User Tag List

First 46869495969798106146 Last

Results 951 to 960 of 1614

  1. #951
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It isn't happening here, because none of those fringe feminists are even here posting. That might be because they are so rare.
    I agree. We've seen feminists who are far far away from meeting any reasonable criteria of gender egalitarianism - but as far as I know they are mostly what these days would be considered mainstream 3rd wave feminism. It was you and redherring who have claimed such can only be attributed to the fringes of feminism, and you who extended to defend mainstream feminism from any such accusation by telling yourself (And unfortunately everyone else) that people who think that must have gotten their ideas about mainstream feminism from the fringes. If we agree that virtually all the feminists who have participated in the thread can be considered mainstream feminists, perhaps we can finally put that little red herring aside, so I'll ask again: why aren't the gender egalitarian feminists here arguing with the other ones here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The feminists you are complaining about, have never had a relationship to feminism in general, equivalent to the relationship George Bush had with the USA as the president.
    In which case you might just consider that the feminists I'm complaining about aren't those fringe rare feminists you think I'm complaining about. You probably won't, that's an undeserved level faith to have in you, but I'm an optimist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    We do, all the time. It is a common thing in academia
    I liked it better when you used to do it more

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I really hate this kind of bravado. You truly aren't giving credit where credit is due. You under-estimate my sincerity and my intelligence, and it only makes this a more pitiful affair for both of us.
    Neither variables have much of anything to do with anything I've said - I care very little about how much of your intelligence you aren't putting here for good use, and while I consider you intellectually dishonest, I have little to no doubts that you believe in what you say. I explained exactly what I am crediting you for, what caused me to change my opinion of you and why I've changed my tone with you once I've seen it - I'd explain again but you'd call it fluff. I am no fan of giving respect that can go only one way, and you have no basis to demand it on.

  2. #952
    Senior Member Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    I agree. We've seen feminists who are far far away from meeting any reasonable criteria of gender egalitarianism - but as far as I know they are mostly what these days would be considered mainstream 3rd wave feminism. It was you and redherring who have claimed such can only be attributed to the fringes of feminism, and you who extended to defend mainstream feminism from any such accusation by telling yourself (And unfortunately everyone else) that people who think that must have gotten their ideas about mainstream feminism from the fringes. If we agree that virtually all the feminists who have participated in the thread can be considered mainstream feminists, perhaps we can finally put that little red herring aside, so I'll ask again: why aren't the gender egalitarian feminists here arguing with the other ones here?
    Your question is already answered. What would the feminist participants in this thread have to argue about, and even more so, what would they have to argue about with each other that would seem more important than the arguments they might be having with others here?

    Like, let's say we have a liberal feminist and a Marxist feminist in this thread, or say we have two feminists from either end of the schism that happened over the so-called feminist sex wars. Why would they take the time to argue with each other about their disagreements in a thread full of people who at best are rejecting or condemning feminism in general, and at worst are saying women are naturally inferior? You know there is sort of a hierarchy of disagreement to things, do you not? I'd say all four hypothetical categories of women, for whatever it is they disagree on, would all agree on such sexism and anti-feminism being worse than things they disagree with each other on. And I'd say pretty much all of them agree to some general premises that are under attack in this thread. It seems like you have an expectation that makes no sense. Like, you need feminism to somehow validate itself by proving self-criticism to you in the form of an internal argument in the midsts of much bigger foes.

    And you seem to think that I am completely uncritical of feminism and aspect complete adherence to it. Perhaps an assumption that comes from the same weird expectation above. I have critical things I can say about feminism (and not that long ago I still wouldn't have been comfortable with calling myself a feminist), but i'd consider it constructive feminism in response to realistic picture of what feminism is. My criticism wouldn't include calling feminism at large obsolete, it wouldn't mean accepting all criticism of feminism as equal, and it wouldn't involve cherry picking people and ideas to represent all of feminism.

    About 9 years ago, I'd say, I used to also be really bothered by the feminazis amidst feminism. However, since then, my mind has changed, because all manner of education has shown me that feminazis hardly exist.

    And to get back to the start of your post; I really think people are very confused about what 3rd wave feminism, is. Seriously. I'm pretty sure everything you're bothered by was more predominate during what is conventionally considered the 2nd wave. Susan Bronwmiller was 2nd wave. Andrea Dworkin was 2nd wave.

    And if you want to be completely accurate, I don't think most people get their misunderstanding from the fringes of feminism. I think most people get it from a place that has nothing to do with feminism at all. They get it from a combination of traditionalistic society, second hand from anti-feminists who are not even making an attempt to cite feminist literature, and their own personal resentments. The more radical ideas posited in feminism are only found later to be useful for confirmation bias. Rare, I think, is the person who actually came to an anti-feminist stance only by way of reading radical feminist ideas. This goes back to my entirely ignored point about the civil rights movement. Most people who were against it did not initially, if ever, know anything about the crazy fringe elements of the civil rights movement. Most of them were just home grown racists to begin with. If they ever even came upon those black extremists, it would have made no difference except to provide superficial validation for the prejudices they already had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Neither variables have much of anything to do with anything I've said - I care very little about your intelligence and while I consider you intellectually dishonest, I have little to no doubts that you believe in what you say. I explained exactly what I am crediting you for, what caused me to change my opinion of you and why I've changed my tone with you once I've seen it - I'd explain again but you'd call it fluff. I am no fan of giving respect that can go only one way, and you have no basis to demand it on.
    I believe the course of our interaction in this thread is that you asked some general questions about egalitarian society. I sincerely tried to answer them with no ill will, but did not understand the actual point of your questions. To that end, I constructively proposed a question that might better suit what you were looking for. To that, I don't recall any continuation, and there was no interaction between me and you until I made a general post, in response to no quote of anyone, about the problem I saw here, and you decided to respond to that directly in a very dismissive manner. A little irritated by that tone, I quickly jotted out a somewhat exasperated response, the most important points of which, you totally never addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    In which case you might just consider that the feminists I'm complaining about aren't those fringe rare feminists you think I'm complaining about. You probably won't, that's an undeserved level faith to have in you, but I'm an optimist.
    Consider it? Why should I go beyond a cursory consideration? That is the question.

    My guess is, either you are thinking of radical feminists as people who say things like "all men benefit from men raping women", in which case, I assert that I'm right, and they have never held an analogous position.

    OR

    You are saying that radical feminists refers to people way more moderate than what I'd consider radical, and that maybe you have rather conservative, traditional, or paternalistic social views.

    My guess is that it is the former, and you are just hell bent on believing that the craziest rule feminism, and no army of self-identified feminists will convince you that they know more about feminism than you do. Which, it seems to me, is the problem. Your only plan here seems to be explaining feminism to feminists. Even if you were right something here, that approach will never go anywhere.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  3. #953
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Ok this is a predictable course that I can already feel taking forever. So let me jump a few steps: We aren't disagreeing about what feminism is or who is it's mainstream vs who is in its fringes. We are disagreeing about what can count a reasonable criteria for gender egalitarianism.

  4. #954
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,420

    Default

    @Jarlaxle The answer to your question is that I have met far more men who hate feminists than feminists who hate men. If somebody argued in my presence that women are somehow superior or deserve more rights than men, etc I would jump in and argue the point of egalitarianism. However, I have not been in that situation. Somehow I have managed to live 35 years, in a liberal academic environment no less (I live in a slightly elitist European university town), and not come across the manhating extremist kind that you guys keep describing. I honestly would debate them and defend the rights of men if it ever came to that, but they are so damn rare I never met them.

    Now, men hating on feminism who after a few beers or a few pages of online debate let on more and more that they actually have a deep seated problem with women in general, that's another thing.
    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, Redbone liked this post

  5. #955
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    You are showing pictures of Africans there. There's like 2 Indians in the picture LOL
    The first two pics (under the sentence that starts with "in India ..." are from India. I have also seen it with my own eyes whern I travelled there and you can easily verify that this is a common phenomenon by simply googling the thing. There are lots of newspaper articles on it.

    The other pictures under the paragraph explaining that farmwork has for most of history and in most cultures also been done by women are from an unspecified African country and Iran. I could also have posted women working on Vietnamese rice fields, would that have made a difference? Does it matter that if they are Asian, African or European? There was a lot of talk here abot physical limits and unless you claim that Indian women (or African women or whatever ethnicity my ilustrations might have, it really isn't relevant) are somehow physically different from women elsewhere, this shows that in traditional societies women doing hard physical work is nothing uncommon but rather the norm.
    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

  6. #956
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Your question is already answered. What would the feminist participants in this thread have to argue about, and even more so, what would they have to argue about with each other that would seem more important than the arguments they might be having with others here?

    Like, let's say we have a liberal feminist and a Marxist feminist in this thread, or say we have two feminists from either end of the schism that happened over the so-called feminist sex wars. Why would they take the time to argue with each other about their disagreements in a thread full of people who at best are rejecting or condemning feminism in general, and at worst are saying women are naturally inferior? You know there is sort of a hierarchy of disagreement to things, do you not? I'd say all four hypothetical categories of women, for whatever it is they disagree on, would all agree on such sexism and anti-feminism being worse than things they disagree with each other on.
    You are right - unless they'd view feminism as a title by which to describe gender egalitarianism beliefs, in which case they'd identify what's closer to them by the belief rather then the title. And if they'd both consider themselves feminists and maintain the ability to be critical within feminism they wouldn't use the rethorics of calling those who criticize movements within feminism anti-feminists in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    My criticism wouldn't include calling feminism at large obsolete, it wouldn't mean accepting all criticism of feminism as equal, and it wouldn't involve cherry picking people and ideas to represent all of feminism.
    So the complete opposite of your positive views of feminism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    And if you want to be completely accurate, I don't think most people get their misunderstanding from the fringes of feminism. I think most people get it from a place that has nothing to do with feminism at all. They get it from a combination of traditionalistic society, second hand from anti-feminists who are not even making an attempt to cite feminist literature, and their own personal resentments. The more radical ideas posited in feminism are only found later to be useful for confirmation bias. Rare, I think, is the person who actually came to an anti-feminist stance only by way of reading radical feminist ideas. This goes back to my entirely ignored point about the civil rights movement. Most people who were against it did not initially, if ever, know anything about the crazy fringe elements of the civil rights movement. Most of them were just home grown racists to begin with. If they ever even came upon those black extremists, it would have made no difference except to provide superficial validation for the prejudices they already had.
    Good story to tell yourself, I suppose with your stance no belief defending tactic is too cheap, I expect this little arsenal of yours to grow as the years go by.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Consider it? Why should I go beyond a cursory consideration? That is the question.
    Ofcourse, why would you? There's no point in doing so you already know you are right, there's no point in listening to any reasoning otherwise. It's a shame really - people who assume their beliefs are true no matter what and are unwilling to hear anything that disagrees with their view are so often presented as fanatics... By the dictionary. Such slender.

    Seriously though - why do you argue then with people you disagree with? If not for testing your own beliefs and arguments against the logic and knowledge of others, dismissing the option you might change your own mind - what do you gain from that? Trying to "spread the truth" and change the mind of others on some dim hope that they give the content of your words more then you give theirs?

    I suppose gambling that others would be more intellectually honest then yourself might actually be a pretty frequent victory for you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You are saying that radical feminists refers to people way more moderate than what I'd consider radical
    OMG You got it right
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    and that maybe you have rather conservative, traditional, or paternalistic social views
    and a predictable false dichotomy to disappoints again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I believe the course of our interaction in this thread is that you asked some general questions about egalitarian society. I sincerely tried to answer them with no ill will, but did not understand the actual point of your questions. To that end, I constructively proposed a question that might better suit what you were looking for. To that, I don't recall any continuation, and there was no interaction between me and you until I made a general post, in response to no quote of anyone, about the problem I saw here, and you decided to respond to that directly in a very dismissive manner. A little irritated by that tone, I quickly jotted out a somewhat exasperated response, the most important points of which, you totally never addressed.
    Our current back and forth exchange started with This - but it seems you are talking about this little gem, in which you've badly rationalized an excuse to be very dismissing of everyone you disagreed with by default, and then I called you out on the bad rationalization, to which you responded by a hasty reply that might have had a point if it wasn't based on the circular assumption that the rationalization was correct to began with. So you can be directly dismissive of billions, but how dare one of them call you out on it.

    I have to admit - I didn't think it was possible I was overestimating you a post ago, but you've finally managed prove me wrong.

  7. #957
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    Somehow I have managed to live 35 years, in a liberal academic environment no less (I live in a slightly elitist European university town), and not come across the manhating extremist kind that you guys keep describing..
    I am not inclined to describe manhating extremists, the very idea to diagnose someone with misandry/misogyny based on political discussions is kind of ridicules, dismissing content of arguments in favor of speculated hidden motives, and when it actually shows itself it's usually not very political in nature. But then again, I maintain a high criteria for what I'd count as hate - if I was willing to count anyone who has any kind of subconscious issue with the opposite sex it would probably be able to include all heterosexuals of both genders, in which case feeling oppressed by the opposite sex would be, and so would looking for excuses to psychoanalyze the opposite sex with speculated hidden motives in the first place.

    What I am describing is a lot less nefarious - women identifying themselves as feminists and presenting themselves as such with whom you disagree about what it means and - as you implied in your response to spanky - would not like people to conflate theirs with feminism. You want to show that feminists aren't like that, and you happen to have one in your shoes - why not use her?

  8. #958
    Suave y Fuerte BadOctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    I agree. We've seen feminists who are far far away from meeting any reasonable criteria of gender egalitarianism - but as far as I know they are mostly what these days would be considered mainstream 3rd wave feminism. It was you and redherring who have claimed such can only be attributed to the fringes of feminism, and you who extended to defend mainstream feminism from any such accusation by telling yourself (And unfortunately everyone else) that people who think that must have gotten their ideas about mainstream feminism from the fringes. If we agree that virtually all the feminists who have participated in the thread can be considered mainstream feminists, perhaps we can finally put that little red herring aside, so I'll ask again: why aren't the gender egalitarian feminists here arguing with the other ones here?
    I support feminism in its original definition -- namely, that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. I have a great deal of respect for men; in fact, I've always been more comfortable around men than women. But lately, I don't even like to call myself a feminist, because of the negative stigma which has developed around the word. I blame this entirely on loud, man-hating radical feminists, who by their actions are actually doing a disservice to all women. And they do not by any means represent the position of most normal, non-crazy feminists.

    I also stated all of this earlier in this thread. However, it soon proved a waste of time to explain this. When the other side is absolutely convinced that all modern feminists are out to undermine men and turn them into slaves of the matriarchy, there's pretty much nothing you can say to convince them otherwise. So I moved on.

    I hope I speak for other feminists when I say I do not wish to subjugate men. In fact, I'm rather fond of them.
    WOOP WOOP WOOP
    Likes Mane, Ivy, Osprey, Redbone, SD45T-2 and 3 others liked this post

  9. #959
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Thank you BadOctopus - that was a cool post - plus I laughed at the tension breaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by BadOctopus View Post
    I support feminism in its original definition -- namely, that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.
    It's kind of funny - Almost everyone does.

    Gender egalitarian feminists try to do it verbatim but with a female focus
    Radical feminist try to do it within the confines of a very specific narrative
    Women no longer willing to identify with feminists do so because they want to do that
    The MRA wants to do just that while focusing on it from a male perspective

    All these strands are supposedly fighting for the exact same cause, but with a different world view on what they are willing to counts as gender discrimination problems and a different idea of how to solve them - solutions that then count as gender discrimination to other strands. Under those circumstances, the best criteria for gender egalitarianism seems to be.. Perspective egalitarianism? The willingness and openness to account for problems outside the realm of one particular dogma or experience while been cautious of the problems others find with what you count as your problem's solutions.

    Which should be a pretty easy thing to do... Except that leaves you completely alone. You'd think you'd be everyone's ally, but as far as they are concerned as movements you are nobody's ally or might as well be the apposing side, because they tend to have these sort of narratives in which been open minded to them requires you to be open minded to their reasons for been close minded to everything else. How do you solve that?

  10. #960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Thank you BadOctopus - that was a cool post - plus I laughed at the tension breaking.



    It's kind of funny - Almost everyone does.

    Gender egalitarian feminists try to do it verbatim but with a female focus
    Radical feminist try to do it within the confines of a very specific narrative
    Women no longer willing to identify with feminists do so because they want to do that
    The MRA wants to do just that while focusing on it from a male perspective

    All these strands are supposedly fighting for the exact same cause, but with a different world view on what they are willing to counts as gender discrimination problems and a different idea of how to solve them - solutions that then count as gender discrimination to other strands. Under those circumstances, the best criteria for gender egalitarianism seems to be.. Perspective egalitarianism? The willingness and openness to account for problems outside the realm of one particular dogma or experience while been cautious of the problems others find with what you count as your problem's solutions.

    Which should be a pretty easy thing to do... Except that leaves you completely alone. You'd think you'd be everyone's ally, but as far as they are concerned as movements you are nobody's ally or might as well be the apposing side, because they tend to have these sort of narratives in which been open minded to them requires you to be open minded to their reasons for been close minded to everything else. How do you solve that?
    Alone isn't so bad IMO. I'm on my own side. 'Allies' get annoying when they expect you to gang up on people with them - I don't play that. I'm a chaote. I do what I want. I can be mercenary when it appeals to me but I'm not on anyone's side, and I freely change my mind as situations change, and as people eventually piss me off enough.
    Likes Mane, BadOctopus 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