Degrees of Feminism

[Helios]

Get the stick out of your hindquarters. Really. Your life will be so much more rewarding.

This doesn't address my response to you, though perhaps it isn't intended to!

 

[Thalassa]

Oh look who hates altruism. Just caught that.

Classic. Fantastic. I think I'm going to hold you up as a symbol of everything that makes me puke.

 

[Gish]

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." - Genesis 3:16

 

[Thalassa]

You're right, religion is at the root of a lot of this bullshit.

 

[chickpea]

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." - Genesis 3:16

amen. all these women trying to act like men disgusts me. they're ruining the good, christian family values this nation was founded on.

 

[Ginkgo]

I have no problem with a man worrying about his wife's safety because he cares about her. The sexist part of this commercial is that he's worried about her because the world is too overwhelming for her female brain and reflexes. And plays into stereotypes about women not being able to drive. Replace it with another stereotype and see if it's still sweet: "But when an Asian is at the wheel..." Patronizing? Offensive? Yep. You can care about the Asian person in question, but it still makes it a dumb and offensive stereotype. (Yes, PeaceBaby! Good observation about sliding over so the man can drive!)

Mkenya, I understand that the rules have changed, and lots of men are left confused. Heck, I'm confused sometimes because my dad was a mix of the protective, chivalric man, and a man who raised me to believe I could do anything a man could do. So it was weird to me to find out most guys seem to be either/or because of the mixed messages in society. There's nothing wrong with a man being a bit protective of a woman because he loves her, in my eyes. But if he's being protective because he thinks she's too weak and stupid to make it in the world, it becomes offensive. It's the intention.

I love wimminz.

 

[Gish]

I think Feminism is harmful because people who choose that lifestyle or are comfortable in it are immediately vilified, there are perks to both sides. I don't even think it can be combated for that reason. Some people from both sides of the fence enjoy it.

There is also the fact that there are clear biological differences, even if there isn't regulation, which I don't really see much anymore as it is, people are going to naturally fall into certain roles.

 

[Oaky]

I think Feminism is harmful because people who choose that lifestyle or are comfortable in it are immediately vilified,

They've got to deal with it like a man.

 

[Orangey]

I'm not "divorcing" a subject from any other, nor denying the value of inter-disciplinary research. This is not inconsistent with anything I've said above.

You tried to suggest that "history" was less important to understanding contemporary society than sociology and/or psychology. In my response, I was suggesting that history, whether it is defined simply as research into the past or more specifically as an academic discipline with specific methodologies, cannot meaningfully be separated from either of those disciplines (or at least sociology, since there are still remnants of positivism in psychology.) And if history cannot be separated from sociology or psychology, it doesn't make any sense to say that history is less important to understanding contemporary society than sociology or psychology.

This is all on top of the fact that we have not specifically defined what is meant by "contemporary society" or what it means to understand it.

How can you say that "generic Feminism" doesn't exist when you're unaware of how your interlocutor is defining the term?

Because the term "generic feminism" is not widely accepted as being descriptive of any known type of feminism. If I see the color green, and I say, "hey, look at that color! It's greeb," then I will have made up a word that describes something real but is not itself an existing term that is widely used. I will have just invented the word, and (now take note here, Helios) I should not expect, if I go around saying "greeb!" that anyone else in the world will know what the fuck I'm talking about.

I'd define generic Feminism as something like the following:

The position that women ought to enjoy equality (principally legal, social and economic) with men + {miscellaneous propositions}.

It is the latter part of the definition which leads me to reject Feminism, and is usually populated with claims like "There ought to be women only spaces on university campuses", ""Rape culture" exists", "There would never have been any war had women had as much influence as men in the past", "20% of women on university campuses (in the United States) will be raped", etc.

Importantly, I believe that when someone identifies as a Feminist, they in fact assent to generic Feminism so defined.

That's just because you are thinking only of straw feminism.

I did not dodge the question. Your remark suggested that I had been misunderstood, and thus I sought to clarify my comment.

You had been misunderstood, but your response failed to clarify anything. Nice attempt at being a smartass, though.


P.S.- Goddamn you and your stupid fucking Palatino Linotype.

 

[Orangey]

In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist", the definition of which has been provided above. Since these "miscellaneous propositions" are typically absurd-some examples were provided above- I am then justified in rejecting Feminism, where "Feminism" is synonymous with "generic Feminism" so defined.

You're going wrong in assuming that "feminism" is synonymous with your "generic feminism." Some feminists might only believe in the antecedent part of your "generic feminism" formula, but they're still feminists. Moreover, you're not justified in rejecting generic feminism if you don't even know which propositions will go in the {miscellaneous propositions} container for any given type of feminism. You've merely rejected a few straw feminisms and assumed that the rest would be likewise worth rejecting. Which is ignorant.

 

[kyuuei]

I'm studying (ancient) history myself at university, and am really quite enamoured with it. Nevertheless, you appeared to recommend that I read history books in order to understand contemporary society. I'd sooner consult psychological and sociological literature, not to mention my eyes.

Lol @ history not pertaining to modern society.

Your use of profanity and tone here suggest to me that you have become, somewhat ironically, emotionally invested in our exchange. I have so far been courteous. Note that I do believe in Feminism-I merely deny that it is correct.

Also, Lol @ cussing being automatically taken as, somewhat ironically, emotional outbursts just because it came from a woman. Or are you going to try and salvage your "somewhat ironic" snide remark and try to say it wasn't hinting at the fact that you feel women cannot debate without emotional outbursts?

That was hilarious to me. lol

Stereotypes are fun. We participate in this everyday on this forum.

:/ I didn't find that one offensive or funny.. The thought of men thinking they're turning into drones just because they're with a woman--.. it's sort of sad. Kind of destroys the romantic thoughts I have about relationships.

Get the stick out of your hindquarters. Really. Your life will be so much more rewarding.

I REALLY, REALLY hope he talks like that IRL all the time. And if he does, I REALLY hope he gets on vent more often.

amen. all these women trying to act like men disgusts me. they're ruining the good, christian family values this nation was founded on.

Amen. I'm tired of all these women trying to tell me I can drive at night in the rain.

 

[Helios]

You tried to suggest that "history" was less important to understanding contemporary society than sociology and/or psychology. In my response, I was suggesting that history, whether it is defined simply as research into the past or more specifically as an academic discipline with specific methodologies, cannot meaningfully be separated from either of those disciplines (or at least sociology, since there are still remnants of positivism in psychology.) And if history cannot be separated from sociology or psychology, it doesn't make any sense to say that history is less important to understanding contemporary society than sociology or psychology.

I don't agree that history is inseparable from sociology and psychology. Inter-disciplinary research is one thing; this is quite another.

This is all on top of the fact that we have not specifically defined what is meant by "contemporary society" or what it means to understand it.

I think it's fairly obvious what is meant by "contemporary society". I dismiss the inquiry into the meaning of such (very clear) terms as a conceit of analytic philosophy, in which I'm not keen to participate.

Because the term "generic feminism" is not widely accepted as being descriptive of any known type of feminism. If I see the color green, and I say, "hey, look at that color! It's greeb," then I will have made up a word that describes something real but is not itself an existing term that is widely used. I will have just invented the word, and (now take note here, Helios) I should not expect, if I go around saying "greeb!" that anyone else in the world will know what the fuck I'm talking about.

I didn't expect you to understand the meaning of the term. I expected you to ask for a definition. You did this, but not before telling me that "generic Feminism" doesn't exist-which is quite silly, since, at that point, you had no idea what it meant!

You had been misunderstood, but your response failed to clarify anything. Nice attempt at being a smartass, though.

Then I'm unsure in what way I was misunderstood. I'm not trying to be a "smartass".

P.S.- Goddamn you and your stupid fucking Palatino Linotype.

I had someone complain about that shortly after I joined.

Over two years ago.

You're going wrong in assuming that "feminism" is synonymous with your "generic feminism." Some feminists might only believe in the antecedent part of your "generic feminism" formula, but they're still feminists.

The following is of critical importance:

In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist"

This allows for the possibility that someone who declares that they are a Feminist rejects all propositions populating that "miscellaneous propositions" category. I'm arguing that that is very, very rare. For most, "I am a Feminist" means "I am a generic Feminist", and so, for most, "Feminism" means "generic Feminism". I would be happy to identify as a Feminist myself, since I am enthusiastically in favour of the equality I mention. I refrain from doing so because I would constantly have to qualify that I am "a Feminist, if "Feminist" only means "a person who is in favour of the equality of women with men"", lest my interlocutor suppose that I'm happy to assert the existence of a "rape culture", etc., i.e believes that I am a "generic Feminist".

That strikes me as tedious.

Moreover, you're not justified in rejecting generic feminism if you don't even know which propositions will go in the {miscellaneous propositions} container for any given type of feminism.

The "miscellaneous propositions category" contains millions of propositions, of which some fail to exist. It's unreasonable to expect me to have an exhaustive knowledge of these propositions. In an effort to be clear, "usually" should be omitted from this:

It is the latter part of the definition which leads me to reject Feminism, and is usually populated with claims like "There ought to be women only spaces on university campuses", ""Rape culture" exists", "There would never have been any war had women had as much influence as men in the past", "20% of women on university campuses (in the United States) will be raped", etc.

and "typically" from here:

In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist", the definition of which has been provided above. Since these "miscellaneous propositions" are typically absurd-some examples were provided above- I am then justified in rejecting Feminism, where "Feminism" is synonymous with "generic Feminism" so defined.

Nevertheless, the definition could do with some refinement-the "+" should really be an ampersand, for example. I think it's a good starting point, though.

 

[Thalassa]

No mention of 1st wave feminism, 2nd wave feminism, 3rd wave feminism...just something he keeps calling generic feminism.



Good luck arguing about something you don't even understand.

 

[Gish]

That's because feminism is dumb.

 

[Giggly]

:/ I didn't find that one offensive or funny.. The thought of men thinking they're turning into drones just because they're with a woman--.. it's sort of sad. Kind of destroys the romantic thoughts I have about relationships

Heh. I don't know why but TV commercials or anything fictional does not have this effect on me. Listening to married men in real life or on the internet complain has this effect on me though, and yeah, it saddens me greatly.

 

[Helios]

Lol @ history not pertaining to modern society.

Indeed, but fortunately I made no such claim. You might consider re-reading the relevant post.

Also, Lol @ cussing being automatically taken as, somewhat ironically, emotional outbursts just because it came from a woman. Or are you going to try and salvage your "somewhat ironic" snide remark and try to say it wasn't hinting at the fact that you feel women cannot debate without emotional outbursts?

I found it ironic that a woman defending the validity of Feminism became emotional in her defence of Feminism, an ideology which has fought against the notion that women are hysterical and incapable of rational exchanges. It's odd that you'd interpret this as some sort of sexism on my part. Indeed, I believe women are as incapable as men of carrying on equanimous conversation.

 

[Thalassa]

That's because feminism is dumb.

no u

 

[Mole]

Feminism and Liberal Democracy

Feminism is part of liberal democracy.

The first part of liberal democracy was the abolition of institutional slavery in 1833. The second part was the emancipation of women in Austalia and New Zealand in 1900. And the third part is the prosecution of child sexual abuse in our criminal courts in 1995.

So feminism is absolutely central and mainstream to liberal democracy.

 

[Ginkgo]

White man. The lost cause.

 

[Starry]

Regardless, know that swearing at me again will lead to the end of our exchange.

You had been misunderstood, but your response failed to clarify anything. Nice attempt at being a smartass, though.


P.S.- Goddamn you and your stupid fucking Palatino Linotype.

I had someone complain about that shortly after I joined.

Over two years ago.

Now...you didn't seem as bothered by Orangey's swearing as you did Marms. So much so that you ended your conversation with Marm...yet responded to Orangey quite politely...even offering up information he did not solicit. Why? Honest question. I truly want to understand what the difference is in your mind.