Degrees of Feminism

[CzeCze]

I LOL'ed for real. It's funny because it's so over the top, not because it's true. What's true is that people still think today that women are bad drivers. Especially the Asian women. They're the worst.

I didn't watch the whole commercial, but I was guessing the lone woman driver was going to pick up her hubby who would then confidently take his rightful place at the wheel.

It's extremely patronizing. Lots of stuff that could be considered sexist or racist or [fill in the blanks] is merely a matter of degrees and gradation, not of form.

LOLing again.

Also, apparently I am a man hater and the most vocal man-hating feminist on the forum, so if you have any questions about man-hating feminism, please throw them my way. Wait, no, I'm gonna save you the trouble and make my own thread now.

 

[violaine]

@ OP. I would label myself a human-ist, in the sense that I value both the female and male perspective. I just feel men and women are different but neither are worth more or less. We need each other to survive as a species. And, I love men.

Having said that, I found the ads annoying. I don't know if it offends me as a woman or just as someone who dislikes the boring, outdated past and cliche jokes. It's prob more that I found them unoriginal. I don't identify with the women portrayed in these kinds of ads. I'm not a large person but I've never played helpless. Ugh, it riles me when I see women doing that. It's lame. Nor am I a nag.

What bothers me about these ads is that they become part of the collective consciousness. They get in. (In the same way that those super photoshopped faces in fashion mags bother me. They aren't an accurate representation but they gradually become adopted as a norm.) You might not notice til some guy is threatened by the fact that you can take care of yourself. His idea of femininity is helplessness. (Or nagging.) He can't understand that you need him because you love him, not because of things he can do for you that you can't do for yourself. FTR, I'm also appalled by those ads that make men out to be stupid oafs that need a woman to make everything right. I guess I'm just not a very easy person to market to.

 

[Helios]

Sociology and psychology also have to take into account historical context in their disciplinary approaches. Not to mention that (especially in the case of sociology) there are whole areas of inter-disciplinary work that involve history. To divorce history from ANY academic discipline in the humanities or social sciences is naive.

I'm not "divorcing" a subject from any other, nor denying the value of inter-disciplinary research. This is not inconsistent with anything I've said above.

There is no such thing as "generic feminism," so I'm going to have to insist that you define what you mean by the term.

How can you say that "generic Feminism" doesn't exist when you're unaware of how your interlocutor is defining the term?

I'd define generic Feminism as something like the following:

The position that women ought to enjoy equality (principally legal, social and economic) with men + {miscellaneous propositions}.

It is the latter part of the definition which leads me to reject Feminism, and is usually populated with claims like "There ought to be women only spaces on university campuses", ""Rape culture" exists", "There would never have been any war had women had as much influence as men in the past", "20% of women on university campuses (in the United States) will be raped", etc.

Importantly, I believe that when someone identifies as a Feminist, they in fact assent to generic Feminism so defined.

Well no shit. Don't dodge the question.

I did not dodge the question. Your remark suggested that I had been misunderstood, and thus I sought to clarify my comment.

 

[Helios]

Let me explain something all of you uptight upper-middle class NT academics: my manner of speaking IS HOW I TALK. It has nothing to do with being emotional, it is how I speak. I do not believe in altering my speech to conform to a bland grad school standard to suit you, or anyone else. But especially people like yourself, who seem to think there's something inherently superior about choosing words which are "politically correct."

I am not being "politically correct" when I elect to talk to you politely; it's unfortunate that you've been unwilling to extend that same courtesy to me. I submit that if this is "the way you talk" you ought to talk differently, and presenting yourself as some kind of grammatical proletarian in defence is rather strange. Regardless, know that swearing at me again will lead to the end of our exchange.

To answer your questions, I think you are a revisionist because you refuse to examine how feminism began as very real conditions in society.

You're using "revisionist" idiosyncratically; "revisionist" doesn't usually mean someone who refuses to examine something. Nevertheless, you seem to be labouring the point: I've already addressed your queries via-a-vis history. Moreover, I'm unsure how understanding how Feminism began will lead me to accept it now-I don't need to know the origins of antisemitism or the flat-earth theory in order to reject either.

 

[MacGuffin]

Also, apparently I am a man hater and the most vocal man-hating feminist on the forum, so if you have any questions about man-hating feminism, please throw them my way. Wait, no, I'm gonna save you the trouble and make my own thread now.

Good, because I have a lottttttt of questions!

 

[Thalassa]

I am not being "politically correct" when I elect to talk to you politely; it's unfortunate that you've been unwilling to extend that same courtesy to me. I submit that if this is "the way you talk" you ought to talk differently, and presenting yourself as some kind of grammatical proletarian in defence is rather strange. Regardless, know that swearing at me again will lead to the end of our exchange.

Oh boy I'd be so devastated if you stopped talking. Not only that, but I'm not sure on what planet condescending is polite.

You're using "revisionist" idiosyncratically; "revisionist" doesn't usually mean someone who refuses to examine something. Nevertheless, you seem to be labouring the point: I've already addressed your queries via-a-vis history. Moreover, I'm unsure how understanding how Feminism began will lead me to accept it now-I don't need to know the origins of antisemitism or the flat-earth theory in order to reject either.

Well that's because the flat earth can be disproved by scientific fact, and it's considered in poor taste to hate on other people for their races, especially since we're all about 98% genetically similar, every single last one of us humans - again, can be easily disproven with scientific fact.

On the other hand, the ignorance in your perspective is that if you don't understand the origins, you'll never understand where these social ills sprang from in the first place, and without doing so, I don't think you're making an informed decision at all, just one that suits you.

You still haven't explained your position with a valid argument. This is all striking me as pretty pseudo-intellectual and pretentious to be honest with you.

Using big words don't make you smrt.

 

[jimrckhnd]

Regardless, know that swearing at me again will lead to the end of our exchange.

Dude... that is quite the threat!

I hope she can deal with the heartbreak and loss.

 

[Helios]

Oh boy I'd be so devastated if you stopped talking. Not only that, but I'm not sure on what planet condescending is polite.

If you find dialoguing with me unpleasant, you're not obliged to continue. I don't agree that I have been condescending.

Well that's because the flat earth can be disproved by scientific fact, and it's considered in poor taste to hate on other people for their races, especially since we're all about 98% genetically similar, every single last one of us human - again, can be easily disproven with scientific fact.

You've appeared to miss the point of me mentioning these positions: they serve to show that one (usually, at least) needn't know the origins of x in order to reject x.

On the other hand, the ignorance in your perspective is that if you don't understand the origins, you'll never understand where these social ills sprang from in the first place, and without doing so, I don't think you're making an informed decision at all, just one that suits you.

This relates to the above: it is reasonable to suppose, I think, that one (usually, at least) needn't know the origins of x in order to reject x. An antisemite could just as easily say to you that you cannot reject her position until you are fully conversant with the history of antisemitism. Clearly, that is nonsense: as you make clear, antisemitism can be disparaged and disapproved of without any inquiry into its beginnings. Equally, I dont see why I need to be familiar with Feminisms's origins in order to reject it.

You still haven't explained your position with a valid argument. This is all striking me as pretty pseudo-intellectual and pretentious to be honest with you.

c.f. my exchange with another poster in this thread for why I reject Feminism.

Using big words don't make you smrt.

Noted.

 

[Thalassa]

He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that words are just words and that no dialect is superior to another, that language is a fluid thing that changes with society and that it's nothing more than a tool for communication, though it can be used artistically. His insistence that I speak his preferred dialect or be entirely disregareded hints at how bourgeious he really is, once again not surprising in an anti-feminist. My insistence that I speak with my own word choice is seen by him as "strange," apparently because he lives in an Ivory Tower.

All of this ought to ought to finger wagging also indicates a strange level of Fe for an INTP.

 

[Helios]

Dude... that is quite the threat!

I hope she can deal with the heartbreak and loss.

It wasn't a threat, but an explanation of what the consequences of an action will be. It was no more threatening than saying "If you turn that tap on, water will flow out."

I didn't imply that my interlocutor would be upset if she stopped talking to me.

 

[Thalassa]

If you find dialoguing with me unpleasant, you're not obliged to continue. I don't agree that I have been condescending.



You've appeared to miss the point of me mentioning these positions: they serve to show that one (usually, at least) needn't know the origins of x in order to reject x.



This relates to the above: it is reasonable to suppose, I think, that one (usually, at least) needn't know the origins of x in order to reject x. An antisemite could just as easily say to you that you cannot reject her position until you are fully conversant with the history of antisemitism. Clearly, that is nonsense: as you make clear, Antisemitism can be disparaged and disapproved of without any inquiry into its beginnings. Equally, I dont see why I need to be familiar with Feminisms's origins in order to reject it.



c.f. my exchange with another poster in this thread for why I reject Feminism.



Noted.

Those things you said aren't a very strong argument for why you don't accept feminism. Because as many as 20% of college women are raped? WHAT? Great argument bro, I await with baited breath your next intellectual revelation.

 

[Gish]

If guys could claim rape every time they got drunk and slept with someone I think the percentages would be much more equal.

 

[Helios]

Those things you said aren't a very strong argument for why you don't accept feminism. Because as many as 20% of college women are raped? WHAT? Great argument bro, I await with baited breath your next intellectual revelation.

I did not say that I didn't accept Feminism because 20% of college women are raped. Please read the relevant post again.

Again, I'm not your brother.

 

[Thalassa]

Some people do believe that having sex with a very inebriated person, male or female, is unethical. It is a fact that men rape women more than women rape men, and I don't think there's anything wrong with taking steps to prevent that.

On the other hand, I can see rejecting extremist feminism if he believes that things like "rape culture" are exaggerated, but that's not a solid argument for rejecting general feminism in the slightest.

 

[Thalassa]

I did not say that I didn't accept Feminism because 20% of college women are raped. Please read the relevant post again.

Again, I'm not your brother.

I don't think that your argument is in any way a solid argument for rejecting generalized feminism, even if you believe some things are exaggerated by extremist feminists.

You're going to have to do better than that, bro.

Shit damn fuck motherfucker.

 

[jimrckhnd]

It wasn't a threat, but an explanation of what the consequences of an action will be. It was no more threatening than saying "If you turn that tap on, water will flow out."

I didn't imply that my interlocutor would be upset if she stopped talking to me.

Get the stick out of your hindquarters. Really. Your life will be so much more rewarding.

 

[jimrckhnd]

Some people do believe that having sex with a very inebriated person, male or female, is unethical.
.

Aside from the ethical considerations - it also makes for lousy sex. I mean seriously - why would anybody bother? It's profoundly disrespectful, possibly criminal and if you are so undiscriminating about whom and what circumstances you have sex with somebody - what does that say about your taste and degree of desperation?

 

[Gish]

Women have more rape fantasies than men.

 

[Helios]

I don't think that your argument is in any way a solid argument for rejecting generalized feminism, even if you believe some things are exaggerated by extremist feminists.

But that's not my position. As I said:

Importantly, I believe that when someone identifies as a Feminist, they in fact assent to generic Feminism so defined.

In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist", the definition of which has been provided above. Since these "miscellaneous propositions" are typically absurd-some examples were provided above- I am then justified in rejecting Feminism, where "Feminism" is synonymous with "generic Feminism" so defined.

Shit damn fuck motherfucker.

As promised, our exchange ends here. Feel free to have the last word if you wish.

 

[Thalassa]

But that's not my position. As I said:



In other words, when someone says "I am a Feminist" they most likely mean "I am a generic Feminist", the definition of which has been provided above. Since these "miscellaneous propositions" are typically absurd-some examples were provided above- I am then justified in rejecting Feminism, where "Feminism" is synonymous with "generic Feminism" so defined.



As promised, our exchange ends here. Feel free to have the last word if you wish.

Rejecting the entirety of feminism over extremist groups is ignorant, and marching into a thread and telling me REPEATEDLY what I ought to do is completely uncouth.

I'm sure you're in denial of this, since you're so convinced you're well-educated and polite.

Have a nice fucking day!~