User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 263

  1. #131
    Retired Nicki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Self-policing. Every movement promoting worthwhile change contains elements within their ranks that are obnoxious in one way or another, and do the movement more harm than good. The more effective elements need to bring these folks into the fold, or find some way to sideline them so they do not hinder progress. I am not counting here legitimate differences of opinion, which should instead lead to fractures in movements, or people leaving the movement altogether.


    Such disagreements are not new to the women's movement. Even in the days of the suffragists, some were in favor of gaining rights for wealthy and educated women, who (often with supportive husbands) had the money and influence to make headway politically. Others chose to develop grassroots support among the much more numerous, if far less resourced, working class. Ultimately it took the war to precipitate results for both groups.


    Yes, and women from any socio-economic or demographic group should be able to get involved in feminism without having her whiteness, education, wealth, or anything else held against her. Only if she acts like a jerk should she draw criticism, just like poor, black, uneducated, or anything else jerks.
    I really agree with this post.
    I really like cats and food.

  2. #132
    Retired Nicki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Hmmm a lot of my friends are from the Raleigh area of North Carolina and my feminist friends from there include women of color and a trans woman. I also know feminists who are working class from working as an exotic dancer earlier in life.

    In West Virginia people may be a little less "enlightened" than ladies from Raleigh, but I don't see a lot of bias toward the white upper middle class amongst the few feminists I know there (mainly my sisters and a few other close friends).



    There's still very much a battle for this in the south.



    She was raised in an Argentine family where she was expected to take a certain role as a Latina woman (even though a "white" Latina, skin color doesn't really make a difference in the patriarchal structure of Latin culture, as far as I can tell), and she did at first, marrying right out of high school, she has four children, she's got that stereotypical ESFJ commitment to upholding her family...but as she's aged her relationships to men have changed. She went from a housewife and mother in her 20s, to a divorced waitress in her late 30s/early 40s, to the owner of her own business in her early to mid-40s. She also went to college when her three oldest children started growing up, before she unexpectedly got pregnant with her 4th child at 46.

    But she's very much progressed in her life from being a very stereotypical Latina woman to being an empowered, independent woman with education, her own means of support (even to a point where she was actually the main income earner at one point her current relationship, a stark contrast to the years she spent supported in marriage and on alimony by her first and second husbands) ...she still is very overly-sexualized though, to a point where even I kind of feel sorry for her. She's very attractive for her age (she's 50) but she places too much emphasis on what strange men, any man, thinks of her appearance.

    One of her daughters is VERY independent and responsible too, she raised her to be very independent, so with her I see a lot of the same issues I see in my own mother, making progress in her own independence as she grew older, but still clinging to the "why don't you wear make-up and fix your hair before you go out?" kind of thing.
    It's a frustrating place to live in. Wow, that's fairly amazing of her! What made her decide to change?? That's pretty sad though.
    I really like cats and food.

  3. #133
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    I'm telling you, it's because people are taking Ivy Leaguer fun feminists who write for the women's ghettoized sections of middling pop rags like Slate/HuffPo/Gawker/Salon/Jezebel as representative of feminism. Like that dumbass Elizabeth Wurtzel. Or Katie Roiphe. Or Hanna Rosin. They're annoying, but they're basically the cosmo writers of feminism.

    As far as third wavers, I've not gotten the impression that they're anti-trans at all. In fact, the younger set is usually at odds with the older women who still cling to anti-trans "we need womyn-born-womyn only safe spaces." There are even some ugly internet drama/scandals that happen over this.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #134
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    All this in-fighting is counter-productive. It's exactly what the opponents of feminism want to see. Divide and conquer.
    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Sorry. I guess I didn't include enough context there. Women are as violent within romantic relationships in terms of the number of acts of violence against their partners, at least in the US. I don't think they do as much damage in their attacks as men do. I don't know whether or not there is unfair persecution in the justice system but violence by women against their male partners is almost certainly underreported. Honestly, it's barely even stigmatized.
    If it resulted in high rates of homicide, I'm sure that would change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Just when women are moving towards full equality in the West, you seek to demoralise us.
    Who is us?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I cannot know. While some described it as trolling, he claimed otherwise. I think it's his real opinion. Unpolished and inflammatory, but very much his.
    Those things are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary.

    I'm not interested in winning for me, or even for a certain team, I'm putting that aside.
    Just as well.
    I reckon the score is Orangey 2, Bamboo 0.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We don't tolerate racial hatred here; and we don't tolerate anti-semitism; but we do tolerate the hatred of women.

    Why's that?
    Because misogyny is sexy and those other things aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And the Medical Council of South Africa surveys show that one in four men have raped a woman with three-quarters of them saying they did so first as teenagers and half saying they raped repeatedly.
    Jesus.
    *moves Cape Town to the bottom of the list of "places to see before I die"*

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I definitely agree that certain demographics/factions of feminists can be very out of touch to the concerns of people of color, even women of color. But that's not the whole of feminism, and there are many other factions within feminism that are ready and willing to take them to task over it.
    Are the issues of "women of color" different from the issues of women in general? I'm not comfortable drawing those lines.
    Feminism can't fight all the world's ills/prejudices at once and shouldn't be expected to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #135
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Are the issues of "women of color" different from the issues of women in general? I'm not comfortable drawing those lines.
    Feminism can't fight all the world's ills/prejudices at once and shouldn't be expected to.
    No, I don't think they are different, which is part of the issue. Did you hear about the Slutwalk a few months back, and the girl holding up the "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World" sign? People defended that shit. One of the most common defenses was along the lines of "you're talking about the black version of the word, but we're talking about the human version." Oh, really? So the black version isn't human?

    Feminism can't fight all the world's ills/prejudices but it should for fucking sure not make them worse.

  6. #136
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Self-policing. Every movement promoting worthwhile change contains elements within their ranks that are obnoxious in one way or another, and do the movement more harm than good. The more effective elements need to bring these folks into the fold, or find some way to sideline them so they do not hinder progress. I am not counting here legitimate differences of opinion, which should instead lead to fractures in movements, or people leaving the movement altogether.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    All this in-fighting is counter-productive. It's exactly what the opponents of feminism want to see. Divide and conquer.
    I think that if an effort is to succeed it needs to be broad enough to gather support for goals and allow for a certain amount of disagreement inside the group - that means the group needs to be made up of people who can accept some differences in viewpoint and maintain a certain level of friction inside the group without getting destructive.

    Cooperative problem solving skills are key, because even fractured groups can work together toward common goals, where fractured groups that compete with each other will be weaker from the outside. Competitive models often resort to destructive tearing the other "team" down to make you look good. Cooperative models try to work together for mutual benefit.

    Those things are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary.
    There are variable definitions of trolling. Most definitions say it's anything written to elicit a response, but there is a connotation of intentionally making your argument more emotional or saying things that you don't actually believe in.

    In any case, a key theme is control of the other person. If you choose to respond calmly, then they don't have control.

    Just as well.
    I reckon the score is Orangey 2, Bamboo 0.
    Are you trying to advocate something? What idea are you trying to advance? Does this fit in with your idea that:

    All this in-fighting is counter-productive.
    Maybe Orangey see's me as an enemy, but I think we have some ideas in common, but have differing ways of approaching them. We do likely have real differences, also.

    A rule of thumb I try to follow is try not to tear down someone else's idea without offering a worthwhile substitute, because otherwise it just leaves carnage. In this case, my willingness to try and allow for room for people to speak and explain themselves without getting wild myself has opened some discussion where it otherwise wasn't possible.

    So the worthwhile substitute I'm suggesting is discussions over relative merits of ideas instead of shaming the holders of them away (which I think contributes to tribalism/extremism).

    edit addition: What do you think? We (organgey and I) covered a lot of ground, so what did you see that she did well and I didn't, or otherwise what was your "point system"? I think criticism is a good thing, but it needs to be substantiated otherwise it's not very constructive.

    in other words: gimme something to go on here. offer some substitute.
    Last edited by Bamboo; 02-22-2013 at 06:29 PM. Reason: clarification
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  7. #137
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    I interpreted Salome's remark about infighting as a reference to infighting among factions/individuals in feminism, not arguments here between people with various perspectives (not just feminist ones).

    I don't think every idea merits the positing of a "worthwhile substitute." Some of them are better off ignored. I don't see a point in offering any response to the most egregious misogyny spouted here, which is why I've contained my responses to the specific subthread about racial issues which I do think is a valid critique of some trends in feminism. The bottom line is that "some trends in feminism" =/= "feminism" so it's erroneous and harmful to leap from that to "feminism is entirely shitty."

  8. #138
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I think that if an effort is to succeed it needs to be broad enough to gather support for goals and allow for a certain amount of disagreement inside the group - that means the group needs to be made up of people who can accept some differences in viewpoint and maintain a certain level of friction inside the group without getting destructive.

    Cooperative problem solving skills are key, because even fractured groups can work together toward common goals, where fractured groups that compete with each other will be weaker from the outside.Competitive models often resort to destructive tearing the other "team" down to make you look good. Cooperative models try to work together for mutual benefit.
    My comment about self-policing was not referring to legitimate and thoughtful differences of opinion within groups. It referred entirely to members being jerks: anything from personal misconduct (lying, personal attacks), to using tactics that cause more problems than they solve, to simple dilettantism. The feminist groups criticised here and elsewhere are usually guilty of one or more of these.

    An effort needs to be broad enough to gather adequate support, but it must also be focused enough to have clear goals and measures of progress. This will result in disagreement within the group. If everyone can stay focused on the common goal, though, the group will tolerate the partial dissent of individuals, and the individuals will not allow their dissent to subvert the broader goal. When causes intersect (e.g. rights of women and rights of blacks), it seems ideal for groups and individuals to promote both/all together. It is sometimes more effective, though, to focus all resources on one at a time. Supporting women's rights does not mean one is against black rights, or gay rights, or any other necessary improvement, simply that one doesn't want to spread one's resources too thin, accomplishing nothing in the end.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  9. #139
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    My comment about self-policing was not referring to legitimate and thoughtful differences of opinion within groups. It referred entirely to members being jerks: anything from personal misconduct (lying, personal attacks), to using tactics that cause more problems than they solve, to simple dilettantism. The feminist groups criticised here and elsewhere are usually guilty of one or more of these.
    Oh yes, I do understand. I'm agreeing with you.

    Also, to the bolded, as you can see I'm quite interested in tactics and their effects.

    An effort needs to be broad enough to gather adequate support, but it must also be focused enough to have clear goals and measures of progress. This will result in disagreement within the group. If everyone can stay focused on the common goal, though, the group will tolerate the partial dissent of individuals, and the individuals will not allow their dissent to subvert the broader goal.
    It sounds like we are much in agreement, I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, though you're a better writer than I am.

    When causes intersect (e.g. rights of women and rights of blacks), it seems ideal for groups and individuals to promote both/all together. It is sometimes more effective, though, to focus all resources on one at a time. Supporting women's rights does not mean one is against black rights, or gay rights, or any other necessary improvement, simply that one doesn't want to spread one's resources too thin, accomplishing nothing in the end.
    I'd agree. I think that various groups have specific sub-issues and it seems appropriate that there are specific movements to handle them.

    That said, all these movements have the common element of fighting some form of prejudice, where individuals and groups are assumed to have traits that are generally used as justification for unfair treatment. If you combat prejudice (and advocate knowledge and understanding), then you can fix all sorts of problems, because prejudice stems from a way of thinking. It's all the same pattern. (edit: but there is also emotional elements that override people's abilities to realize their prejudice toward some groups, and sub groups have unique challenges ie. gay marriage doesn't apply to other groups because other groups have marriage rights)

    So I advocate tactics/communication which discourage tribalism and encourage understanding. All social movements can benefit from that. (This doesn't mean that I believe I know the value of every tactic, but I do have opinions.)
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  10. #140
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I interpreted Salome's remark about infighting as a reference to infighting among factions/individuals in feminism, not arguments here between people with various perspectives (not just feminist ones).
    I'm just one person, but I think those sort of tactics are bad for encouraging discussions/understanding/eliminating prejudice as a whole.

    While it stings my ego a bit to hear that people don't like me or I'm 'losing' or whatever, ultimately, it's the idea that's more important.

    I don't think every idea merits the positing of a "worthwhile substitute." Some of them are better off ignored.
    I agree. It takes too much time. I'll clarify what I said: IF you tear down another idea.

    If people believe in something, and someone tells you it's wrong, and then just walks away, what are you left with? The value of offering a substitute is that it encourages the person doing the tearing to focus on solutions AND it gives guidance for other people. I don't believe the recognition that an idea is wrong by itself without a solution doesn't mean there is a solution, or that it MUST be offered.

    I don't see a point in offering any response to the most egregious misogyny spouted here, which is why I've contained my responses to the specific subthread about racial issues which I do think is a valid critique of some trends in feminism.
    Part of the reason the race topic came up was because there was a willingness to discuss ideas with people who people initially just wanted to ignore! Look back in the thread! Could it have come up on it's own? Perhaps. But I'm advocating a style of discussion that allows there to be benefit even from seemingly negative interaction. Turn the negative into an opportunity for discussion/focus on solutions.

    But I don't blame you for not responding to some of it, nor do I think everyone must respond to everything. I *am* against the use of shaming as a tactic where it contributes to tribalism.

    Often, it's not the value of the personal response, but the value comes from having the public discussion.

    The bottom line is that "some trends in feminism" =/= "feminism" so it's erroneous and harmful to leap from that to "feminism is entirely shitty."
    I agree.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

Similar Threads

  1. Guns ARE equal rights.
    By SpankyMcFly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 294
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 10:08 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 11:20 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 03:32 PM
  4. Catholic ban on women priests 'illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 06:59 AM
  5. UK Lesbians Given Equal Birth Rights
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 04:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO