User Tag List

Page 109 of 162 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111119159 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,090 of 1614

Thread: 3rd wave feminism

  1. #1081
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Now this is kind of funny: let's have an outspoken liberal writer psychologically analyze someone he politically disagrees with. Nothing could possibly be biased, here. Not that the object of his interview is particularly admirable: that was kind of the point, wasn't it? Find someone mildly despicable and characterize them in a calm, authoritative clinical voice? Am I right?
    Don't undervalue it, it might provide an answer to your own proposition:

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    how is it fair that a 15 year old male who was statutorially raped be held responsible for child support payments to his 34 year-old female rapist? This is the kind of argument that you could present to anyone other than a radical feminist, and their reaction will be, "WTF?! That can't be true!" THEN you provide sources.
    Perhaps, or maybe they'd react like this:
    In the bar, insulated as we are, when he begins talking about "just wanting human rights," I can only see his face, hear the exasperation in his voice, connect, instinctively to that face and voice in part because they are well-mannered and in part because they are like my own. In that moment I can, if I like, forget that these issues, legitimate enough on their face, are carried out from a place of one-upmanship, that their expressions, except in rare cases, are solely as debating points, hurled between invective and harassment and the oldest hack tropes about women's bodies and choices.
    I wasn't kidding when I said it provides a window to that kind of mind - you get to see the filters at work. Is he a living strawman or a representative sample? I don't know, but it does seem like at least two of the feminists here - who probably wouldn't consider themselves particularly radical - seem to have eaten it whole without a single grain of salt, not only taking no issue with such filters but see them as entirely truthful.

    More importantly, I don't think it matters. Those that tend to become activists, devoting their money, time, energy and sometimes entire careers to the cause, those who join, rise in, write for, donate too or form organizations made to promote that cause, are usually not the ones that are most able and willing to question it. Sunken cost, it's a bitch. It could be that only 5% of feminists think this way, but the ones that do are a lot more likely to be lobbying congress in the name of NOW or teaching students in gender studies classes. When leadership and idealism become intertwined, well...

    "I was even a reform politician once…but only once: Reform politicians not only tend to be dishonest but stupidly dishonest —whereas the business politician is honest.”
    “I don’t see that Lazarus. History seems to show—”.
    “Use your head, Ira. I don’t mean that a business politician won’t steal; stealing is his business. But all politicians are nonproductive. The only commodity any politician has to offer is jawbone. His personal integrity —meaning, if he gives his word, can you rely on it? A successful business politician knows this and guards his reputation for sticking by his commitments—because he wants to stay in business—go on stealing, that is—not only this week but next year and years after that. So if he’s smart enough to be successful at this very exacting trade, he can have the morals of a snapping turtle, but he performs in such a way as not to jeopardize the only thing he has to sell, his reputation for keeping promises.
    “But a reform politician has no such lodestone. His devotion is to the welfare of all the people—an abstraction of very high order and therefore capable of endless definitions. If indeed it can be defined in meaningful terms. In consequence your utterly sincere and incorruptible reform politician is capable of breaking his word three times before breakfast— not from personal dishonesty, as he sincerely regrets the necessity and will tell you so—but from unswerving devotion to his ideal. All it takes to get him to break his word is for someone to get his ear and convince him that it is necessary for the greater good of all the people. He’ll geek. After he gets hardened to this, he’s capable of cheating at solitaire. "

    Time enough for love by Robert Heinlein

  2. #1082
    Analytical Dreamer Array Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    I absolutely agree, I just don't have much faith in common sense moderates rising into positions of leadership & influence in either camp. Even if two pragmatists would somehow make it, both camps use so much mutual vilification as a justification tool to gain internal support & camp loyalty, how can you convince your own people to cooperate with the very entity they expect you to fight against. They won't see women right activists and men right activists working together, they'll see it as giving in to the feminazi/misogynists. Cooperating with the other camp has the risk of legitimizing it.
    I'm not so sure. I think in every day decisions and considerations we will make headway. Consider, for example, my workplace, which is predominantly male except for the secretaries and admin people. In my group we have had 8 new babies over the past 2 years. The employee parents are 1 mother and 7 fathers. There is also an older special needs child, again, whose father works with us. These fathers are not shy about using family leave, or taking time off for their kids' doctor appointments or other activities, and no one judges them for doing so. Most workplaces might not be this way (yet), but I think we will see more and more that are, as fathers realize how much less stressful and more fulfilling a balanced life is. The more fathers take advantage of these benefits when made available, the more pressure comes off mothers to bear the brunt of these absences.
    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...
    Likes Mane, Ivy, N/A, gromit liked this post

  3. #1083
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default


  4. #1084
    Male Array johnnyyukon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,882

    Default

    Ali G: A lot of boys me know is trying to get their girlfriends into feminism. Do you think that is right?

    Sue Leece, Director of the Centre of Gender Research: Yes, I do actually. I think it’s a good thing.

    Ali G: Do you think all girls should try feminism at least once?

    Leece: Well, girls today often don't realise how much they've benefited from feminism.

    Ali G: But do you think it is right when they try feminism when they is drunk at a party or whatever with a few mates?



    I've had this ice cream bar, since I was a child!

    Each thought's completely warped
    I'm like a walkin', talkin', ouija board.

  5. #1085
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Perhaps, or maybe they'd react like this
    Most people don't, by and large. That's the trick. The author of the article already has an agenda to propagate. Normal people don't. You don't target the people with an agenda, you target normal people. That's how political campaigns work. You don't try to convince the people that will never change their minds. You try to convince the people who follow prevailing trends. And you do this by understanding WHY they follow those trends. In the case of the US, people want things to be fair and equal. Feminism gains most of its support these days because it can always frame itself as fair and equal. All you need to do is point out where it isn't. Or more aptly, you don't point out where feminism is unfair and unequal: you point out specific things that need to be remedied, without referring to feminism. If you bring up feminism, you'll inadvertently frame yourself as unfair if you're against it. Remember that most people think "feminism == equal rights for women". So be FOR equal rights, without being against women.

    In the case of the 15 year old and the 34 year old, it's clearly unfair. When I mention it to my more liberal-minded friends, their response was as I depicted. It was obviously unfair in their perspectives.

    So you don't argue against "feminism". That's a path to chasing your own tail. You argue against specific manifestations that are unfair. Back in the day, abolitionists gained power (and eventually succeeded in their goal) not because they argued against racism in principle, but because they argued that it was, in essence, unfair to treat human beings that way.

    Argue against the manifestations, not the principle. Arguing the principle convinces no one. (It does rally the troops, but that's a different purpose.) Arguing the manifestations lets people keep their beliefs while agreeing to change the laws and the culture. Arguing the manifestations allows people to compromise and agree upon specific points even if they disagree with your principles and reasoning.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SpankyMcFly, Lethe liked this post

  6. #1086
    Meat Tornado Array DiscoBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    12,142

    Default

    I'm a big fan of Christina Hoff Sommers: Safe spaces and the illiberal mob at Oberlin

    She one of the few realists I've seen involved in the whole debate.

    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
    - Edmund Burke

    8w9 sx/so
    Likes Ingrid in grids, SpankyMcFly, Lethe liked this post

  7. #1087
    He pronks, too! Array Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    But if you want to analyze what's going on in society, you need to remove the ideologies, first. This is a bias of mine with which some might disagree. In general, I believe that people frame the ideology around what already exists in society, and they don't tend to frame ideologies that actually shape society. That isn't to say that ideologies don't shape society, but rather that there's a very strong feedback loop, and you can't just willy-nilly put random pet peeves into your ideology that will stick unless it has already stuck to some degree in society.
    I'm pretty sure everyone carries ideologies around with them, so it is difficult to do that in a conversation, and it is especially suspicious when one individual decides to unilaterally provide their own allegedly ideology free analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Feminism, in this view, in what I regard as a practical sense, is very paternalistic. Every law or societal more that "favors" women is based on a paternalistic idea that women are weak and need that kind of help. That gets combined rather ironically that women are perfectly capable of handling things on their own without men's help. This pretty much sums up the current laws: women are independent and strong and in control of their lives with full responsibility for their reproductive system, and well if they need extra financial help in the form of welfare or child support payments that's only fair because they're women and they need help.

    The solution is to make successful arguments in terms of what is fair. It takes a while to make them stick, but as long as the unfairness is blatant enough, political goals can be achieved. Such arguments aren't particularly logical. They involve getting people to empathize with the legal difficulties men have to deal with in the modern world. Making arguments in terms of MRA or MGTOW rhetoric will go nowhere. E.g., from the book "Men on Strike" which Spanky McFly referenced earlier, and I've partially read, how is it fair that a 15 year old male who was statutorially raped be held responsible for child support payments to his 34 year-old female rapist? This is the kind of argument that you could present to anyone other than a radical feminist, and their reaction will be, "WTF?! That can't be true!" THEN you provide sources.
    Obviously paternalism could first only be applied to anything feminists ask for that's more than equal rights or opportunities. And when you do, you still have to look closer maybe. You talk about an argument for fairness. I think back to LBJ making the analogy of a race in which one person is chained to the start point and the other runs ahead, asking if it is not the case that the only fair thing to do from that point is assure the chained person is unchained and moved to the same present positions as the person who had the advantage. I think the basic logic is assistance isn't paternal if you assisting someone in recovering from damage that was strictly placed upon them by other people. I'll make a more extreme example (yes, I said more extreme, if anyone complain's about it being a more extreme case after this, they can't read), which is what about assisting freed slaves? What if its like the antebellum, and you have an organization or a program that doesn't simply try to free slaves, it puts the extra effort into providing resources to freed slaves to help them have the life they could have had if they were free. If it makes it easier for you to compare, imagine it was a federal government policy. The two questions would be, is that paternalistic? And if it is paternalistic, is it actually a bad thing anyhow?

    You may not agree that women are in a situation like that, but you have to understand that if one does accept that premise, the logic of the fairness of it follows, and so a lack of logic or not thinking about fairness isn't the problem at that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Now this is kind of funny: let's have an outspoken liberal writer psychologically analyze someone he politically disagrees with. Nothing could possibly be biased, here. Not that the object of his interview is particularly admirable: that was kind of the point, wasn't it? Find someone mildly despicable and characterize them in a calm, authoritative clinical voice? Am I right?
    Wow. If you hadn't pointed that out, no one would have noticed that was going on in the article. Good work. Very astute.

    It's kind of the explicit frame of the thing. It still had points that I thought were worth reading. It actually had points even you or Jarlaxle could work with unironically.

    But I also think you're wrong about where a distortion is happening due to bias. Unless there was a typo on a crucial article, it seems you were saying that this article is intentionally picking someone "not particularly admirable" to further some kind of agenda. I don't think that's going on here (other than briefly talking to Roosh V, who is awful). The person who is the focus of the article really isn't remarkably lacking in quality, not just for an MRA or something, but for an ordinary person. That's what people are like a lot of the time, and actually the author makes a lot of equivocal kind of statements to that effect. So for you to read it that way almost suggests that as long as I present an MRA being as flawed as a mediocre human being, I'm skewing their image in a negative light...

    ...In a thread were it's fair to represent all of feminism with the most radical minority.

    Then of course, I mostly stopped directly engaging in this thread when I noticed Jarlaxle said no one was really opposed to the original liberal premises of feminism, in a thread started by someone who is clearly against them, and had at least two other people who are against them post in it (Kullervo and Seranaesm or how ever the hell that named is written).

    So in summary, our concern should be radical feminists who, in spite of being so common and so central to feminist ideology, can't be bothered to show up, not a one of them, in a lengthy thread that ought to just be egging them into participating. This is an honest objective! Unlike focusing on the kind of imaginary opponents to moderate feminism who are straw men that never really existed. And by never existed, I mean populate this thread.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #1088
    He pronks, too! Array Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,079

    Default

    Also, I don't I've ever spoken to a feminist who wouldn't see the problem with a 15 year old male who was statutorily raped be held responsible for child support payments to his 34 year-old female rapist.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
    Likes gromit, Chanaynay liked this post

  9. #1089
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Obviously paternalism could first only be applied to anything feminists ask for that's more than equal rights or opportunities. And when you do, you still have to look closer maybe. You talk about an argument for fairness. I think back to LBJ making the analogy of a race in which one person is chained to the start point and the other runs ahead, asking if it is not the case that the only fair thing to do from that point is assure the chained person is unchained and moved to the same present positions as the person who had the advantage. I think the basic logic is assistance isn't paternal if you assisting someone in recovering from damage that was strictly placed upon them by other people. I'll make a more extreme example (yes, I said more extreme, if anyone complain's about it being a more extreme case after this, they can't read), which is what about assisting freed slaves? What if its like the antebellum, and you have an organization or a program that doesn't simply try to free slaves, it puts the extra effort into providing resources to freed slaves to help them have the life they could have had if they were free. If it makes it easier for you to compare, imagine it was a federal government policy. The two questions would be, is that paternalistic? And if it is paternalistic, is it actually a bad thing anyhow?

    You may not agree that women are in a situation like that, but you have to understand that if one does accept that premise, the logic of the fairness of it follows, and so a lack of logic or not thinking about fairness isn't the problem at that point.
    Good job you've just compared women to slaves, could your idea of women be any more degrading?



    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post

    So in summary, our concern should be radical feminists who, in spite of being so common and so central to feminist ideology, can't be bothered to show up, not a one of them, in a lengthy thread that ought to just be egging them into participating. This is an honest objective! Unlike focusing on the kind of imaginary opponents to moderate feminism who are straw men that never really existed. And by never existed, I mean populate this thread.\
    Take a look around this thread is full of radicals including yourself who shame others and insult those that don't agree with their liberal world view.

  10. #1090
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Also, I don't I've ever spoken to a feminist who wouldn't see the problem with a 15 year old male who was statutorily raped be held responsible for child support payments to his 34 year-old female rapist.
    Yes but feminists rather talk about real pressing gender issues today such as the objectification of women on a scientist's t-shirt that successfully landed a spacecraft on a comit. Or how clapping triggers anxiety and they would prefer people use "Jazz hands".

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •