Degrees of Feminism

[Thalassa]

White man. The lost cause.

Nah, some of the most anti-feminist cultures at the moment are in Asia and Africa, as a matter of fact. And of course poverty is linked to disempowerment of women, interestingly enough.

It was primarily the English who went around colonizing, which is surely based in philsophy and culture rather than being caucasian. We still have lingering remnants of that culture here in the United States.

 

[Gish]

White women are the real lost cause. They can't even read maps.

 

[kyuuei]

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

You're a broken record with that line. I read your post. The fact that 3 people have already commented on the fact that you've said "History means nothing in comparison to my own two eyes" should possibly lead you to believe that either you worded your post poorly, or you didn't relay the message you wanted. People are reading "History doesn't mean shit" from you.. Telling me to re-read your miscommunication won't make it anymore coherent.

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.

I was more mentioning that you jumped to the conclusion that she was emotional at all. I never got a hint of emotion from her exchange, just debate. That's the part I find sexist. Overly polite and detached forms of talking does not equate to logic or rationality. It's a form of talking, nothing more. Nor do brash words lead to illogical emotions. Again, it's a form of communication. Your leap to assuming that she's emotional is based on the fact that she's a woman, not because she's talking with cuss words. That's what made it sexist. Proof of that can further be seen through your lack of reacting to Orangey's cussing, her way of communicating is much more detached, and she's been mistaken as a male for it on the forum before.

FWIW though, even if she WAS being emotional.. Emotional passion in an argument does not necessarily mean incapable of rational exchange. Many rational things have been done with passion.

 

[rav3n]

"I reject law because anyone who uses the term must use it to mean "generic law" and people get legally beheaded in Saudi Arabia or legally caned in Singapore."

 

[Orangey]

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

Well, seeing as how historical research is a staple method of sociology and social psychology, my original point stands.

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.

Well, if by "contemporary society" we mean society as it has been over the last, say, thirty years, then I'd think that any inquiry into its function or development would by definition be historical research. And the phrase "understanding contemporary society" could mean a few different things. For instance, it could simply mean understanding how it functions. Or it could mean understanding how and why it came to be the way that it currently is. The point is that the meaning of these phrases directly influences our present conversation, so it is relevant to discuss them.

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!

Why would I know the meaning of a word that didn't exist?

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

I was not clear about what you meant by feminism nor what aspects of feminism you found to be "false," which is why I asked for clarification (by which I meant that I wanted you to explain specifically what aspects of your understanding of feminism that you found objectionable.) I was not confused about what it means for something to be false. I would think that was obvious.

I had someone complain about that shortly after I joined.

Over two years ago.

Good?

The following is of critical importance:



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.

So essentially you're saying that you're afraid to say you're a feminist for fear of being associated with straw feminists. How does that mean that "generic feminism" is false? The various constellations of propositions that could potentially fill the {miscellaneous propositions} container might not all be false. There could be a variation with which you agree.

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:

and "typically" from here:

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.

If you remove the "usually" and "typically," then how can you feel comfortable declaring the "falsehood" of generic feminism?

 

[Randomnity]

omg, I laughed and laughed and laughed at the folgers one. IRL. http://www.adweek.com/video/sexist-ads-folgers-133389

I need to watch that again.

 

[Helios]

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.

I didn't think that Orangey was swearing at me per se.

 

[Helios]

You're a broken record with that line. I read your post. The fact that 3 people have already commented on the fact that you've said "History means nothing in comparison to my own two eyes" should possibly lead you to believe that either you worded your post poorly, or you didn't relay the message you wanted. People are reading "History doesn't mean shit" from you.. Telling me to re-read your miscommunication won't make it anymore coherent.

I did not say "History means nothing in comparison to my own eyes"; please refrain from misquoting me. I don't agree that your not understanding is a result of a miscommunication on my part. There was not even the slightest hint that history doesn't pertain to current society in any of my posts-how could it not, given that it provides causal explanations for how our society has arisen? I only stated that "I'd sooner consult psychological and sociological literature, not to mention my eyes (than history)" in order "to understand contemporary society". The difference here is subtle, but is a difference regardless.

Overly polite and detached forms of talking does not equate to logic or rationality. It's a form of talking, nothing more. Nor do brash words lead to illogical emotions. Again, it's a form of communication.

The way a person is communicating is an excellent guide to how they're feeling. If they're calmly discussing a matter with you, avoiding petty insults, keeping their voice quiet and even, etc. you are justified in believing that they're being quite reasonable, and not feeling much emotion. If, on the other hand, they're regularly insulting you-something, incidentally, which I've come to expect from my interlocutors in this thread- whilst shouting in your face that you're incorrect, etc., it's fair to suspect that they're feeling emotional. Communicating in the latter way I've described might even reinforce those emotions which have caused that particular mode of communication.

Now, to consider the relevant poster's conduct:

In response to a query about whether I'm "insecure":

I do. Especially since you made the comment that I'd better stop that.

This, after I'd not said twenty words.

HAHAHA. I'm not going to change my ideology for some stranger on the Internet. You're not even making a valid argument.

Thanks for your time though, bro. By the way, if you tell me what to do, I'll tell you what to do: go read some history books, particularly ones about the state of society rather than about war or conquest.

Not exactly a paragon of equanimity. I must be fascinated with war and conquest because I'm a male non-Feminist.

Also, I'm not going to "politely" ask you for anything after you told me "I'd better stop that." Who the fuck do you think you are? People like you are all the same, you want to talk down to people but then have them defer to you or be respectful to you. Dream on.

Unsurprising also that you don't believe in feminism.

More angry insults. Apparently, the poster is quite upset.

Let me explain something all of you uptight upper-middle class NT academics: my manner of speaking IS HOW I TALK. It has nothing to do with being emotional, it is how I speak. I do not believe in altering my speech to conform to a bland grad school standard to suit you, or anyone else. But especially people like yourself, who seem to think there's something inherently superior about choosing words which are "politically correct."

Think of it as a sketch from a movie or television show from 1970's England, with a punk pushing an uptight old man off of a bridge, and you might begin to get the picture.

This is simply a diatribe.

Oh boy I'd be so devastated if you stopped talking. Not only that, but I'm not sure on what planet condescending is polite.

You still haven't explained your position with a valid argument. This is all striking me as pretty pseudo-intellectual and pretentious to be honest with you.

Using big words don't make you smrt.

More juvenile reaction.

He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that words are just words and that no dialect is superior to another, that language is a fluid thing that changes with society and that it's nothing more than a tool for communication, though it can be used artistically. His insistence that I speak his preferred dialect or be entirely disregareded hints at how bourgeious he really is, once again not surprising in an anti-feminist. My insistence that I speak with my own word choice is seen by him as "strange," apparently because he lives in an Ivory Tower.

Yet another diatribe. The extent to which the poster here has misunderstood me is almost comical, by the way.

Those things you said aren't a very strong argument for why you don't accept feminism. Because as many as 20% of college women are raped? WHAT? Great argument bro, I await with baited breath your next intellectual revelation.

Rejecting the entirety of feminism over extremist groups is ignorant, and marching into a thread and telling me REPEATEDLY what I ought to do is completely uncouth.

I'm sure you're in denial of this, since you're so convinced you're well-educated and polite.

Have a nice fucking day!~

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.

The poster continues to berate me-here, about my signature-even after our exchange is over. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the poster is not being emotional here.

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.

And again.

If this isn't emotional, nothing is.

Your leap to assuming that she's emotional is based on the fact that she's a woman, not because she's talking with cuss words. That's what made it sexist.

The gender of my interlocutor is irrelevant to my inferences about their mental states. My belief that she was acting emotionally is based on what she said, not who she is. Sexism has been incomprehensible and odious to me from a young age. That's not about to change now, and your conclusion here is without basis in fact.

Proof of that can further be seen through your lack of reacting to Orangey's cussing, her way of communicating is much more detached, and she's been mistaken as a male for it on the forum before.

As said to another person, I don't think Orangey was swearing at me per se. He also seems more detached, though, admittedly, not much more.

FWIW though, even if she WAS being emotional.. Emotional passion in an argument does not necessarily mean incapable of rational exchange. Many rational things have been done with passion.

Just as being shot in the head doesn't necessarily mean death.

 

[Helios]

Well, seeing as how historical research is a staple method of sociology and social psychology, my original point stands.

It may be a "staple method", but that doesn't make the disciplines "inseparable". Perhaps we're talking past one another on this point, and since it is tangential to this thread's subject matter, I will say nothing more on it.

Well, if by "contemporary society" we mean society as it has been over the last, say, thirty years, then I'd think that any inquiry into its function or development would by definition be historical research. And the phrase "understanding contemporary society" could mean a few different things. For instance, it could simply mean understanding how it functions. Or it could mean understanding how and why it came to be the way that it currently is. The point is that the meaning of these phrases directly influences our present conversation, so it is relevant to discuss them.

I'm not looking for a causal explanation of contemporary society, as is already clear; I am interested in its present state. "Contemporary society" means "the society of now". No further discussion of this term will be had, lest we wibble.

Why would I know the meaning of a word that didn't exist?

I didn't suggest that you ought to. To repeat myself yet again: I expected you to ask for the definition, which you did:

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!

I cannot be any more lucid on this point, and so will not repeat myself again.

I was not clear about what you meant by feminism nor what aspects of feminism you found to be "false," which is why I asked for clarification (by which I meant that I wanted you to explain specifically what aspects of your understanding of feminism that you found objectionable.) I was not confused about what it means for something to be false. I would think that was obvious.

I didn't imply that you were.

So essentially you're saying that you're afraid to say you're a feminist for fear of being associated with straw feminists. How does that mean that "generic feminism" is false? The various constellations of propositions that could potentially fill the {miscellaneous propositions} container might not all be false. There could be a variation with which you agree.


If you remove the "usually" and "typically," then how can you feel comfortable declaring the "falsehood" of generic feminism?

These two remarks indicate an abject failure to comprehend what I have said, which, in virtue of my statements' complexity and your performance so far, is probably unsurprising.

Frankly, though I've been exceptionally (and uncharacteristically) patient and generous so far, I'm now tired of explaining the same points multiple times to people who seemingly lack the necessary intelligence to comprehend them, not to mention the ability to exercise even a semblance of control over their cognitive vices. Debate is only enjoyable when the person with whom you are debating is a peer, rather than an inferior.

Thus, since you are unable to ask questions or make comments which tell me that you have understood, our discussion is over. Feel free to have the last word.

Apologies if this all sounds a bit blunt, by the way, but there is no other way to to communicate what I want to say.

 

[Not_Me]

Debate is only enjoyable when the person with whom you are debating is a peer, rather than an inferior.

How were you able to discern that they did not enjoy the exchange with you?

You seem to be claiming that the term "feminist" only applied to those who endorsed every radical opinions ever put forth by past proponents. That is clearly false.

 

[Helios]

How were you able to discern that they did not enjoy the exchange with you?

I was more referring to my own experience.

You seem to be claiming that the term "feminist" only applied to those who endorsed every radical opinions ever put forth by past proponents. That is clearly false.

That would be a caricature of my position. One need only accept one proposition populating the "miscellaneous propositions" category. The point is that almost every person who identifies as a Feminist in fact identifies as a generic Feminist; that is, they accept the equality "part" of my definition and at least one of the miscellaneous propositions, all of which are absurd. I accept the former only, and thus am not a Feminist (generic Feminist), as I refuse to countenance any of the "miscellaneous propositions".

 

[Not_Me]

The point is that almost every person who identifies as a Feminist in fact identifies as a generic Feminist; that is, they accept the equality "part" of my definition and at least one of the miscellaneous propositions, all of which are absurd. I accept the former only, and thus am not a Feminist (generic Feminist), as I refuse to countenance any of the "miscellaneous propositions".

You are using a definition that almost no one else recognizes.

 

[Helios]

You are using a definition that almost no one else recognizes.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

 

[Starry]

I didn't think that Orangey was swearing at me per se.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer this. Thanks.

 

[kyuuei]

I did not say "History means nothing in comparison to my own eyes"; please refrain from misquoting me. I don't agree that your not understanding is a result of a miscommunication on my part. There was not even the slightest hint that history doesn't pertain to current society in any of my posts-how could it not, given that it provides causal explanations for how our society has arisen? I only stated that "I'd sooner consult psychological and sociological literature, not to mention my eyes (than history)" in order "to understand contemporary society". The difference here is subtle, but is a difference regardless.

So subtle that it doesn't make any sense to go out of my way to distinguish them. "History is impotant!! I love it! But not when it comes to feminism. I'm not going to use it at all to come to my conclusions in this particular matter, because other things are better imo.." is the same as saying "History is useless here." What difference are you trying to convey? It isn't just *my* lack of understanding.. THREE people have 'mistaken' your words now. Something isn't communicating right, and apparently it isn't the way we're reading your post. That's all I was saying.

The way a person is communicating is an excellent guide to how they're feeling. If they're calmly discussing a matter with you, avoiding petty insults, keeping their voice quiet and even, etc. you are justified in believing that they're being quite reasonable, and not feeling much emotion. If, on the other hand, they're regularly insulting you-something, incidentally, which I've come to expect from my interlocutors in this thread- whilst shouting in your face that you're incorrect, etc., it's fair to suspect that they're feeling emotional. Communicating in the latter way I've described might even reinforce those emotions which have caused that particular mode of communication.

I didn't say that communicating language wasn't a way to understand. Only that it isn't THE way to understand. Calm, overly polite demeanors like your own could come off as sarcastic (Disclaimer: I am not saying you've been sarcastic this whole thread..).. It all depends on the circumstance. You're not being sarcastic, but take this way of talking and stick it in another thread and I could easily see someone 'mistaking' you for being that way. All I said was you're mistaken in thinking she's completely emotionally invested in what you've said. And it's a bit crazy that you seem to think that people only throw insults around when they're being emotional. Sometimes people just call others out on what they believe to be bullshit. I can think of a slew of INTJs that would prove your reasoning wrong alone.

Feminism is a very heated topic--I don't doubt passion will come through for people who want to debate it. But I'm saying she wasn't being emotional.. just passionate in the way she debates. I communicate with her all the time--I'd hope I'd know the difference between when something TRULY is upseting her, and when she finds something absurd. She's being blunt, and brutal... but that's just the way she is. She's always been that way. There isn't emotional connection involved. Again, that's all I was pointing out.

The gender of my interlocutor is irrelevant to my inferences about their mental states. My belief that she was acting emotionally is based on what she said, not who she is. Sexism has been incomprehensible and odious to me from a young age. That's not about to change now, and your conclusion here is without basis in fact.

If you say so.. But posting in a feminist thread, about how a woman you're debating with (while ever-so gracefully pointing out that you think feminism is a crock of shit) is becoming emotional about your posts.. I suppose it's a knee-jerk reaction to come to the conclusion I did.

As said to another person, I don't think Orangey was swearing at me per se. He also seems more detached, though, admittedly, not much more.

I even told you right in my own post.. Orangey is a She as well. I don't think she's anymore detached than Marm is, she just has a different way of communicating that's more mellow overall.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

They're saying that you created this definition in your own head that NO ONE Else knows about. It's like saying, "I think Churches are horseshit." And everyone goes "WHAAT!?!" and you go, "Oh, I meant the restaurant.. I know ya'll don't have them here where you live and never heard of them, but if you were to ever try them, they're total shit."

 

[onemoretime]

Quick question: is there any reason, other than tradition, that we still call it "feminism" and not "gender egalitarianism?"

 

[Thalassa]

I didn't think that Orangey was swearing at me per se.

You're really something else.

 

[Thalassa]

I did not say "History means nothing in comparison to my own eyes"; please refrain from misquoting me. I don't agree that your not understanding is a result of a miscommunication on my part. There was not even the slightest hint that history doesn't pertain to current society in any of my posts-how could it not, given that it provides causal explanations for how our society has arisen? I only stated that "I'd sooner consult psychological and sociological literature, not to mention my eyes (than history)" in order "to understand contemporary society". The difference here is subtle, but is a difference regardless.



The way a person is communicating is an excellent guide to how they're feeling. If they're calmly discussing a matter with you, avoiding petty insults, keeping their voice quiet and even, etc. you are justified in believing that they're being quite reasonable, and not feeling much emotion. If, on the other hand, they're regularly insulting you-something, incidentally, which I've come to expect from my interlocutors in this thread- whilst shouting in your face that you're incorrect, etc., it's fair to suspect that they're feeling emotional. Communicating in the latter way I've described might even reinforce those emotions which have caused that particular mode of communication.

Now, to consider the relevant poster's conduct:

In response to a query about whether I'm "insecure":



This, after I'd not said twenty words.



Not exactly a paragon of equanimity. I must be fascinated with war and conquest because I'm a male non-Feminist.



More angry insults. Apparently, the poster is quite upset.



This is simply a diatribe.



More juvenile reaction.



Yet another diatribe. The extent to which the poster here has misunderstood me is almost comical, by the way.









The poster continues to berate me-here, about my signature-even after our exchange is over. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the poster is not being emotional here.



And again.

If this isn't emotional, nothing is.



The gender of my interlocutor is irrelevant to my inferences about their mental states. My belief that she was acting emotionally is based on what she said, not who she is. Sexism has been incomprehensible and odious to me from a young age. That's not about to change now, and your conclusion here is without basis in fact.



As said to another person, I don't think Orangey was swearing at me per se. He also seems more detached, though, admittedly, not much more.



Just as being shot in the head doesn't necessarily mean death.

A person can logically deduce that you're an idiot and use swear words because that's how they choose to speak.

 

[rav3n]

Helios, perhaps the way to approach it is to admit that your disbelief in Feminism isn't based on objective logic but subjective rationale, opinion and interpretation of definition. It might garner you a bit more respect.

 

[Thalassa]

Oh and by the way, P.S. "You should do this, you should do that" and getting all butthurt over my swearing seems emotional from you. You actually seem to be utilizing your F function quite a bit. And your signature, as I've already said, is absolutely idiotic hyperbole. Saying that altruism is more insidious than the holocaust or slavery is just shockingly stupid and isn't going to go far in getting people to take your side. You're using emotional appeals in your signature to try to get people to see your point of view - exaggerated emotional appeals, which are logically non-sense.