User Tag List

First 54104144152153154155156 Last

Results 1,531 to 1,540 of 1614

  1. #1531
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    8,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    Do you think this forum can host discussion on the direction of feminism etc without it becoming about MRAs?
    Depends on who shows up/who is unbanned at the time but, it's not likely since it's yet to happen.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  2. #1532
    78% me Eruca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INxx
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm not sure what can be done about it. The only people I've had particularly constructive conversations about it with are other people who identify as feminist (and it's not even guaranteed then).
    I'm not so very surprised you'd find it hard to find a satisfying conversation on feminism, even with the familiar, your knowledge seems so seamless. I'm a little intimidated. I think many are threatened by a strawman of what they consider feminism to be or mean, and are unable to get past that when feminism is such a nebulous behemoth stretching across academic, charitable, political and social domains--some parts of course in disagreement with one another. The reactionary conspiracy theory is appealingly refreshing in comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    There's a really powerful animating quality to the subject. It also reminds me how multiple professors told me that they brace themselves for whenever they have to bring up feminism in a course, because it will always be the most contentious part.
    Powerfully animating all together in the wrong direction. Do you think threads like these are proof that feminism has become too secure in the academy?

  3. #1533
    Senior Member Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    I'm not so very surprised you'd find it hard to find a satisfying conversation on feminism, even with the familiar, your knowledge seems so seamless. I'm a little intimidated.
    That almost seems like flattery.

    I think, regardless of who knows what, there is often a serious lack of good will. And I suppose it has give me an impression that makes me almost automatically suspicious when these topics arise. It's a little like when someone says "I'm not racist or anything, but..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    I think many are threatened by a strawman of what they consider feminism to be or mean, and are unable to get past that when feminism is such a nebulous behemoth stretching across academic, charitable, political and social domains--some parts of course in disagreement with one another. The reactionary conspiracy theory is almost refreshingly appealing in comparison.
    I think people feel a need for simplicity with many subjects, yes. I'm still unsure of exactly how feminism got to where it is now, though. There's definitely a straw man, so where did it come from? I've seriously considered making it a thesis. How do people learn what they think they know about feminism? Or alternatively, how is the concept of feminism transmitted across discourse, what tendencies might make it mutate in certain ways? Id really like to know.

    It's something that has even come up before in this very thread. Feminism is at once broad, eclectic, and widely populated, but not devoid of a definition. This means that there is much disagreement within feminism, but there are still positions that can be considered in opposition to feminism, or face a near consensus of opposition from feminists. It seems some have snagged on that idea in the past, wanting it to be only one or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    Powerfully animating all together in the wrong direction. Do you think threads like these are proof that feminism has become too secure in the academy?
    Hmmm. Feminism in the broadest sense is something that can't be too secure, can it? But I suppose what you mean is whether or not feminist scholars have too much protected authority against anyone who is not considered a feminist scholar. Or that merely labeling something a feminist piece gives it too much protection. I don't know, that's possible. But let us say that the kind of content that appears in these threads would do little to convince me of that. There has been some impressive work in history by scholars/academics who have gone out of their way to interrogate their own profession, but it's not like that's something I see here.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  4. #1534
    Senior Member YUI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    No, not at all, I asked because I thought you wouldn't be happy about it! I hadn't read the OP, or the initial conversation etc. Its a shame that the most active thread about feminism is one about bashing it. Do you think this forum can host discussion on the direction of feminism etc without it becoming about MRAs?
    As a critic of feminism, I'll acknowledge that I increasingly disrupt feminism threads.

    As I see it:

    Old-guard feminism (OG feminism) has been around for a while now. It has won significant victories (particularly in the courts and legal system), but in the process abuses have crept in. It's kind of like the unions in the working world: Once upon a time unions were needed, but over time they've kind of gotten corrupt and become about accumulating entitlements and power.

    Also, people get tired of feminism constantly demonizing men as the source of all evil in the world. For decades, most men have acknowledged the shortcomings of the androcentric model and made room for women who want more and are willing to work for it. So the male-bashing gets old and seems unwarranted.

    So OG feminism has gotten long in the tooth and abuses have arisen in the movement. Opposition to the worst abuses of OG feminism is arising among both men and women.

    Male opposition comes from the Men's Rights Movement (MRM). This currently breaks down into two main categories: The Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). We've defined them extensively, and I'm fine with how you've categorized them.

    A strong female opposition to OG feminism has also arisen:

    1) "Equity feminists" such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, etc. are often second-wave feminists who fought on the side of feminism back in the 60s and 70s but disagree with where feminism has gone since then. They've been a very strong voice and have provided a lot of the ideological criticism circulating against OG feminism.

    2) "Anti-feminists" seem to be young, individualist-minded women who simply don't feel that OG feminism speaks for them, and they find OG feminism constraining or even poisonous. They've been developing a voice of their own through videos on YouTube. Like the "equity feminists," they're also providing a lot of the ideological critique against OG feminism.

    So you have MRAs, MGTOW, "equity feminists," and "anti-feminists" all floating around in opposition to OG feminism. They don't work together and often don't even like each other. But they all feed the growing ideological critique circulating around OG feminism. If I see a message board thread about OG feminism, it's increasingly easy for me to hunt up a critique of OG feminism from the writings of "equity feminists," the videos of "anti-feminists," the wounded rantings of MGTOWs, or the legal battles of MRAs.

    And increasingly, OG feminism finds itself on the defensive. As little as five years ago, it wouldn't have occurred to me to disrupt the OG feminist narrative; if I saw a OG feminist thread at TypoC, I would leave it alone. But now, with a wealth of ideological criticism of OG feminism at my fingertips, it's pretty easy to jump into an OG feminist thread and point out the weak points of the OG feminist ideology.

    I mostly don't give a shit what the OG feminists say in their threads. But it's hard not to jump in and take a few potshots at OG feminists when there's all this ideological ammo lying about, free for the taking.

    And that's pretty much it, as I see it. If you want to put Intersectional Feminism into the mix, that's fine with me. But note what I said earlier: For the most part all the various groups that have sprung up in opposition to OG feminism "don't work together and often don't even like each other." They look at each other and say, "Yuck. I don't like that other group." Never the twain shall meet.

    So if you see Intersectional Feminism as a bridge-building group, good luck with that. As I said earlier, a few of the smaller MRA groups do some bridge-building work with other groups, but they haven't gotten much traction with the larger groups.

    Again, this is all my personal impression. Others may disagree with how I've characterized the situation and the various groups.
    Last edited by YUI; 07-27-2016 at 03:56 PM. Reason: fixed a typo
    Spent the last year
    Rocky Mountain way
    Couldn't get much higher

    Out to pasture
    Think it's safe to say
    Time to open fire
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  5. #1535

    Default

    Magic did you necro THIS thread? Tell me you didnt, the forum needs this thread to keep going like it needs a wasting disease

  6. #1536
    Senior Member Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Magic did you necro THIS thread? Tell me you didnt, the forum needs this thread to keep going like it needs a wasting disease
    No. I don't remember who did.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  7. #1537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No. I don't remember who did.
    Not even the Saint of Killers can kill this thread.

  8. #1538
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    This is a tangential point, but girls aren't always the victim. Here's an article just from the last day or two about a new practice in the UK where girls engage in team cyberbullying, especially the cyberbullying of boys.
    I see you overlooked this part of my post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I do think social media exacerbate the worst of these problems, not only in girls and young women, but in everyone.
    As such, you are simply providing additional details about the situation, though I would not call it tangential.

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    On-line anonymity is a great equalizer, and girls can misbehave just as much as boys, left to their own devices.
    FB at least expects people to register using their own real names, though I'm sure not everyone does. Anonymity is therefore not a feature of FB, though might be more customary on other social media, including forums like this one. Women have traditionally been left to vent their frustrations using indirect means, being shut out from the more direct means by culture and custom. This translates readily into the kind of behavior you have described. At the risk of a gross generalization, then, women are more likely to use social media to bully someone else to the point of suicide, while men are more likely to use it for sexual exploitation. The obvious answer in both cases to avoid becoming a victim: stay off social media, or at least minimize your presence there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anaximander View Post
    AKA egalitarianism or equity feminism? I am fine with this. I've said before that it's traditionalist men and women who are more often the enemies of progress than feminists. Most feminists were on board with the ERA; it was traditionalists led by Phyllis Schlafly who wished to preserve a gynocentric system where women enjoyed certain exemptions and privileges.
    There are a large number of women who are not feminists by any definition. Like Schlafly, they are content to remain kept birds in a (hopefully) gilded cage. Ironically Schlafly, who espoused women staying home to care for husband and family, spent her own life gallivanting around the country to promote her point of view. By her own standards, she should have left that job to her husband.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anaximander View Post
    What happened since the early seventies though? When did it change from a movement focused primarily on achieving an egalitarian meritocracy and move toward perpetuating victim narratives and encouraging a bizarre neotenous abdication of personal responsibility and agency whilst discouraging open discussion with anyone sharing different views (AKA the growing culture of safe spaces that even women's rights champion Obama has recently criticized in regards to college kids becoming increasingly "coddled" and afraid of discussion or any real exchange of ideas; whether or not he contributed to that growing culture is a question for a separate debate)? When did it become increasingly about defining and seeking out toxic masculinity and attacking trivial behaviors/actions that are not isolated to one gender such as manspreading (while ignoring "purse spreading")? I realize these aren't the only causes, but is it not a bit disturbing when bad behaviors that are exhibited by members of either sex (therefore making them a human issue that transcends gender and sex) are targeted as actions specific to one gender and therefore regarded as instances of oppression or "toxic" displays of masculinity (or femininity)? Are those of you who identify as feminists at all troubled by that (and please don't just retort with the typical "Not all feminists...." response--it's weak and a convenient way to absolve oneself of the more toxic aspects/agendas of the movement whilst essentially ignoring and allowing them to continue)? When did feminists start becoming more like Phyllis Schlafly and concerned less with empowerment and equality than they did with protecting what they seem to regard as a perpetually victimized and helpless sex?

    I'm not trying to be snarky with that series of questions. I am asking for people with a good understanding of the history and the movement in its current state and form to help enlighten me on this. Unless you can deny that this is happening (which I'd be curious to hear why). It seems to be hurting the movement more than helping it, which will only drive more men and women away who may have otherwise embraced the movement in the spirit of egalitarianism.
    Your questions are loaded to the point of uselessness, if not counterproductivity. I do deny that the changes that have happened are of the character that you describe, though I cannot deny that many people like to view them that way. The movement toward what you are calling an egalitarian meritocracy is a progression, whose goals evolve as early goals are met and new problems are revealed. The problem of equal pay for equal work, for example, doesn't really surface until women start to enter the workforce in sigificant numbers, which in turn required removal of restrictions on women in the various professions. Gaining the right to vote was a very high priority early on, because it was seen as an essential tool for women to use in influencing other aspects of law and society.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "victim narratives". Does this refer to the focus on reducing sexual harassment and assault that many women's groups have taken on in recent years? If so, this is a good example of a problem that surfaces after other developments, specifically: (1) the significant increase over the last century of women in the workforce, especially in primarily male occupations; (2) decline of social requirements that women be escorted in public/not travel alone. It is hard to achieve equal rights and opportunities when one is at significantly higher risk of physical assault, and when workplaces where one should get by on merit are made oppressive and restrictive by the presence of gender bias and sexual imposition. Yes, women should be able to enjoy public and professional spaces free of this sort of thing (and personal spaces, too, of course).

    The rest of your paragraph includes examples that I don't see associated with feminists in my neck of the woods, but as you mention, with spoiled, entitled students of both genders who cannot tolerate honest and objective discussion of reality. This has nothing to do with removing gender bias, unless discussion thereof runs afoul of a group operating on this sad premise.

    I do think there is room for improving our language - everyone's language - where it comes to gender, and perhaps race and other factors, too, but we are discussing gender here so I will limit it to that. The daily repetition of gender biased expressions and ways of referring to things is insidious in the effect it has on everyone. I don't think it's productive to make a big deal of it, but think we need to make little deals of it every time we notice it. This is part of the "everyday sexism" that formed the topic of another gender-related thread a few years ago. By that I mean we don't let it get by, but we call it out, and move on. If we ourselves are called out, we acknowledge it, catalog it, and watch for it in future. For me, one yardstick is: change the gender and ONLY the gender of the person you are speaking to. If that would change the comment (other than using Ms rather than Mr, or Emily rather than Brian), it probably contains gender bias.

    As for bad behaviors exhibited by everyone, sure - they are bad regardless of who is doing them. If a specific behavior is being demonstrated more by one demographic than another, however, it makes sense (1) to ask why, and (2) to tailor solutions to what we learn, and to other relevant qualities demonstrated by that group in the here-and-now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eruca View Post
    I'm not so very surprised you'd find it hard to find a satisfying conversation on feminism, even with the familiar, your knowledge seems so seamless. I'm a little intimidated. I think many are threatened by a strawman of what they consider feminism to be or mean, and are unable to get past that when feminism is such a nebulous behemoth stretching across academic, charitable, political and social domains--some parts of course in disagreement with one another.
    This is why I usually specify the definition of feminism I am using in a given discussion. It is fairly close to the definition provided by most standard dictionaries. Otherwise the discussion can indeed turn into an unproductive free-for-all.
    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. #1539
    Aping the classics Anaximander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Because even the most popular and mainstream hubs for people to gather and discuss these things are in fact rife with expressions of hate and ignorance. That includes A Voice For Men, which was founded by a horrible person by the way (go ahead, read about Paul Elam, and read the things he says if you haven't already), or pick whatever other place you want, all the other blogs, the subreddits, everything else in the idiotically named "manosphere". Surely you could at least admit that Return Of Kings is just a hate site for crackpots, right?
    I'm familiar with Paul Elam and I am familiar with his family history. However, I don't need to know his family history to know he is a sad, pathetic little excuse of a man.

    Of course it has. While attending to the needs of victims is important, I'm afraid there are people in this world who claim to be victims when they really aren't. There are also people who use their victimization to justify awful things. And there are people where the two are inextricably tied together, where the claim of victimization is based on being denied the chance to be awful to other people.
    Men, by virtue of their gender and the privileges that come with being born into it, cannot be victims of oppression. It simply doesn't work that way.



    You say it as if those two things are mutually exclusive. You're just asking me to make the comparison again, aren't you? Do you think getting to know the KKK really well would be mutually exclusive from having a really bad opinion of them? Maybe they're actually terrible of them so increased knowledge means a greater awareness of truth about how terrible they are.
    We had active Klan members in the patriarchal cesspool of a southern town in which I grew up. You don't want to get to know any of those people. trust me.

    You seem to be saying that I must not know anything about them because I don't like them. That appears to be your uneducated guess, your presupposition.
    Which ones were we talking about here? The MRAs or the MGTOW? Klan guys?





    This was not directed at me, it was posted in response to YUI. Responding to it now, I'd say that such a change of pace from content producers would be nice, but I don't know who you mean, I haven't noticed that, and I'm not optimistic about it. The rest still doesn't sound very good anyhow.
    evolutionary psychology is just another tool for the patriarchy and is used to justify and reinforce prejudices stemming from perceived differences in people who are all members of the same species. I googled it and got sucked into reading a bunch of scientific studies that were thinly-veiled attacks on non-white races and women.
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  10. #1540
    Aping the classics Anaximander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDP2525 View Post
    So, I'm reading thru this thread and these posts stood out to me for similar reasons, not being surface.

    I think a lot of feminists would say that Schlafly and the like were women who bought into the Patriarchy. Instead of fighting it they "made it work" for them. Now, was this through choice or through swallowing the bitter pill of dreams deferred?

    ...I hope you're following me here.

    I can't speak for her. I don't know her and her ilk's motivation. If this was in present day?? I would find this more likely a viewpoint of desiring the traditional.

    But anyway....since we are past that....I see (not ideologically) a similarity in some MGTOW's.

    I'm not well versed or educated in these matters. So forgive me. I am giving an outsider perspective to all this.

    But you spoke of wanting feminists to speak out against the triviality of manspreading, etc. and yet, there is quite a number of bitter, hateful/angry MGTOW's. Who described them as men who have been put through the ringer in divorce and court system. In this? I understand because it is very similar to how my mother felt after divorce from my father. She just wanted to be left alone. For 20 years she did.

    I would say, at one point she hated men. That is neither here nor there (my anecdote). But I understand the exhaustion.

    Do you see this as something you would speak out against if you see hateful rhetoric toward women? Or is it more of a "That's not how I see it, but it's not my fight."

    Because I see a lack of reaction to the inane in 3rd wave in a simlar fashion to "That's not how I see it, but it's not my fight." As, the subjects encompassed can be frivolous or demanding of attention, depending on the issue, of course.

    I hope you're seeing the juxtapositions I'm trying to make. I'm on mobile and don't feel like typing further but will clarify, and come back later if needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I see you overlooked this part of my post:

    As such, you are simply providing additional details about the situation, though I would not call it tangential.


    FB at least expects people to register using their own real names, though I'm sure not everyone does. Anonymity is therefore not a feature of FB, though might be more customary on other social media, including forums like this one. Women have traditionally been left to vent their frustrations using indirect means, being shut out from the more direct means by culture and custom. This translates readily into the kind of behavior you have described. At the risk of a gross generalization, then, women are more likely to use social media to bully someone else to the point of suicide, while men are more likely to use it for sexual exploitation. The obvious answer in both cases to avoid becoming a victim: stay off social media, or at least minimize your presence there.


    There are a large number of women who are not feminists by any definition. Like Schlafly, they are content to remain kept birds in a (hopefully) gilded cage. Ironically Schlafly, who espoused women staying home to care for husband and family, spent her own life gallivanting around the country to promote her point of view. By her own standards, she should have left that job to her husband.


    Your questions are loaded to the point of uselessness, if not counterproductivity. I do deny that the changes that have happened are of the character that you describe, though I cannot deny that many people like to view them that way. The movement toward what you are calling an egalitarian meritocracy is a progression, whose goals evolve as early goals are met and new problems are revealed. The problem of equal pay for equal work, for example, doesn't really surface until women start to enter the workforce in sigificant numbers, which in turn required removal of restrictions on women in the various professions. Gaining the right to vote was a very high priority early on, because it was seen as an essential tool for women to use in influencing other aspects of law and society.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "victim narratives". Does this refer to the focus on reducing sexual harassment and assault that many women's groups have taken on in recent years? If so, this is a good example of a problem that surfaces after other developments, specifically: (1) the significant increase over the last century of women in the workforce, especially in primarily male occupations; (2) decline of social requirements that women be escorted in public/not travel alone. It is hard to achieve equal rights and opportunities when one is at significantly higher risk of physical assault, and when workplaces where one should get by on merit are made oppressive and restrictive by the presence of gender bias and sexual imposition. Yes, women should be able to enjoy public and professional spaces free of this sort of thing (and personal spaces, too, of course).

    The rest of your paragraph includes examples that I don't see associated with feminists in my neck of the woods, but as you mention, with spoiled, entitled students of both genders who cannot tolerate honest and objective discussion of reality. This has nothing to do with removing gender bias, unless discussion thereof runs afoul of a group operating on this sad premise.

    I do think there is room for improving our language - everyone's language - where it comes to gender, and perhaps race and other factors, too, but we are discussing gender here so I will limit it to that. The daily repetition of gender biased expressions and ways of referring to things is insidious in the effect it has on everyone. I don't think it's productive to make a big deal of it, but think we need to make little deals of it every time we notice it. This is part of the "everyday sexism" that formed the topic of another gender-related thread a few years ago. By that I mean we don't let it get by, but we call it out, and move on. If we ourselves are called out, we acknowledge it, catalog it, and watch for it in future. For me, one yardstick is: change the gender and ONLY the gender of the person you are speaking to. If that would change the comment (other than using Ms rather than Mr, or Emily rather than Brian), it probably contains gender bias.

    As for bad behaviors exhibited by everyone, sure - they are bad regardless of who is doing them. If a specific behavior is being demonstrated more by one demographic than another, however, it makes sense (1) to ask why, and (2) to tailor solutions to what we learn, and to other relevant qualities demonstrated by that group in the here-and-now.


    This is why I usually specify the definition of feminism I am using in a given discussion. It is fairly close to the definition provided by most standard dictionaries. Otherwise the discussion can indeed turn into an unproductive free-for-all.
    Thanks 4 your responses.

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