress and the Supreme Court, better access to family planning resources, subsidized maternity leave, etc), I don’t call myself a feminist because the label has a huge amount of baggage. And from the polls I’ve come across on even staunchly liberal forums, I know that a very large percentage of people in favor of gender equality avoid the feminist title for that reason as well.
Basically from what I’ve seen, being in favor of women’s equality isn’t enough to be a real feminist. Real feminism now is knowing feminist theory and doing meta-analysis of everything in terms of power and privilege. Unsurprisingly, this starts quickly excluding supporters of gender equality from the feminist movement. But even if you know your Dworkin and Steinem and set aside time every day to consider your white / middle class / abled / first world / cis-gendered / hetero privilege, if you’re a guy you’re risking “mansplaining” and drowning out underprivileged women’s voices with every opinion you say or write, even if it’s otherwise in perfect accord with whatever branch of feminist thought you support.
Obviously this is not how all feminists define feminism, but it seems prevalent enough that I find it’s better to just leave feminism to the true believers.
I'd say that's less a function of feminism and more a function of "internet feminism". Or a certain subset of it anyway. Like tons of other groups, it's created it's own little online community and developed it's own behaviours that can be incredibly abrasive.
The silly comes when people start read the ramblings of some idiot on internet and then ascribe that to the whole idea of feminism.
Man when you say that someone who hasn't introspected that much may not understand themself that much that just gets me angry.
You assume a lack of introspection... why? I just don't see how you can have a proper debate with someone when your attitude is, "You're wrong... Go think about it and get back to me when you've realized I'm right."
I assume a lack of introspection because you say that privilege is a tool for introspection. Is it teleological? Clearly not, because as it's been said in this thread no feminist agrees with another over what feminism precisely means. But if you go through the introspection process of privilege, if you try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have the advantages you have, and still argue the same points that you made before you went through that process, then yeah you need to think about it more. An introspection process would suggest something changing, some greater amount of self awareness, or a changed behavior. To go through a transformational process without changing wouldn't make sense.
You're doing it here. You're working off the assumption that there's a right and wrong answer, and you're right, and that everyone else should think about it some more. You leave no room for the possibility of people thinking, considering, and deciding on a different (but rational) course of action. Your default position is that your point of view is *so right* that anyone who seriously thinks about it will agree with you, and there's going to be problems when you definite your movement this way.
Honest exchanges of opinion do not happen this way.
Introspection is primarily an evaluation or reevaluation of your currently held beliefs (often in light of new information). It is not innately indicative of change. Don't think that just because you lay out facts in front of someone, they're going to arrange them in the same pattern as you.
I don't assume that. Change has to come from within. And I never implied that there was a 'right' answer, but I did imply that there was a wrong one; that putting yourself into the shoes of someone who is less well off, extending your empathy to someone who isn't you and still saying "yeah but still fuck them" would be doing empathy wrong.
Not saying that you, specifically, are doing that, just using an example which would go with what we're talking about.
Empathy does not equal action. For a recent example, I empathize with the woman who heckled Tosh, and yet I feel she was in the wrong. Just because I feel bad that she got hurt does not mean I agree with her.
(Please let's not discuss Tosh. This was just an example.)
That's my point about using privilege to support a predetermined position. It doesn't allow for variance. It shouldn't be used as a "go back and think until you come around to my pov". This shuts down honest discussion.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
This is my core problem with the feminism I’ve run across online. Although I’m completely in favor of policies that improve women’s equality (whether it’s the Lilly Ledbetter Act, electing more women to Congress and the Supreme Court, better access to family planning resources, subsidized maternity leave, etc), I don’t call myself a feminist because the label has a huge amount of baggage. And from the polls I’ve come across on even staunchly liberal forums, I know that a very large percentage of people in favor of gender equality avoid the feminist title for that reason as well.
Basically from what I’ve seen, being in favor of women’s equality isn’t enough to be a real feminist. Real feminism now is knowing feminist theory and doing meta-analysis of everything in terms of power and privilege. Unsurprisingly, this starts quickly excluding supporters of gender equality from the feminist movement. But even if you know your Dworkin and Steinem and set aside time every day to consider your white / middle class / abled / first world / cis-gendered / hetero privilege, if you’re a guy you’re risking “mansplaining” and drowning out underprivileged women’s voices with every opinion you say or write, even if it’s otherwise in perfect accord with whatever branch of feminist thought you support.
Obviously this is not how all feminists define feminism, but it seems prevalent enough that I find it’s better to just leave feminism to the true believers.
I'd say that's less a function of feminism and more a function of "internet feminism". Or a certain subset of it anyway. Like tons of other groups, it's created it's own little online community and developed it's own behaviours that can be incredibly abrasive.
The silly comes when people start read the ramblings of some idiot on internet and then ascribe that to the whole idea of feminism.
Particularly silly when a lot of examples of sexism on the internet is countered by "well it's the internet".
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
This is my core problem with the feminism I’ve run across online. Although I’m completely in favor of policies that improve women’s equality (whether it’s the Lilly Ledbetter Act, electing more women to Congress and the Supreme Court, better access to family planning resources, subsidized maternity leave, etc), I don’t call myself a feminist because the label has a huge amount of baggage. And from the polls I’ve come across on even staunchly liberal forums, I know that a very large percentage of people in favor of gender equality avoid the feminist title for that reason as well.
Basically from what I’ve seen, being in favor of women’s equality isn’t enough to be a real feminist. Real feminism now is knowing feminist theory and doing meta-analysis of everything in terms of power and privilege. Unsurprisingly, this starts quickly excluding supporters of gender equality from the feminist movement. But even if you know your Dworkin and Steinem and set aside time every day to consider your white / middle class / abled / first world / cis-gendered / hetero privilege, if you’re a guy you’re risking “mansplaining” and drowning out underprivileged women’s voices with every opinion you say or write, even if it’s otherwise in perfect accord with whatever branch of feminist thought you support.
Obviously this is not how all feminists define feminism, but it seems prevalent enough that I find it’s better to just leave feminism to the true believers.
I'd say that's less a function of feminism and more a function of "internet feminism". Or a certain subset of it anyway. Like tons of other groups, it's created it's own little online community and developed it's own behaviours that can be incredibly abrasive.
The silly comes when people start read the ramblings of some idiot on internet and then ascribe that to the whole idea of feminism.
Particularly silly when a lot of examples of sexism on the internet is countered by "well it's the internet".
I have never in my life (30+ years) met ANYONE who self-identifies with the label of "feminist" offline. To me, feminists are ONLY academics or internet users. So, if internet feminism is different from the offline kind, I have unfortunately never been exposed to the offline kind.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
This is my core problem with the feminism I’ve run across online. Although I’m completely in favor of policies that improve women’s equality (whether it’s the Lilly Ledbetter Act, electing more women to Congress and the Supreme Court, better access to family planning resources, subsidized maternity leave, etc), I don’t call myself a feminist because the label has a huge amount of baggage. And from the polls I’ve come across on even staunchly liberal forums, I know that a very large percentage of people in favor of gender equality avoid the feminist title for that reason as well.
Basically from what I’ve seen, being in favor of women’s equality isn’t enough to be a real feminist. Real feminism now is knowing feminist theory and doing meta-analysis of everything in terms of power and privilege. Unsurprisingly, this starts quickly excluding supporters of gender equality from the feminist movement. But even if you know your Dworkin and Steinem and set aside time every day to consider your white / middle class / abled / first world / cis-gendered / hetero privilege, if you’re a guy you’re risking “mansplaining” and drowning out underprivileged women’s voices with every opinion you say or write, even if it’s otherwise in perfect accord with whatever branch of feminist thought you support.
Obviously this is not how all feminists define feminism, but it seems prevalent enough that I find it’s better to just leave feminism to the true believers.
I'd say that's less a function of feminism and more a function of "internet feminism". Or a certain subset of it anyway. Like tons of other groups, it's created it's own little online community and developed it's own behaviours that can be incredibly abrasive.
The silly comes when people start read the ramblings of some idiot on internet and then ascribe that to the whole idea of feminism.
Particularly silly when a lot of examples of sexism on the internet is countered by "well it's the internet".
I have never in my life (30+ years) met ANYONE who self-identifies with the label of "feminist" offline. To me, feminists are ONLY academics or internet users. So, if internet feminism is different from the offline kind, I have unfortunately never been exposed to the offline kind.
It's not so much 'different' as it is changed by the nature of face to face communication. I try not to get into people's faces about feminist stuff offline unless they're a friend of mine who is routinely offending me.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
This is my core problem with the feminism I’ve run across online. Although I’m completely in favor of policies that improve women’s equality (whether it’s the Lilly Ledbetter Act, electing more women to Congress and the Supreme Court, better access to family planning resources, subsidized maternity leave, etc), I don’t call myself a feminist because the label has a huge amount of baggage. And from the polls I’ve come across on even staunchly liberal forums, I know that a very large percentage of people in favor of gender equality avoid the feminist title for that reason as well.
Basically from what I’ve seen, being in favor of women’s equality isn’t enough to be a real feminist. Real feminism now is knowing feminist theory and doing meta-analysis of everything in terms of power and privilege. Unsurprisingly, this starts quickly excluding supporters of gender equality from the feminist movement. But even if you know your Dworkin and Steinem and set aside time every day to consider your white / middle class / abled / first world / cis-gendered / hetero privilege, if you’re a guy you’re risking “mansplaining” and drowning out underprivileged women’s voices with every opinion you say or write, even if it’s otherwise in perfect accord with whatever branch of feminist thought you support.
Obviously this is not how all feminists define feminism, but it seems prevalent enough that I find it’s better to just leave feminism to the true believers.
I'd say that's less a function of feminism and more a function of "internet feminism". Or a certain subset of it anyway. Like tons of other groups, it's created it's own little online community and developed it's own behaviours that can be incredibly abrasive.
The silly comes when people start read the ramblings of some idiot on internet and then ascribe that to the whole idea of feminism.
Particularly silly when a lot of examples of sexism on the internet is countered by "well it's the internet".
I have never in my life (30+ years) met ANYONE who self-identifies with the label of "feminist" offline. To me, feminists are ONLY academics or internet users. So, if internet feminism is different from the offline kind, I have unfortunately never been exposed to the offline kind.
The label has a bad stigma for many reasons (mostly extremist feminists and conservative groups dedicated to tarring the name of feminism. Often using said extremist feminists to do so). But at the same time, I bet you've met TONS of people who will identify with some strain of feiminism or other, even if they won't phrase it exactly that way.
It's like Obamacare. Label bad, what that label actually means good.
I have never in my life (30+ years) met ANYONE who self-identifies with the label of "feminist" offline. To me, feminists are ONLY academics or internet users. So, if internet feminism is different from the offline kind, I have unfortunately never been exposed to the offline kind.
People self-select to socialize with like-minded individuals. I have never met in my life ANYONE who self-identifies as a mens-rights-activist, or a evangelical holy-roller, or a militant anti-American Jihadist, or a furry, or a submissive sex slave, or a Creed fan, but all of those people exist in the real world.
You don't know anyone who identifies with the label of "feminist" offline because you don't hang out with people who identify with the label of "feminist."
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I have never in my life (30+ years) met ANYONE who self-identifies with the label of "feminist" offline. To me, feminists are ONLY academics or internet users. So, if internet feminism is different from the offline kind, I have unfortunately never been exposed to the offline kind.
People self-select to socialize with like-minded individuals. I have never met in my life ANYONE who self-identifies as a mens-rights-activist, or a evangelical holy-roller, or a militant anti-American Jihadist, or a furry, or a submissive sex slave, or a Creed fan, but all of those people exist in the real world.
You don't know anyone who identifies with the label of "feminist" offline because you don't hang out with people who identify with the label of "feminist."
I would have also accepted Nickelback, by the way.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Thanks for making the thread, AMFE. The idea of liberal feminism as set out in the OP is what I have historically thought of as feminism (and is something that I am fully behind) but I feel like, at least online, you can espouse these exact ideas and still be called a misogynist. A lot of this seems to be due to modern feminism being highly inclusive, to the point where any issue that affects women can be part of feminism, even if the impact on women is no different than the impact on people as a whole. One of the most extreme examples I have seen in the inclusion of ableism (advocacy for the disabled) in feminist thought and discussion, since women are handicapped too. I have seen this even expressed by feminist safe spaces rejecting the words "lame" and "stupid" as offensive to the physically or mentally disabled. To me, this just seems like a confusing and dangerous expansion, since the issues facing the disabled may have no relationship to the issues facing women, and so thinking that all of these problems need to be solved by the same people at the same time could very well slow the advance of actual women's issues by feminism. I understand that feminists are still stinging from being left behind in the civil rights movement despite all their work for it, but I don't understand why the lesson of that experience wouldn't be "from now on we have to focus on our issues" rather than "from now on we need to make sure that every person who helps feminism move forward has their issues addressed alongside the core feminist issues.
A large chunk of feminist thought deals with social norms and how they are frequently harmful. Specifically, feminism deals with gender norms, but the ways in which gender norms are harmful differ little from how norms/stereotypes are harmful to other classes, such as racial minorities, the disabled and the LGBTIQA... community.
For these groups to work together to deal with what is essentially the same issue is kinda logical. I agree that to consider all of this feminism is not in the best interests of any particular group.
I see two problems with this:
1. By making the umbrella so wide, you run the risk of allienating people who support the core issue but not the issues of other groups. A great example of this to me is how hard I see many feminists push on transgender issues. It often seems to me like feminists will not acknowledge that accepting transgenders is an extra step which can be hard for people who are fully onboard with gay rights to make. By tying these difficult issues in with feminism, I think they run a real risk of losing the more conservative leaning people who can still be extremely valuable allies.
2. By lumping women's issues in with these other (often less mainstream) positions, you wind up with a movement that is calling for pretty sweeping overhauls. Like I said before, AMFE's liberal feminism which seeks equality within the system seems great, and I am all for it. I just can't get behind a movement that sees everything about our society as unequal to someone, and that wants to make a ton of sweeping changes, and I don't see what that has to do with things like equal pay and opportunities.
What's worse, alienating transgender folks who want to engage in feminist discourse and activism, but feel left out, or alienating the transphobic folks who "just aren't ready" to accept transgenderism? Bigoted allies aren't valuable.
What's worse is alienating the group that is more valuable to your cause and can help you achieve your goals. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it probably isn't even close on this one.
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
I have heard this many times, but what I have never heard is why it is a mistake for feminism. I understand its worse for the the other disadvantaged groups, but how does focusing on women's issues to the exclusion of all other issues hurt feminism, or make it less likely that feminism will achieve its goals?
It is a mistake for feminism for exactly the reason you alluded to- alienation. If you don't take issues of race, class, etc. into account, you risk alienating and excluding those who feel like they would like to contribute, in principle, but don't feel included in practice. For a long time feminism has grappled with questions like why more people of color don't engage with feminism.
Again, bigoted "allies" aren't valuable, and aren't really allies. A movement should aim to be as inclusive and progressive as possible. So when transgender folks or people of color express that they would like to participate, but feel alienated because of X,Y, and Z, the proper response isn't "WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYWAY, RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEMINISM". The proper response is to look inwards and check your privilege.
But you haven't said a thing about why this is a problem for feminism. If women feel alienated because feminism isn't also about them being disabled, why isn't the answer "this is about women's issues, and we will help advance your cause as a woman, but your problems from being disabled are not our fight. I agree you may alienate people. What I don't understand is why that's a problem for feminism or advancing women's issues.
A movement should aim to suceed. If there were a bunch of senators ready to pass a new law on wage parity but they won't include transgenders, would you suggest feminists protest the bill to avoid alienating transgenders?
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
I think what drives me a little batty about feminist, like most "ists" is that when the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So when you are a full on drank the cool aid feminist, everything, and I mean everything, is viewed in terms of feminism.
You have no idea how incredibly frustrating it is to tell my story, which you guys clearly don't believe is the fault of feminism, I get it, but have someone tell me "Well clearly what you need is more feminism, not less. More feminism would make everything equal."
Except then a different feminist says "That's a men's issue and has nothing to do with us. Get your own lobbyist."
Because honestly, everything aside from the lobbyist is a circle jerk. I could honestly care less what your picture perfect view of the feminist community, with all its varied ecosystem of viewpoints is like.
I care what the feminists with the money and the power and lobbyist do with said money and power and lobbyist.
And what they do is pass back asswards laws which casts men as bad and women as good. Men as abusers and oppressors and women as victims and the oppressed. We get insane amounts of funding being thrown into women's shelters by the government, with zero accountability and no equal protection under the law for men. Most of them don't even let women bring their teenage sons. Most respectable studies show that rates of abuse by gender are 50/50. And yet there is a incredible disparity in funding for one group of victims over another. Thanks Feminism.
Same things goes for health issues. We get Obamacare, (seriously its about fucking time), which covers birth control for women, even hysterectomies, and all the assorted female health needs, but covers nothing for men. No prostate PSA tests, no vasectomies, nada. There is just a huge funding disparity across the board for men's health issues VS women's health issues. So, thanks for that Feminism.
You even attempt to bring up these things as mens issues, and you get laughed out of the room. Because as we all know, men don't have issues. To even bring up that men an be victims, that men could use shelters, that men's health issues could use more funding too, gets you called a women hater. Even bringing up in this thread that I'd be legislated out of my right to defend myself against an abusive partner, some among you jumped to the conclusion that I just wanted an excuse to knock some teeth out. So, thanks for that too Feminism.
And to be clear, because people have been very fond of putting words in my mouth, I do not begrudge women for having access to resources they need. That's awesome. That's fantastic. The problem is Feminist secured the resources only for themselves, and closed the door behind them. And that sucks. I've been lucky enough to have friends I could crash with while crazy exes held the threat of abuse over my head keeping me from my home. But I'm lucky in that way. And that doesn't make this a non-issue, it just makes me lucky.
This isn't necessarily true. I need to go to sleep and I can barely read at this point, but a major point in modern feminism is that dudes are fucked over by the patriarchy too. We're stuck in a particular method of thinking about this idealized Manhood that society tells us we have to be.
"Feminism is the recognition that it kind of sucks balls to be a woman in this and most other countries and the commitment to researching why, how, and what to do about it."
I think that covers essentially all waves of feminism.
Y'know, I never understood the opposition to the ERA. Here it is verbatim:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
yet it invariably ends up painted as
And what they do is pass back asswards laws which casts men as bad and women as good.
Y'know, I never understood the opposition to the ERA. Here it is verbatim:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
yet it invariably ends up painted as
And what they do is pass back asswards laws which casts men as bad and women as good.
Well, the ERA had the bad luck to not get ratified before the religious right became a political force in the late '70s and early '80s.
Another reason some folks might oppose it is because it'd make same-sex marriage (and other things) Constitutionally protected, trumping all state laws.
A movement should aim to suceed. If there were a bunch of senators ready to pass a new law on wage parity but they won't include transgenders, would you suggest feminists protest the bill to avoid alienating transgenders?
Because perfect is the enemy of the good, my dear man. Leftists in the U.S. (think OWS) have a depressing tendency to want things done right the first time. They'll keep trying to get things done their way and they won't compromise.
In your example the sane thing would be passing that law and then after it gets passed start working on rights for people who've switched their gender. Today's movement would instead most likely bitch about how it's not all-inclusive and unfair* and the law won't get passed.
*valid criticisms, of course, but take what you can get! Civil rights don't get advanced by massive leaps- they grind forward inch by inch until they become part of the culture. Women fought for the right to vote for over 50 years before they got it.
A movement should aim to suceed. If there were a bunch of senators ready to pass a new law on wage parity but they won't include transgenders, would you suggest feminists protest the bill to avoid alienating transgenders?
Because perfect is the enemy of the good, my dear man. Leftists in the U.S. (think OWS) have a depressing tendency to want things done right the first time. They'll keep trying to get things done their way and they won't compromise.
In your example the sane thing would be passing that law and then after it gets passed start working on rights for people who've switched their gender. Today's movement would instead most likely bitch about how it's not all-inclusive and unfair* and the law won't get passed.
*valid criticisms, of course, but take what you can get! Civil rights don't get advanced by massive leaps- they grind forward inch by inch until they become part of the culture. Women fought for the right to vote for over 50 years before they got it.
Speaking of suffrage, they didn't get a bunch of half-assed bills that gave some women the right to suffrage and not others as incremental steps toward universal suffrage, but simply got suffrage. Suffragettes definitely got that one right the first time around, even if it took decades to convince enough people to support it.
One thing that kind of irked me about "internet feminists" is that, amidst everything, they have zero problems excluding people or groups they don't deign to be valid.
There was (and perhaps continues to be) a pretty big kerfuffle regarding asexuals identifying as queer, and how the feminist community hates this and doesn't want to be associated with them.
I know it's only a very small subset of the movement, but it was kind of jarring to get the impression that inclusion might not be the end game for some, but rather the power to be exclusive on a meaningful societal level.
So I skimmed that PDF on Predominant Aggressor and the only thing that was full on retarded was size comparisons before deciding which party was to be arrested, which as far as I understood, was only part of the doctrine in one state? That is seriously retarded though, and illustrated in with an example of a lesbian couple. There were a few other silly notions regarding statistics that could do with being thrown out. There also appears to be an eyebrow raising amount of "policy" rather than law, meaning that the lawmakers say one thing and then when some sheriff somewhere sets about implementing it, it skids of the reasonable into "You might as well flip a coin, except the coin only has one side?"
Still though, would anyone actually care to show how those laws are the result of, well, feminism? "Women need to be protected by law from the physically bigger and more abusive men" does not strike me as the height of feminist ideology, but then again, this is one of those areas where I experience a large culture gap with large swaths of the internet.
Heaven forbid, first they're too inclusive, now they're too exclusive. When will someone finally find the right balance that pleases everyone all the time?
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Speaking of suffrage, they didn't get a bunch of half-assed bills that gave some women the right to suffrage and not others as incremental steps toward universal suffrage, but simply got suffrage. Suffragettes definitely got that one right the first time around, even if it took decades to convince enough people to support it.
Yeah that was a bad example. The African American civil rights movement is a better example.
"Feminism is the recognition that it kind of sucks balls to be a woman in this and most other countries and the commitment to researching why, how, and what to do about it."
I think that covers essentially all waves of feminism.
If you amend this to include a self-awareness that there are major differences in the issues faced between first-, second- and third-world countries, then yeah.
Still though, would anyone actually care to show how those laws are the result of, well, feminism? "Women need to be protected by law from the physically bigger and more abusive men" does not strike me as the height of feminist ideology, but then again, this is one of those areas where I experience a large culture gap with large swaths of the internet.
I think only one or two people are making arguments in that direction. And you are right, this is not based on feminist ideology beyond "hey, let's make it not suck as bad to be a woman who was abused."
The idea is that if you examine privilege, you'll be able to make better moral decisions because you're aware of things you weren't before. Like if you read up on alcohol statstics you'll make a more informed decision about how you drink. Or if you read about ethical trade then that will hopefully affect what you buy.
Exactly. It's the essential, "If you were as enlightened as I was, you would realize I'm right." I see privilege as a tool for introspection. When you use it as leverage against those who don't agree with you, you're doing it wrong.
I mean yes its leading you towards a predetermined conclusion of "thinking about how your actions affect other people".
That's something we learn as children. You're closing off options when you frame privilege as, "If you were less ignorant, you'd see I was right."
This is something I brought up in the last thread but, the difficulty in pushing the feminist viewpoint is that it is essentially a moral argument, and its very difficult (impossible, depending on what theory of meta-ethics you subscribe to) to make a moral argument using purely empirical means.
If I want to argue, "eating meat is wrong" I can point to standards of animal welfare, scientific evidence that animals feel pain, and such.
Hopefully this will make the other person think a bit more about whats going on behind the scenes before they buy their next burger. But it is not in itself empirical evidence that it is "wrong". It can't force the other person to give a fuck about animals, only their own moral sensibilities can do that.
Similarly, if you point out how privilege affects people in ways you may not realize hopefully you're giving the other person something to think about, but there isn't any moral reality you can point to factually disprove them if they hear that and choose "...I still don't care"
So when making a moral argument you end up being stuck with appeals to empathy and morality "you should care because...its good to care?" "you should care because...imagine how they feel?" "you should care because...its bad not to care?"
Except if you use the latter the argument immediately shuts down "I'm sorry did you just hint or imply that I was a BAD PERSON?? that's outrageous, you're crazy. I don't have to listen to this tripe"
I think what drives me a little batty about feminist, like most "ists" is that when the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So when you are a full on drank the cool aid feminist, everything, and I mean everything, is viewed in terms of feminism.
You have no idea how incredibly frustrating it is to tell my story, which you guys clearly don't believe is the fault of feminism, I get it, but have someone tell me "Well clearly what you need is more feminism, not less. More feminism would make everything equal."
Except then a different feminist says "That's a men's issue and has nothing to do with us. Get your own lobbyist."
Because honestly, everything aside from the lobbyist is a circle jerk. I could honestly care less what your picture perfect view of the feminist community, with all its varied ecosystem of viewpoints is like.
I care what the feminists with the money and the power and lobbyist do with said money and power and lobbyist.
And what they do is pass back asswards laws which casts men as bad and women as good. Men as abusers and oppressors and women as victims and the oppressed. We get insane amounts of funding being thrown into women's shelters by the government, with zero accountability and no equal protection under the law for men. Most of them don't even let women bring their teenage sons. Most respectable studies show that rates of abuse by gender are 50/50. And yet there is a incredible disparity in funding for one group of victims over another. Thanks Feminism.
Same things goes for health issues. We get Obamacare, (seriously its about fucking time), which covers birth control for women, even hysterectomies, and all the assorted female health needs, but covers nothing for men. No prostate PSA tests, no vasectomies, nada. There is just a huge funding disparity across the board for men's health issues VS women's health issues. So, thanks for that Feminism.
You even attempt to bring up these things as mens issues, and you get laughed out of the room. Because as we all know, men don't have issues. To even bring up that men an be victims, that men could use shelters, that men's health issues could use more funding too, gets you called a women hater. Even bringing up in this thread that I'd be legislated out of my right to defend myself against an abusive partner, some among you jumped to the conclusion that I just wanted an excuse to knock some teeth out. So, thanks for that too Feminism.
And to be clear, because people have been very fond of putting words in my mouth, I do not begrudge women for having access to resources they need. That's awesome. That's fantastic. The problem is Feminist secured the resources only for themselves, and closed the door behind them. And that sucks. I've been lucky enough to have friends I could crash with while crazy exes held the threat of abuse over my head keeping me from my home. But I'm lucky in that way. And that doesn't make this a non-issue, it just makes me lucky.
See, this is why MRAs (or any other privilaged rights group) never get taken seriously. They try to make everything worse rather than make everything better. You think that men need abuse shelters? Me too! Let's fight for that but not tear down any woman's shelters while we do it. You think men need Protection Against rape? Me too but lets not make it harder for women to get help while we do it.
In my life, whenever I have been powerless it has given me greater empathy towards those who are powerless all the time. Imagine being your situation only instead being powerless within the law you are powerless phisically and then come back an say that we need to role back our domestic violence laws.
You even attempt to bring up these things as mens issues, and you get laughed out of the room. Because as we all know, men don't have issues. To even bring up that men an be victims, that men could use shelters, that men's health issues could use more funding too, gets you called a women hater. Even bringing up in this thread that I'd be legislated out of my right to defend myself against an abusive partner, some among you jumped to the conclusion that I just wanted an excuse to knock some teeth out. So, thanks for that too Feminism.
I dont mean to suggest that you're a buttoned down psychopath itching for an excuse to beat his girlfriend if thats what you took away. But what I mean to draw attention to is:
a) Do you see how a domestic violence law that makes allowances for things like "I was protecting my property" and such would backfire horribly?
and
b) What exactly would "subduing" the other party entail? Putting her in a headlock? Sitting on her? Tying up her hands? Again do you see where this could potentially go horribly wrong for both the safety of the parties involved and the police force tasked with sorting it out after the fact?
I mean your complaint seems to be that as you were the physically more powerful party you were unjustly forced to pursue a means of conflict resolution that minimized physical force, rather than attempting to resolve it by asserting your strength.
You're saying how you were warned against "defending yourself" but you're talking as if "defending yourself" means "fighting back", the police officer who recommended locking yourself in a room WAS talking about how to defend your safety. Your safety (and hers). Not your property, not your honor, not your right to roll your sleeves up and tackle the situation with your own hands. Those are not priorities.
Jeedan on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.
Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.
Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?
You even attempt to bring up these things as mens issues, and you get laughed out of the room. Because as we all know, men don't have issues. To even bring up that men an be victims, that men could use shelters, that men's health issues could use more funding too, gets you called a women hater. Even bringing up in this thread that I'd be legislated out of my right to defend myself against an abusive partner, some among you jumped to the conclusion that I just wanted an excuse to knock some teeth out. So, thanks for that too Feminism.
I dont mean to suggest that you're a buttoned down psychopath itching for an excuse to beat his girlfriend if thats what you took away. But what I mean to draw attention to is:
a) Do you see how a domestic violence law that makes allowances for things like "I was protecting my property" and such would backfire horribly?
and
b) What exactly would "subduing" the other party entail? Putting her in a headlock? Sitting on her? Tying up her hands? Again do you see where this could potentially go horribly wrong for both the safety of the parties involved and the police force tasked with sorting it out after the fact?
I mean your complaint seems to be that as you were the physically more powerful party you were unjustly forced to pursue a means of conflict resolution that minimized physical force, rather than attempting to resolve it by asserting your strength.
You're saying how you were warned against "defending yourself" but you're talking as if "defending yourself" means "fighting back", the police officer who recommended locking yourself in a room WAS talking about how to defend your safety. Your safety (and hers). Not your property, not your honor, not your right to roll your sleeves up and tackle the situation with your own hands. Those are not priorities.
I'm pretty sure it's more that
A) he got lucky insofar as he knew a female marine to act as his bodyguard he had to find a workaround to simply exercise a basic right to self defense.
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.
Again, to go back to an analogy at the beginning of this thread in the absence of a centralized heirachy the word "feminist" is a self designation, rather like the word "christian" or similar. Some people believe in god, but choose not to call themselves christian, some people call themselves christian but don't like organised church, some christians don't believe other sects are doing it properly etc. There isn't a badge you get.
Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.
Who is "they", the high society of feminists? Why don't you write to them?
Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?
Peoples personal safety does take priority over your material stuff yes. Do you really not see the problem in a law that sees violent reprisals as justified because she broke your favorite thing?
You even attempt to bring up these things as mens issues, and you get laughed out of the room. Because as we all know, men don't have issues. To even bring up that men an be victims, that men could use shelters, that men's health issues could use more funding too, gets you called a women hater. Even bringing up in this thread that I'd be legislated out of my right to defend myself against an abusive partner, some among you jumped to the conclusion that I just wanted an excuse to knock some teeth out. So, thanks for that too Feminism.
I dont mean to suggest that you're a buttoned down psychopath itching for an excuse to beat his girlfriend if thats what you took away. But what I mean to draw attention to is:
a) Do you see how a domestic violence law that makes allowances for things like "I was protecting my property" and such would backfire horribly?
and
b) What exactly would "subduing" the other party entail? Putting her in a headlock? Sitting on her? Tying up her hands? Again do you see where this could potentially go horribly wrong for both the safety of the parties involved and the police force tasked with sorting it out after the fact?
I mean your complaint seems to be that as you were the physically more powerful party you were unjustly forced to pursue a means of conflict resolution that minimized physical force, rather than attempting to resolve it by asserting your strength.
You're saying how you were warned against "defending yourself" but you're talking as if "defending yourself" means "fighting back", the police officer who recommended locking yourself in a room WAS talking about how to defend your safety. Your safety (and hers). Not your property, not your honor, not your right to roll your sleeves up and tackle the situation with your own hands. Those are not priorities.
I'm pretty sure it's more that
A) he got lucky insofar as he knew a female marine to act as his bodyguard he had to find a workaround to simply exercise a basic right to self defense.
I just highlighted the problem with this. You know what the first thing is they teach you in any decent personal defence class? Running away. That is basic self defence. The punches and the arm locks and such is "last resort" self defence.
Jeedan on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.
Again, to go back to an analogy at the beginning of this thread in the absence of a centralized heirachy the word "feminist" is a self designation, rather like the word "christian" or similar. Some people believe in god, but choose not to call themselves christian, some people call themselves christian but don't like organised church, some christians don't believe other sects are doing it properly etc. There isn't a badge you get.
Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.
Who is "they", the high society of feminists? Why don't you write to them?
Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?
Peoples personal safety does take priority over your material stuff yes. Do you really not see the problem in a law that sees violence as justified because she broke your favorite thing?
1/2. There are people out there trying to actually change things, no? There are people doing research on feminist issues. There are people critiquing works from a feminist perspective, and pushing for media creators to care more about feminism. It isn't all people saying "hi I'm a feminist and care about blaaaarglewaargle." The underpinnings of the calls to action matter, and depending on which perspective they take, people may be more or less inclined to support them.
3. I absolutely think you have a right to defend your property. When you have done nothing wrong, why should you just accept being wronged by a bad actor? If someone is trying to destroy my property (which I bought with money earned through my labor) why shouldn't I have a right to defend it, instead of forcing me to be a slave to the wrongdoer (they are taking the fruits of my labor, and therefor my labor, from me).
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.
Again, to go back to an analogy at the beginning of this thread in the absence of a centralized heirachy the word "feminist" is a self designation, rather like the word "christian" or similar. Some people believe in god, but choose not to call themselves christian, some people call themselves christian but don't like organised church, some christians don't believe other sects are doing it properly etc. There isn't a badge you get.
Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.
Who is "they", the high society of feminists? Why don't you write to them?
Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?
Peoples personal safety does take priority over your material stuff yes. Do you really not see the problem in a law that sees violence as justified because she broke your favorite thing?
1/2. There are people out there trying to actually change things, no? There are people doing research on feminist issues. There are people critiquing works from a feminist perspective, and pushing for media creators to care more about feminism. It isn't all people saying "hi I'm a feminist and care about blaaaarglewaargle." The underpinnings of the calls to action matter, and depending on which perspective they take, people may be more or less inclined to support them.
But how are these people to claim "ownership" of the name? They're not a hive mind.
And why is it a good idea to change it anyway? In response to external pressure from men who find the word vaguely threatening? I think there are many who would disagree.
3. I absolutely think you have a right to defend your property. When you have done nothing wrong, why should you just accept being wronged by a bad actor? If someone is trying to destroy my property (which I bought with money earned through my labor) why shouldn't I have a right to defend it, instead of forcing me to be a slave to the wrongdoer (they are taking the fruits of my labor, and therefor my labor, from me).
Someone breaks into your house? Fine whatever, run at them with a baseball bat. But that's not what a domestic violence situation is, when the police get there and both parties have a black eye and explaining needs to be done there's going to need to be a better explanation than "she broke my xbox".
Also there's a weird patriarchal edge to this argument, if you don't respond with violent reprisals when a woman threatens the "fruits of your labor" then you are making yourself a "slave"? its really strange that you're using an argument stemming from retaining a proper balance of power and control.
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.
Again, to go back to an analogy at the beginning of this thread in the absence of a centralized heirachy the word "feminist" is a self designation, rather like the word "christian" or similar. Some people believe in god, but choose not to call themselves christian, some people call themselves christian but don't like organised church, some christians don't believe other sects are doing it properly etc. There isn't a badge you get.
Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.
Who is "they", the high society of feminists? Why don't you write to them?
Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?
Peoples personal safety does take priority over your material stuff yes. Do you really not see the problem in a law that sees violence as justified because she broke your favorite thing?
1/2. There are people out there trying to actually change things, no? There are people doing research on feminist issues. There are people critiquing works from a feminist perspective, and pushing for media creators to care more about feminism. It isn't all people saying "hi I'm a feminist and care about blaaaarglewaargle." The underpinnings of the calls to action matter, and depending on which perspective they take, people may be more or less inclined to support them.
But how are these people to claim "ownership" of the name? They're not a hive mind.
And why is it a good idea to change it anyway? In response to external pressure from men who find the word vaguely threatening? I think there are many who would disagree.
3. I absolutely think you have a right to defend your property. When you have done nothing wrong, why should you just accept being wronged by a bad actor? If someone is trying to destroy my property (which I bought with money earned through my labor) why shouldn't I have a right to defend it, instead of forcing me to be a slave to the wrongdoer (they are taking the fruits of my labor, and therefor my labor, from me).
Someone breaks into your house? Fine whatever, run at them with a baseball bat. But that's not what a domestic violence situation is, when the police get there and both parties have a black eye and explaining needs to be done there's going to need to be a better explanation than "she broke my xbox".
Also there's a weird patriarchal edge to this argument, if you don't respond with violent reprisals when a woman threatens the "fruits of your labor" then you are making yourself a "slave"? its really strange that you're using an argument stemming from retaining a proper balance of power and control.
Forget fruits of my labor. My ex knew where to hit me hardest. Keepsakes of dead relatives. My father specifically.
But sure, spin it into a patriarchal control issue. I'm trying to maintain patriarchal control by preventing an abusive domestic partner from destroying what little I have to remember my dead father by.
Thanks for that Feminism.
Because really, it is Feminism's fault. You are so attached to the idea of man bad, women good, and outdated concepts of "patriarchal control" being the root of abusive relationships, you can't detach from them for 2 seconds to address a situation where its the WOMAN using VIOLENCE to CONTROL a MAN. You view any attempt at protecting myself and what's valuable to me as an attempt to maintain some sort of patriarchal status qou.
Namrok on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Are we really interpreting Namrok's concerns as wanting legally endorsed violent reprisal post facto?
I mean, the concerns may or may not be meaningful, but they aren't "I want to be able to revenge myself upon her".
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.
Again, to go back to an analogy at the beginning of this thread in the absence of a centralized heirachy the word "feminist" is a self designation, rather like the word "christian" or similar. Some people believe in god, but choose not to call themselves christian, some people call themselves christian but don't like organised church, some christians don't believe other sects are doing it properly etc. There isn't a badge you get.
Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.
Who is "they", the high society of feminists? Why don't you write to them?
Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?
Peoples personal safety does take priority over your material stuff yes. Do you really not see the problem in a law that sees violence as justified because she broke your favorite thing?
1/2. There are people out there trying to actually change things, no? There are people doing research on feminist issues. There are people critiquing works from a feminist perspective, and pushing for media creators to care more about feminism. It isn't all people saying "hi I'm a feminist and care about blaaaarglewaargle." The underpinnings of the calls to action matter, and depending on which perspective they take, people may be more or less inclined to support them.
But how are these people to claim "ownership" of the name? They're not a hive mind.
And why is it a good idea to change it anyway? In response to external pressure from men who find the word vaguely threatening? I think there are many who would disagree.
3. I absolutely think you have a right to defend your property. When you have done nothing wrong, why should you just accept being wronged by a bad actor? If someone is trying to destroy my property (which I bought with money earned through my labor) why shouldn't I have a right to defend it, instead of forcing me to be a slave to the wrongdoer (they are taking the fruits of my labor, and therefor my labor, from me).
Someone breaks into your house? Fine whatever, run at them with a baseball bat. But that's not what a domestic violence situation is, when the police get there and both parties have a black eye and explaining needs to be done there's going to need to be a better explanation than "she broke my xbox".
Also there's a weird patriarchal edge to this argument, if you don't respond with violent reprisals when a woman threatens the "fruits of your labor" then you are making yourself a "slave"? its really strange that you're using an argument stemming from retaining a proper balance of power and control.
Forget fruits of my labor. My ex knew where to hit me hardest. Keepsakes of dead relatives. My father specifically.
But sure, spin it into a patriarchal control issue. I'm trying to maintain patriarchal control by preventing an abusive domestic partner from destroying what little I have to remember my dead father by.
Thanks for that Feminism.
Because really, it is Feminism's fault. You are so attached to the idea of man bad, women good, and outdated concepts of "patriarchal control" being the root of abusive relationships, you can't detach from them for 2 seconds to address a situation where its the WOMAN using VIOLENCE to CONTROL a MAN. You view any attempt at protecting myself and what's valuable to me as an attempt to maintain some sort of patriarchal status qou.
It's nothing to do with feminism at all. The police didn't do their jobs properly. That's it.
The police often don't do their jobs properly when men abuse women too.
I am saddened by how little sympathy you are getting. What happened to you sounds terrible. But your conclusion is terrible too.
Posts
You're doing it here. You're working off the assumption that there's a right and wrong answer, and you're right, and that everyone else should think about it some more. You leave no room for the possibility of people thinking, considering, and deciding on a different (but rational) course of action. Your default position is that your point of view is *so right* that anyone who seriously thinks about it will agree with you, and there's going to be problems when you definite your movement this way.
Honest exchanges of opinion do not happen this way.
Introspection is primarily an evaluation or reevaluation of your currently held beliefs (often in light of new information). It is not innately indicative of change. Don't think that just because you lay out facts in front of someone, they're going to arrange them in the same pattern as you.
This is my core problem with the feminism I’ve run across online. Although I’m completely in favor of policies that improve women’s equality (whether it’s the Lilly Ledbetter Act, electing more women to Congress and the Supreme Court, better access to family planning resources, subsidized maternity leave, etc), I don’t call myself a feminist because the label has a huge amount of baggage. And from the polls I’ve come across on even staunchly liberal forums, I know that a very large percentage of people in favor of gender equality avoid the feminist title for that reason as well.
Basically from what I’ve seen, being in favor of women’s equality isn’t enough to be a real feminist. Real feminism now is knowing feminist theory and doing meta-analysis of everything in terms of power and privilege. Unsurprisingly, this starts quickly excluding supporters of gender equality from the feminist movement. But even if you know your Dworkin and Steinem and set aside time every day to consider your white / middle class / abled / first world / cis-gendered / hetero privilege, if you’re a guy you’re risking “mansplaining” and drowning out underprivileged women’s voices with every opinion you say or write, even if it’s otherwise in perfect accord with whatever branch of feminist thought you support.
Obviously this is not how all feminists define feminism, but it seems prevalent enough that I find it’s better to just leave feminism to the true believers.
I don't assume that. Change has to come from within. And I never implied that there was a 'right' answer, but I did imply that there was a wrong one: it's similar to how people attack Fukuyama for saying that liberal democracies are now the best form of government, ignoring how many different kinds of liberal democracy there are out there. Specifically 'American' or specifically 'German' democracy isn't the "right" answer to what is the best form of governance, but "Syria" is a good example of a wrong answer.
I'd say that's less a function of feminism and more a function of "internet feminism". Or a certain subset of it anyway. Like tons of other groups, it's created it's own little online community and developed it's own behaviours that can be incredibly abrasive.
The silly comes when people start read the ramblings of some idiot on internet and then ascribe that to the whole idea of feminism.
Empathy does not equal action. For a recent example, I empathize with the woman who heckled Tosh, and yet I feel she was in the wrong. Just because I feel bad that she got hurt does not mean I agree with her.
(Please let's not discuss Tosh. This was just an example.)
That's my point about using privilege to support a predetermined position. It doesn't allow for variance. It shouldn't be used as a "go back and think until you come around to my pov". This shuts down honest discussion.
Particularly silly when a lot of examples of sexism on the internet is countered by "well it's the internet".
I have never in my life (30+ years) met ANYONE who self-identifies with the label of "feminist" offline. To me, feminists are ONLY academics or internet users. So, if internet feminism is different from the offline kind, I have unfortunately never been exposed to the offline kind.
It's not so much 'different' as it is changed by the nature of face to face communication. I try not to get into people's faces about feminist stuff offline unless they're a friend of mine who is routinely offending me.
The label has a bad stigma for many reasons (mostly extremist feminists and conservative groups dedicated to tarring the name of feminism. Often using said extremist feminists to do so). But at the same time, I bet you've met TONS of people who will identify with some strain of feiminism or other, even if they won't phrase it exactly that way.
It's like Obamacare. Label bad, what that label actually means good.
People self-select to socialize with like-minded individuals. I have never met in my life ANYONE who self-identifies as a mens-rights-activist, or a evangelical holy-roller, or a militant anti-American Jihadist, or a furry, or a submissive sex slave, or a Creed fan, but all of those people exist in the real world.
You don't know anyone who identifies with the label of "feminist" offline because you don't hang out with people who identify with the label of "feminist."
I would have also accepted Nickelback, by the way.
But you haven't said a thing about why this is a problem for feminism. If women feel alienated because feminism isn't also about them being disabled, why isn't the answer "this is about women's issues, and we will help advance your cause as a woman, but your problems from being disabled are not our fight. I agree you may alienate people. What I don't understand is why that's a problem for feminism or advancing women's issues.
A movement should aim to suceed. If there were a bunch of senators ready to pass a new law on wage parity but they won't include transgenders, would you suggest feminists protest the bill to avoid alienating transgenders?
A)As I said feminism is more a school of thought than a movement now, which is appropriate because their targets are less well defined than the problems of the 1st/2nd waves.
B)It's vaguely goosey to presume to tell a group to totally change its objectives and goals in order to conform to a strategy you're imposing on them. It'd be kind of like telling an automotive company to get into mp3 players cause that's where the getting is good--they're not a tech company, they're a car company (not the best example but I hope that it carries the message)
You have no idea how incredibly frustrating it is to tell my story, which you guys clearly don't believe is the fault of feminism, I get it, but have someone tell me "Well clearly what you need is more feminism, not less. More feminism would make everything equal."
Except then a different feminist says "That's a men's issue and has nothing to do with us. Get your own lobbyist."
Because honestly, everything aside from the lobbyist is a circle jerk. I could honestly care less what your picture perfect view of the feminist community, with all its varied ecosystem of viewpoints is like.
I care what the feminists with the money and the power and lobbyist do with said money and power and lobbyist.
And what they do is pass back asswards laws which casts men as bad and women as good. Men as abusers and oppressors and women as victims and the oppressed. We get insane amounts of funding being thrown into women's shelters by the government, with zero accountability and no equal protection under the law for men. Most of them don't even let women bring their teenage sons. Most respectable studies show that rates of abuse by gender are 50/50. And yet there is a incredible disparity in funding for one group of victims over another. Thanks Feminism.
Same things goes for health issues. We get Obamacare, (seriously its about fucking time), which covers birth control for women, even hysterectomies, and all the assorted female health needs, but covers nothing for men. No prostate PSA tests, no vasectomies, nada. There is just a huge funding disparity across the board for men's health issues VS women's health issues. So, thanks for that Feminism.
You even attempt to bring up these things as mens issues, and you get laughed out of the room. Because as we all know, men don't have issues. To even bring up that men an be victims, that men could use shelters, that men's health issues could use more funding too, gets you called a women hater. Even bringing up in this thread that I'd be legislated out of my right to defend myself against an abusive partner, some among you jumped to the conclusion that I just wanted an excuse to knock some teeth out. So, thanks for that too Feminism.
And to be clear, because people have been very fond of putting words in my mouth, I do not begrudge women for having access to resources they need. That's awesome. That's fantastic. The problem is Feminist secured the resources only for themselves, and closed the door behind them. And that sucks. I've been lucky enough to have friends I could crash with while crazy exes held the threat of abuse over my head keeping me from my home. But I'm lucky in that way. And that doesn't make this a non-issue, it just makes me lucky.
"Feminism is the recognition that it kind of sucks balls to be a woman in this and most other countries and the commitment to researching why, how, and what to do about it."
I think that covers essentially all waves of feminism.
Y'know, I never understood the opposition to the ERA. Here it is verbatim:
yet it invariably ends up painted as
Well, the ERA had the bad luck to not get ratified before the religious right became a political force in the late '70s and early '80s.
Another reason some folks might oppose it is because it'd make same-sex marriage (and other things) Constitutionally protected, trumping all state laws.
Equal Rights Amendment, it was a thing in the 70s but was never passed, as much because of fragmented support as vicious anger.
Because perfect is the enemy of the good, my dear man. Leftists in the U.S. (think OWS) have a depressing tendency to want things done right the first time. They'll keep trying to get things done their way and they won't compromise.
In your example the sane thing would be passing that law and then after it gets passed start working on rights for people who've switched their gender. Today's movement would instead most likely bitch about how it's not all-inclusive and unfair* and the law won't get passed.
*valid criticisms, of course, but take what you can get! Civil rights don't get advanced by massive leaps- they grind forward inch by inch until they become part of the culture. Women fought for the right to vote for over 50 years before they got it.
It was actually written as part of the suffrage movement in the 20s as kind of a radical feminist stance back then.
Speaking of suffrage, they didn't get a bunch of half-assed bills that gave some women the right to suffrage and not others as incremental steps toward universal suffrage, but simply got suffrage. Suffragettes definitely got that one right the first time around, even if it took decades to convince enough people to support it.
There was (and perhaps continues to be) a pretty big kerfuffle regarding asexuals identifying as queer, and how the feminist community hates this and doesn't want to be associated with them.
I know it's only a very small subset of the movement, but it was kind of jarring to get the impression that inclusion might not be the end game for some, but rather the power to be exclusive on a meaningful societal level.
Still though, would anyone actually care to show how those laws are the result of, well, feminism? "Women need to be protected by law from the physically bigger and more abusive men" does not strike me as the height of feminist ideology, but then again, this is one of those areas where I experience a large culture gap with large swaths of the internet.
Yeah that was a bad example. The African American civil rights movement is a better example.
Pleassse.
I feel it is.
But I have no hatred.
So I feel out of place. Fuck.
If you amend this to include a self-awareness that there are major differences in the issues faced between first-, second- and third-world countries, then yeah.
Except, ironically, the current secular and humanist movement is having a large amount of trouble with sexual harassment of women at their events...
EDIT: @Calixtus
I think only one or two people are making arguments in that direction. And you are right, this is not based on feminist ideology beyond "hey, let's make it not suck as bad to be a woman who was abused."
This is something I brought up in the last thread but, the difficulty in pushing the feminist viewpoint is that it is essentially a moral argument, and its very difficult (impossible, depending on what theory of meta-ethics you subscribe to) to make a moral argument using purely empirical means.
If I want to argue, "eating meat is wrong" I can point to standards of animal welfare, scientific evidence that animals feel pain, and such.
Hopefully this will make the other person think a bit more about whats going on behind the scenes before they buy their next burger. But it is not in itself empirical evidence that it is "wrong". It can't force the other person to give a fuck about animals, only their own moral sensibilities can do that.
Similarly, if you point out how privilege affects people in ways you may not realize hopefully you're giving the other person something to think about, but there isn't any moral reality you can point to factually disprove them if they hear that and choose "...I still don't care"
So when making a moral argument you end up being stuck with appeals to empathy and morality "you should care because...its good to care?" "you should care because...imagine how they feel?" "you should care because...its bad not to care?"
Except if you use the latter the argument immediately shuts down "I'm sorry did you just hint or imply that I was a BAD PERSON?? that's outrageous, you're crazy. I don't have to listen to this tripe"
See, this is why MRAs (or any other privilaged rights group) never get taken seriously. They try to make everything worse rather than make everything better. You think that men need abuse shelters? Me too! Let's fight for that but not tear down any woman's shelters while we do it. You think men need Protection Against rape? Me too but lets not make it harder for women to get help while we do it.
In my life, whenever I have been powerless it has given me greater empathy towards those who are powerless all the time. Imagine being your situation only instead being powerless within the law you are powerless phisically and then come back an say that we need to role back our domestic violence laws.
I dont mean to suggest that you're a buttoned down psychopath itching for an excuse to beat his girlfriend if thats what you took away. But what I mean to draw attention to is:
a) Do you see how a domestic violence law that makes allowances for things like "I was protecting my property" and such would backfire horribly?
and
b) What exactly would "subduing" the other party entail? Putting her in a headlock? Sitting on her? Tying up her hands? Again do you see where this could potentially go horribly wrong for both the safety of the parties involved and the police force tasked with sorting it out after the fact?
I mean your complaint seems to be that as you were the physically more powerful party you were unjustly forced to pursue a means of conflict resolution that minimized physical force, rather than attempting to resolve it by asserting your strength.
You're saying how you were warned against "defending yourself" but you're talking as if "defending yourself" means "fighting back", the police officer who recommended locking yourself in a room WAS talking about how to defend your safety. Your safety (and hers). Not your property, not your honor, not your right to roll your sleeves up and tackle the situation with your own hands. Those are not priorities.
So you are basically confirming what I said in the first post I made in this thread. Being 100% for women's rights is not enough to be a feminist anymore. Of course, there are still people in this thread saying feminism is about making it "suck less" to be a woman. I actually wonder how many people here support feminism (thinking its only about women) or oppose it (thinking it is about every oppressed group). I actually started out supporting it when I thought it was about women's rights, and am only against it because of intersectionality.
Feminism was always a movement about equality and rights for women, right? It seems like they should change the name, since it doesn't seem to be about that anymore.
Also, incidentally, if someone is attacking you and breaking all your shit, why should the goal be to protect both parties? Do your rights in your property count for nothing just because your live in girlfriend went crazy?
I'm pretty sure it's more that
A) he got lucky insofar as he knew a female marine to act as his bodyguard
Again, to go back to an analogy at the beginning of this thread in the absence of a centralized heirachy the word "feminist" is a self designation, rather like the word "christian" or similar. Some people believe in god, but choose not to call themselves christian, some people call themselves christian but don't like organised church, some christians don't believe other sects are doing it properly etc. There isn't a badge you get.
Who is "they", the high society of feminists? Why don't you write to them?
Peoples personal safety does take priority over your material stuff yes. Do you really not see the problem in a law that sees violent reprisals as justified because she broke your favorite thing?
I just highlighted the problem with this. You know what the first thing is they teach you in any decent personal defence class? Running away. That is basic self defence. The punches and the arm locks and such is "last resort" self defence.
1/2. There are people out there trying to actually change things, no? There are people doing research on feminist issues. There are people critiquing works from a feminist perspective, and pushing for media creators to care more about feminism. It isn't all people saying "hi I'm a feminist and care about blaaaarglewaargle." The underpinnings of the calls to action matter, and depending on which perspective they take, people may be more or less inclined to support them.
3. I absolutely think you have a right to defend your property. When you have done nothing wrong, why should you just accept being wronged by a bad actor? If someone is trying to destroy my property (which I bought with money earned through my labor) why shouldn't I have a right to defend it, instead of forcing me to be a slave to the wrongdoer (they are taking the fruits of my labor, and therefor my labor, from me).
But how are these people to claim "ownership" of the name? They're not a hive mind.
And why is it a good idea to change it anyway? In response to external pressure from men who find the word vaguely threatening? I think there are many who would disagree.
Someone breaks into your house? Fine whatever, run at them with a baseball bat. But that's not what a domestic violence situation is, when the police get there and both parties have a black eye and explaining needs to be done there's going to need to be a better explanation than "she broke my xbox".
Also there's a weird patriarchal edge to this argument, if you don't respond with violent reprisals when a woman threatens the "fruits of your labor" then you are making yourself a "slave"? its really strange that you're using an argument stemming from retaining a proper balance of power and control.
Forget fruits of my labor. My ex knew where to hit me hardest. Keepsakes of dead relatives. My father specifically.
But sure, spin it into a patriarchal control issue. I'm trying to maintain patriarchal control by preventing an abusive domestic partner from destroying what little I have to remember my dead father by.
Thanks for that Feminism.
Because really, it is Feminism's fault. You are so attached to the idea of man bad, women good, and outdated concepts of "patriarchal control" being the root of abusive relationships, you can't detach from them for 2 seconds to address a situation where its the WOMAN using VIOLENCE to CONTROL a MAN. You view any attempt at protecting myself and what's valuable to me as an attempt to maintain some sort of patriarchal status qou.
I mean, the concerns may or may not be meaningful, but they aren't "I want to be able to revenge myself upon her".
It's nothing to do with feminism at all. The police didn't do their jobs properly. That's it.
The police often don't do their jobs properly when men abuse women too.
I am saddened by how little sympathy you are getting. What happened to you sounds terrible. But your conclusion is terrible too.