Toxic Feminism

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a good light and get behind it

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a bad light and fight against it

The two camps don't even speak the same language, will never speak the same language, and are doomed to have endless discussions on feminism that are no better than crosstalk, and probably twice as pointless

eta: probably time to throw that word in the garbage and come up with something that encapsulates something tangible that can actually be pinned down and discussed

When I hear the word 'feminism' I always think "Here we go again..", and so I suppose the word itself makes me want to stab myself in the brain. So..I don't look at it positively.

This more or less sums up my comments earlier, which focused more on definitions and semantics than trying to peg feminism as an absolute good or evil.

There is the dictionary definition of course, but even then feminism seems to carry different meanings and implications for various feminists and non-feminists. So trying to peg it down is difficult.

Even what constitutes "toxic" feminism seems to vary from person to person, with some sentiments ranging from "I'm a feminist, but..." to "It's all toxic." Many feminists recognize toxic variants so I imagine it puts them in an uncomfortable position of having to defend while acknowledge the toxic aspects in these sort of discussions. Perhaps like a how a Catholic feels when acknowledging the prevalence of pedophiles in the Church whilst pointing out the good deeds of various Catholics?

So these discussions tend to be fruitless because you might have one person arguing against all extremes/subsets of it vs a person arguing against one extreme/subset. Then self-identifying feminists might understandably feel on the defensive against more viewpoints than they'd bargained for.

It makes the head spin.

This is why I personally prefer egalitarianism, as I feel it encapsulates equal rights whilst leaving behind some of the toxic detritus such as loaded terminology with negative/positive charges for gendered terms.

I understand egalitarianism isn't enough for some people, that some feminists view it as a toothless variant of feminism, and that's fine, nothing against those who still choose the more specialized or focused ideology of feminism. I would just say, be wary of charged or loaded terminology and how easy it is to fall into absolutist "us and them" thinking, and I speak from personal experience. Such thinking is poisonous, but can be highly addictive. In other words, don't be a sith about it. Code of the Sith | Wookieepedia | FANDOM powered by Wikia

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

They could stay right here, there is plenty medical/construction aid needed all over their own fucking country. Every foundation (Clinton included), organization and group that wants to help doesn't need to leave US borders to do so. As a left leaning person, there is nothing wrong with Christians (or Jews or Muslims) as long as their constitutionally protected practice stays within the boundaries of themselves. I suspect the reason the focus is on other countries is that it's easier to proselytize when the native people have no idea who they are. The evangelicals that seek to convert Jews in Israel is probably the most pretentious example.

The whataboutsim pertaining to feminists and that they should do something to promote it in other countries is laughable, since it's already been happening forever, but men persist in touting the lies that it's not happening or that the only ones doing it are religiously based women or others that agree with them.

This almost sounds like Trumpism or isolationism. Almost.

 

[Typh0n]

My view of it has always been somewhat negative. Today I stumbled on this video though, with Libertarian activist Avens O'brien talking about Libertarian Feminism and I think she makes some interesting arguments in favor of feminism and why it is still needed in the West. She denounces Third-Wave Feminists as people who fight for irrelevant things like gender-neutral toys, but still feels that discussion of gender issues is important.

You have to skip to 4:06 to get to the part where she talks about feminism.

 

[Lark]

What horror movies do you think represent the whole issue of toxic feminism? I can think of a few novels, Richard Matheson's book, I think it was simply called Woman, or Graham Masterton's Ladies Night (I think it was Masterton) but I cant think of any films in particular, maybe Fatal Attraction and clones of it, although I took it to be more a female psycho more than anything else.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

What horror movies do you think represent the whole issue of toxic feminism? I can think of a few novels, Richard Matheson's book, I think it was simply called Woman, or Graham Masterton's Ladies Night (I think it was Masterton) but I cant think of any films in particular, maybe Fatal Attraction and clones of it, although I took it to be more a female psycho more than anything else.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?

 

[anticlimatic]

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?

1984 is an excellent tale of gender equality, politically correct language, and the successful abolition of micro aggressions.

 

[entropie]

1984 is an excellent tale of gender equality, politically correct language, and the successful abolition of micro aggressions.

And it didnt work, so why care

 

[Mole]

Liberal democracy has made three great gains. The first was the abolition of slavery, the second was the emancipation of women and feminism, and the third is the criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse.

And it is plain those who are bad mouthing feminism are reactionary, they want to have power over women, they are psychopathic and have no shame.

 

[Coriolis]

I understand egalitarianism isn't enough for some people, that some feminists view it as a toothless variant of feminism, and that's fine, nothing against those who still choose the more specialized or focused ideology of feminism. I would just say, be wary of charged or loaded terminology and how easy it is to fall into absolutist "us and them" thinking, and I speak from personal experience. Such thinking is poisonous, but can be highly addictive.

Egalitarianism is ideal in theory, but apparently near impossible to implement wholesale. What strides we have made, have been on behalf of one group at a time: blacks, women, Gays, disabled, trans, etc. This might be related to the fact that bias against the various groups has often taken different forms, requiring different measures to address. Tactics vs. strategy. Also, those who play all or nothing can all too easily end up with nothing. The very founding of our republic depended on this.

 

[Lark]

Egalitarianism is ideal in theory, but apparently near impossible to implement wholesale.

Did you hear that the world cant exist without absolute monarchs and wars of succession?

Yup.

The honest beliefs of yester year.

Do you think what you posted sounds anything like that.

 

[Lark]

Does anyone think that feminism is probably only as toxic as the individuals who make it up are?

 

[Coriolis]

Did you hear that the world cant exist without absolute monarchs and wars of succession?

Yup.

The honest beliefs of yester year.

Do you think what you posted sounds anything like that.

Nope - different form, different content.

Does anyone think that feminism is probably only as toxic as the individuals who make it up are?

As a theory ("women should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as men") - no. In its implementation, obviously, just like any other human endeavor. Not everyone will be in it for the right reasons, or will be going about it in a productive way.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Egalitarianism is ideal in theory, but apparently near impossible to implement wholesale. What strides we have made, have been on behalf of one group at a time: blacks, women, Gays, disabled, trans, etc. This might be related to the fact that bias against the various groups has often taken different forms, requiring different measures to address. Tactics vs. strategy. Also, those who play all or nothing can all too easily end up with nothing. The very founding of our republic depended on this.

I think I have to disagree. While I'm not against specialized interest groups campaigning for the civil rights of their respective communities, I am optimistic that humanity can ultimately reach a stage where egalitarianism can and will be the accepted and dominant ideology. It will become the wholesale approach and we will no longer need subgroups to fight for civil rights.

Star Trek world, yo. You of all people ought to appreciate my optimism here.

 

[Coriolis]

I think I have to disagree. While I'm not against specialized interest groups campaigning for the civil rights of their respective communities, I am optimistic that humanity can ultimately reach a stage where egalitarianism can and will be the accepted and dominant ideology. It will become the wholesale approach and we will no longer need subgroups to fight for civil rights.

Star Trek world, yo. You of all people ought to appreciate my optimism here.

I do appreciate your optimism, and I do see us working toward a world in which egalitarianism prevails and subgroups become just like so many flavors of ice cream. I just don't see us getting there by trying to take on everything at once. The problem is too vast and multifaceted for that. My own optimism derives from the fact that addressing the problem in parts has been working. Nothing wrong with understanding how all the pieces fit into the egalitarian vision, in fact that is good, but it doesn't help much on a practical level.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I do appreciate your optimism, and I do see us working toward a world in which egalitarianism prevails and subgroups become just like so many flavors of ice cream. I just don't see us getting there by trying to take on everything at once. The problem is too vast and multifaceted for that. My own optimism derives from the fact that addressing the problem in parts has been working. Nothing wrong with understanding how all the pieces fit into the egalitarian vision, in fact that is good, but it doesn't help much on a practical level.

I think if enough people change their thinking and stop viewing other humans as members of X or Y tribe, it isn't that far out of reach. I'm not saying we should ignore our differences but they ought to be celebrated and appreciated at least, rather than feared and shunned.

 

[ceecee]

I think if enough people change their thinking and stop viewing other humans as members of X or Y tribe, it isn't that far out of reach. I'm not saying we should ignore our differences but they ought to be celebrated and appreciated at least, rather than feared and shunned.

Not only is getting them to stop viewing other humans as members of a tribe impossible - they can't comprehend that other people that don't place others into tribes. I know you have met these people - anything different than themselves is beyond their grasp. I'd rather focus on the kids, they understand this easily.

 

[á´…eparted]

The way I see it, feminism says "we can be better as a species". Those who are against feminism say "no we can't, don't even try". It's why - as a scientist - I becomes incredibly irritated (if not outright angry) at those against feminism. If you have a well grounded hypothesis, you test and try it. It's as if they don't even want us to try and improve out of baseless fear; we have nothing to lose for trying, and everything to gain.

 

[anticlimatic]

The way I see it, feminism says "we can be better as a species". Those who are against feminism say "no we can't, don't even try". It's why - as a scientist - I becomes incredibly irritated (if not outright angry) at those against feminism. If you have a well grounded hypothesis, you test and try it. It's as if they don't even want us to try and improve out of baseless fear; we have nothing to lose for trying, and everything to gain.

We can nothing as a species. We can only anything as individuals- and only then if we are gifted and lucky and not in the 90% demographic of humanity incapable of consciously changing themselves. The way is there, however:

 

[kyuuei]

I've written on the subject several times before, probably with legit links and more official-sounding reasons and methods for my madness.

To put briefly, I like the "idea" of feminism, and even some of the workings of the group as they exist today. I believe it important. At the same time, it is not something I can either feel a part of or subscribe to... I think in working practice feminism is for the advancement of women, and while that is important, it is inferior to humanism, and I cannot stand the bullying of men into being feminist first while doing nothing to really advance any laws, rights, or social proceedings for men.. while, to some extent, they have.. it is more as an afterthought to the advancement of women. To give an example: Women promoted to work and have careers in the workplace meaning they also push for men to feel more comfortable socially with being stay at home dads. While this IS beneficial to both genders, the afterthought of it all shows... Even when we are not talking about extreme feminists, we still have a huge majority of women who feel resentment in men, believe women need to be advanced so much for only the sake of women, and that men are somehow the enemy.

And I don't see healthy things coming from even regular-old feminists that I meet because of these mentalities. So, I take a step back.

 

[Starry]

Antifeminism - Wikipedia

Are people under the impression that there was a time when being a feminist was cool or something? It has always been "toxic".