User Tag List

First 3878868788899098138 Last

Results 871 to 880 of 1614

  1. #871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    A parallel is something that travels along similar lines and follows a similar direction. It is not the same path nor the same direction. Otherwise parallel lines would collide or just merge.

    You're drawing a difference between feminism and sexism.
    Yes, because feminism does not mean sexism.

    If so, what's the male version of feminism?
    Feminism.

    Who looks out for man's rights?
    Feminists. (in case it needs clarifying, men can be feminists too....shhhh)

    But, I have a feeling you won't buy that, because the term has the icky word, "female", making up the word. So......there's also a reactive group called the Men's Right Movement.

    Would that not indicate that those rights are and should be different to a females? Isn't that making a separation without context based on sex? Does that not classify as sexism?
    In the way you are classifying it, yes. So, stop classifying it that way, or continue to be sexist.


    To turn your argument around, do you cling to the term feminism because it has innate virtue or are you doing it because you attach emotion to the word and want to keep it?
    Why are you so keen to make me admit that this issue is an emotional one for me? Is this some sort of obsessive bias of yours? Prescribing to feminism, must mean I am a riled up female, that's coming at this from a place of emotion only, not rational thought?

    As if, even if I am, it proves...something? That emotion is weaker than rational thought?

    It's very telling. Your first response to me, the very first line:

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    No offense but you seem touchy as all hell.
    How interesting......

    Shall I dissolve into hysteria as my final act? Or, swoon perhaps?

    Is this what your argument now hinges on?

    Oh you must be one of those people who just uses labels because it's convenient and doesn't consider the implications. I have one for you, myopic.
    Yes, that must be it. I mean, every school of feminist thought agree and align perfectly with each other, and does not contradict the other on any points. So, a feminist must prescribe to all school of feminist thought, without, miraculously, experiencing cognitive dissonance, at some point. It's all emotions, anyway, not rational thought.


    If you, for your own reasons, decide to give yourself a label then you really should seek to find out what that label might mean to others otherwise you may think that jingoism is a form of eastern meditation.
    I must be an outlier, a part-time feminist, for not agreeing with every feminist school of thought (hangs head in shame).

    Astounded by your depth and breadth of knowledge about feminist thought. Truly.

    Likes EffEmDoubleyou liked this post

  2. #872
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I don't think you understand how irony works. When you bring in racism (your red herring) to this discussion to illustrate a point, it's supposedly "ironic", when I do it, it's because I missed the point? How conveniently ironic. I'd have termed it special pleading. But, sure, we'll call it "ironic".
    The comparison between how feminism treated black women and how feminism is now treating men wasn't mine, but it was well argued for.
    On the other hand:

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Do you think white people can be victims of racism? In this society, do you think the majority of discrimination, power imbalance where they're on the lower scale, is faced by black people or white? (let's pretend it's a binary, and that other races are left out of the question)
    No, but your own comparison of the position of black people relatively to white people as the same as the position of women relatively to men, wasn't, the argument breaks down when you acknowledge that there are problems and disadvantages for either genders. As the incarceration rate sarcasm should have clarified, your comparison is ironic precisely because a lot of the privileges of being a woman are actually the same ones as being white (Lower incarceration rate, better treatment by authorities, lower mortality rates, higher education, etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Do you know what majority means?
    Good point - Which gender is the majority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    How did you conclude that? I'm waiting in anticipation to see how you reached this conclusion. As a fact! no less. (baited breath, right here).
    I concluded you've made the comparison because you believed it's an effective comparison. If you are playing devil's advocate, that seems unlikely given the rest of this post. The other option is that you are trolling, in which case I have to say - I am impressed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Not people, you and your kind. You're not the first, nor the last, to try to create your own definition of what you think my "feminism" is/means, for your own convenience, and then, proceed to tilt at windmills....I mean, argue against that manufactured position.

    Oh, those men-hating, whiny feminists, who pretend that only women are the victims, who decry sexism, but are truly sexist themselves because they only want to defend women's rights as if men aren't victims of discrimination, as well! This is what is wrong with feminism, today!

    Am I getting warmer? Strawman, at its finest. Careful that the fire doesn't burn them straws down.
    You do realize you've just manfactured my position about you and then accused me of manufacturing your position? You could at least put more then one line of space between them next time, maybe an interjection.

    To answer the question, No, I didn't add anything to my notion of your position about feminism beyond what you've outright expressed, and as far as I can tell you don't show any signs of outright misandry, at least not on any deep psychological level.

    What I do find interesting, and wondering if you are able to see yourself, is that you've essentially defined people who call you out and challenge your beliefs as a "Your kind". Ofcourse I am not the first or the last to challenge your beliefs, people of any kind of belief that isn't your own are in a position to challenge it - and yes, that requires defining what you believe in and figuring it out based on what you express, followed by extrapolating on the beliefs implications to show their various problems, and since beliefs aren't usually presented in order to showcase the problems with them, it will no longer sound to you exactly like how you define it for yourself. as long as the extrapolation stands as reasonable, it's not a strawman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Since you've shown such interest in my "position", I'd like to know yours. Do you not believe that patriarchy exists?
    As a system in various cultures were the father figure was the head of a household or a tribe, sure. As an over arching prevailing force pulling it's invisible strings with murky causality to shape all of our subconscious minds with a near mystical power of suggestion to conveniently provide us with a unified nemesis for all forms of oppression that happens to be attributed to a specific gender? I'd rate that between Ancient Astronauts and The Elders of Zion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    The only way to understand the various issues addressed by different schools of feminist thought, is to (1) acknowledge gender inequality, i.e., fight for equal rights and, (2) why the inequality arose and is maintained. It's the broadest term that unites various schools of feminist thoughts and movements.
    That's The only way? Damn it, there I was thinking that listening to the various problems presented by people of either gender while in the same time considering argument made by multiple parties on different issues was an option too. How closed minded of me! Thank you for showing me the light!

  3. #873
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    The comparison between how feminism treated black women and how feminism is now treating men wasn't mine, but it was well argued for.
    I don't see how. Feminism is assumed to have a focus on women. Black women are a subset of women, however well or ill served they are by the broader feminist movement. Men are in no way a subset of women. I suppose if there is a downside to the word "feminist" it is that it does focus attention on the women's end of gender bias. The feminists I associate with would all agree that gender bias hurts both sexes, and they work for its removal on all fronts. That being said, we generally accept groups working for the benefit of blacks, or Jews, or Laotian immigrants without expecting them to address the problems of other races, or religious groups, or cultural groups. I suppose the broadest term would be "humanist", recognizing our common humanity and promoting sharing of rights and responsibilities without any of these biases. That's a noble and worthy ideal, but I think taking the problem in smaller bites has been more effective.
    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 Ivy, Red Herring liked this post

  4. #874
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I don't see how. Feminism is assumed to have a focus on women. Black women are a subset of women, however well or ill served they are by the broader feminist movement. Men are in no way a subset of women.
    I interpreted it as the assumption that we're defining feminism as a means for gender equality on both ends, in which case feminist men bringing male issues would be considered a subset of feminists, but this is just what I understood from @Wind Up Rex posts, I threw in a clarification because I felt her post was twisted in a very unfair way, I don't want to claim authority over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I suppose if there is a downside to the word "feminist" it is that it does focus attention on the women's end of gender bias.
    That was pretty much my position prior to the thread:
    If we agree that both genders have problems they suffer from gender discrimination in their own ways, and we agree that feminism is fundamentally about women and is representing only one side of the equation, then in turn we need representation and organizations on both ends. That means we need to let organizations like NOW and the MRA bicker it out and hope they each win on the "right issues" - The ones that positively impact their own gender - while minimizing damages to the agendas of the opposite gender (Because yes, their narratives conflict pretty often). While it's often an ugly argument with a lot of comparative morality, I considered it a necessary evil.

    but the more I think about it the more I have my doubts:
    Thinking about the actual process of legislation and political change, I am increasingly inclined to think that on every issue, the party on the side of the status quo is almost always the side with the strongest leverage. If I am right about this, it would mean that both parties might be more likely to succeed in impending the progress of the other then in pushing for their own. Essentially - an ideological gridlock. And if this is the case.... Shouldn't we have a 3rd option? I was joking about "The Gender Egalitarian Society"... But maybe that's exactly what is needed?

  5. #875
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Yes, because feminism does not mean sexism.



    Feminism.


    Feminists. (in case it needs clarifying, men can be feminists too....shhhh)

    But, I have a feeling you won't buy that, because the term has the icky word, "female", making up the word. So......there's also a reactive group called the Men's Right Movement.



    In the way you are classifying it, yes. So, stop classifying it that way, or continue to be sexist.
    Feminism*is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve*equal*political, economic, cultural, personal, and social*rights for women.[1][2]*This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A*feministadvocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]
    The first paragraph in Wikipedia.

    You could call yourself a carrot and swear blind it was a new age religion to you but forgive me if I expect you to be orange.

    Why are you so keen to make me admit that this issue is an emotional one for me? Is this some sort of obsessive bias of yours? Prescribing to feminism, must mean I am a riled up female, that's coming at this from a place of emotion only, not rational thought?

    As if, even if I am, it proves...something? That emotion is weaker than rational thought?
    Oh I see, you were targeting your question because I'm a T and would obviously cave in front of emotion. Sorry lass, no dice.

    Though I would comment that you might want to remember the part just quoted in the next bit.

    It's very telling. Your first response to me, the very first line:



    How interesting......

    Shall I dissolve into hysteria as my final act? Or, swoon perhaps?

    Is this what your argument now hinges on?
    Now bring in the bit above where you get bent out if shape over me asking you the very same question you asked me. That's what I call touchy. It's not a universal definition and no I haven't taken blood samples while you weren't looking so I could scientifically back it up. However, in my opinion, you're being touchy. If you dislike this description then I'd guess there's going to continue to be conflict here until one finds a use or place for the other.
    Yes, that must be it. I mean, every school of feminist thought agree and align perfectly with each other, and does not contradict the other on any points. So, a feminist must prescribe to all school of feminist thought, without, miraculously, experiencing cognitive dissonance, at some point. It's all emotions, anyway, not rational thought.
    Dear God, why does there need to be schools of thought, multiple strains all called the same. It's pretentious bullshit like that which makes me vehemently reject all of these labels.

    Is it so hard to have an idea and just tell people the idea instead of making it into a faith with a title and grandiose words associated with it?

    If I want an apple, even in a country where they don't have many apples, I am still not going to start a movement with others who also want fruit but whom are weirdly called apple seekers. Know why? Because it would all distract from my own purpose of finding a god damn apple!

    My suggestion to you is when someone asks about your thinking, tell them. Don't hand them a label. You'll find they'll actually engage more and you'll have more chance to make a difference. Shove a label or a flag in their face and they'll assume you're more hard-line than perhaps you are and the conversation will be less productive.

    At the end of the day this is all anyone has. All you can do is start a conversation that hopefully leads to equality. Hence using a term which has been associated with events in the past which you no longer agree with (maybe not in ideology but perhaps in execution) will only serve to drag those associations up and impact on the current conversation.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes uumlau liked this post

  6. #876
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    I see much NAFALT'ing in the last couple pages. Not All Feminists Are Like That.

    When you hear NAFALT what you're actually hearing is 'I acknowledge that you have a point and I don't find the behaviour of these particular feminists to be acceptable.'



    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Who looks out for man's rights?
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Feminists.


    @Qre:us Your response to Xander reminded me of Big Red (aka Chanty Binx) at the University of Toronto protests. You know, the talks CAFE (Canadian Association for Equality) was having to discuss opening Canada's first Canadian Center for Men and Families on campus.





    That feminists think that any/all issues of equality (i.e. men's rights) must be filtered through them OR else, is quite totalitarian. Everything has to be about them and on their terms. There are several issues that MRA's care about that have ZERO to do with those 'evil' feminists . Take male disposability for instance and conscription. Does it interact with feminism? Sure, but is feminism the cause? Hardly.



    P.S. The center is now open First men's centre opens its doors in Toronto

    P.S.S. You go Canadians!!!
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #877
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    I see much NAFALT'ing in the last couple pages. Not All Feminists Are Like That.

    When you hear NAFALT what you're actually hearing is 'I acknowledge that you have a point and I don't find the behaviour of these particular feminists to be acceptable.'


    And when the self-identified feminists on the forum (as well as just about every single one I have met offline) distance themselves from those positions until they're blue in the mouth, does that not suggest that these positions are in fact not an essential part of feminism (or gender egalitarianism or whatever you decide to baptise the baby) but a fringe phenomenon and an all too easy strawman?

    So why keep beating that dead horse about those few extremists rather than join forces for a fairer society for everyone?
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari
    Likes Ivy, EffEmDoubleyou liked this post

  8. #878
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    ...a fairer society for everyone?
    I'm all for this actually.

    I view the NAFALT defense (technically a deflection) as something akin to:





    "There are two kinds of feminists, those who are like that, the ones that push unfair bias against men and succeed and the other kinds of feminist that just stands there and says NAFALT so that no one can blame feminism for the problems it creates. The problem is, the feminists that are like that get shit done and the feminists that theoretically aren't like that, they do nothing to fight the feminists that are like that."

    The ones that get shit done = activists, protesters, academics, rad fems and especially the lawyers. Feminism is top down. The kind of feminism mainstream 'discusses', much like the majority of this thread, is the watered down kind that provides legitimacy and lends credibility to the ideology as a whole aka dictionary feminists. While the people who are more interested in the principle of something resembling 'truer' equality who might otherwise be inclined to be on board in principle, shake their head and disengage.
    Last edited by SpankyMcFly; 04-16-2015 at 11:58 AM. Reason: added quote and comment after the video
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #879
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    My muscular 6'4" brother-in-law is a paramedic. His slightly smaller male partner and he occasionally could not restrain an individual man who was seriously high on something, or perhaps even lashing out due to medical seizure. True, they were not taught the hand-to-hand fighting cops have to learn, but their size, strength, and ability to throw a respectable punch were not enough to subdue certain highly out-of-control individuals.
    I think you are just using a specific case just like that other dude talking about his sister being better than Chef Ramsey. I am more focused on the "big picture."

    As for training, if I were pessimistic about women I would not suggest training were the issue. You are right that many women don't know how to react properly and immediately in violent situations. They do not grow up in a culture that expects and encourages that in them as it does in boys. This is why training is so important, especially for women. And forget men as natural hunters. If you want to see fierceness in nature, look for a mother defending her young. Alertness, awareness, reflexes, and even aggression occur naturally in both males and females, though often with different motivations. We have tried to breed it out of girls, or at least suppress it in them, to everyone's detriment.
    But, this still doesn't mean that the fathers aren't stronger though. It's kind of like that one documentary I saw on "Wild Turkeys." Man, the males seem more aggressive than the females as they aged.

    Women should not get paid more. Who suggested that they should? Neither should they be paid less for using a different method to accomplish the same end.
    Wouldn't it be less of an asset to hire a woman that can't lift 50 pounds than a man can?

    You seem to think sheer physical size and brute force strength are the measure of someone's worth, and his or her ability to navigate life successfully. It hasn't been like that since the stone age, and I'm not sure it was even then.
    Sure it was. Without men, some of the women back in the old days would have perished.

    I didn't say women are not the majority of nurses. I said many women do not have what you seem to think is the "ideal nurse personality". Big difference.
    But they do have an "ideal nurse personality." It's called nature. Big difference. Just like the way most women are F-types.

    To the extent that nursing involves heavy lifting and supporting large patients, the average man might do better at that part of the job than the average woman.
    Thank you for finally acknowledging the physical superiority in men over women.

    Another good reason to have both men and women in nursing, just as in policing, teaching, and other fields.
    You seem to be contradicting yourself. Men by nature tend to be less nurturing when compared to women. In fact, earlier, you seem to imply that men were prone to violence or something like that. They might actually be better at jobs that require that "aggressive" nature such as policing, hunting, construction, etc.

  10. #880
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    You seem to be contradicting yourself. Men by nature tend to be less nurturing when compared to women. In fact, earlier, you seem to imply that men were prone to violence or something like that. They might actually be better at jobs that require that "aggressive" nature such as policing, hunting, construction, etc.
    What you are describing is called a rhetorical shift Rhetorical Shift: Definition & Examples | Study.com

    Women are constantly told that men are paid more than they are for the same work, that they control the wealth, that they have all the power, and have had it all historically, that they have all this through the oppression and subjugation of women. Men are supposedly beating women merely to demonstrate their physical power, and raping them, not just sexually but with “their eyes their laws and their codes.” “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” However, the followers of feminism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. To that end, women are also told by feminism that they are strong, capable, independent and superior to men. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Feminism’s greatest strategic weakness is an inability to see men and society realistically in terms of balance, but that is actually a strength in terms of mobilizing the masses of women.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes serenesam liked this post

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