|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 9, 2018 14:40:11 GMT
It matters since as the above quote showed you appear to be making a generalisation based on a minority. Or in other words, stereotyping. No I didn't. I said a lot of times you'll get attacked if you outright disagree with religious or feminist ideals. That does not equate to saying a lot of feminists believe that all men are rapists (as this is something I never claimed). You're making a false equivalency here. Never mind about 'all men being rapists', something which I never said you claimed. It was you who said, more generally: "A lot of times, you'll get attacked if you disagree or outright contradict ... Same is true with feminism.." This, while asserting elsewhere "I did not say there were "a lot" of them, at least not when compared to the overall population of feminists." So then: you are making an general ("a lot of times") assertion about feminism based on "not a lot of them", it seems (and even then excluding from the count that "number of feminists nowadays [who] prefer to keep quiet ")
QED.
Presumably those feminists of yours who 'prefer to keep quiet' are not those who 'whine' and 'complain', so objected to in this thread lately, by Toasted Cheese?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 9, 2018 15:12:14 GMT
No I didn't. I said a lot of times you'll get attacked if you outright disagree with religious or feminist ideals. That does not equate to saying a lot of feminists believe that all men are rapists (as this is something I never claimed). You're making a false equivalency here. Never mind about 'all men being rapists', something which I never said you claimed. It was you who said, more generally: "A lot of times, you'll get attacked if you disagree or outright contradict ... Same is true with feminism.." This, while asserting elsewhere "I did not say there were "a lot" of them, at least not when compared to the overall population of feminists." So then: you are making an general ("a lot of times") assertion about feminism based on "not a lot of them", it seems (and even then excluding from the count that "number of feminists nowadays [who] prefer to keep quiet ")
QED.
Presumably those feminists of yours who 'prefer to keep quiet' are not those who 'whine' and 'complain', so objected to in this thread lately, by Toasted Cheese?
Again, false equivalency on your part. I said "some" feminists believe in toxic feminist ideals. I then said that a lot of times, you'll get attacked for disagreeing with feminism. Nowhere there did I make the claim that those "some" feminists who believe in toxic ideas are the same ones, or the only ones, who do the attacking. Or the can be the ones doing the attacking, but even a small minority can easily attack multiple people multiple times.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 9, 2018 16:53:56 GMT
Now on to point #2 - just to clarify: Are you saying that you think current, modern-day feminism has all been positive? That not once have they delivered negative or questionable messages? That not once have they taken a questionable or toxic stance on any issue? Because that's basically what I'm saying in point #2. No, that is not what you were saying in point number two. In point number two you were suggesting that toxic ideas are a mainstream, common part of feminism just the way the attributes of religion you cited obviously are. That is completely and utterly false. No one interested in a serious, adult discussion of a social movement is going to concentrate on the bad apples that are a part of every movement, "ism", or group known to the human race throughout history. That you would choose to do so strongly suggests you have a sexist agenda. Otherwise, why would you?
And no, it is not "subjective" whether such ideologies are prominent or not. It is objectively true that they are not and never were.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 9, 2018 17:54:44 GMT
They both can ask people to believe things that are not true.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 9, 2018 18:31:29 GMT
Now on to point #2 - just to clarify: Are you saying that you think current, modern-day feminism has all been positive? That not once have they delivered negative or questionable messages? That not once have they taken a questionable or toxic stance on any issue? Because that's basically what I'm saying in point #2. No, that is not what you were saying in point number two. In point number two you were suggesting that toxic ideas are a mainstream, common part of feminism just the way the attributes of religion you cited obviously are. That is completely and utterly false. No one interested in a serious, adult discussion of a social movement is going to concentrate on the bad apples that are a part of every movement, "ism", or group known to the human race throughout history. That you would choose to do so strongly suggests you have a sexist agenda. Otherwise, why would you?
And no, it is not "subjective" whether such ideologies are prominent or not. It is objectively true that they are not and never were.
That is false. Nowhere did I say that they were mainstream. I mean, how many mainstream Christians do you know of that actively advocate stoning adulterers to death?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 9, 2018 19:06:05 GMT
Feminism have them as well: all men are rapists, masculinity is toxic, etc. I have not come across any feminists who hold the opinion that all men are rapists. Search long enough on the extremes and you'll find all manner of nutty statements. Holding them up as being in any way representative of the general gist of the movement is another thing entirely. That said, any impassioned movement or value can be metaphorically compared to religion. Money, sports, etc. The primary difference is that religion tends to run on a certain amount of blind faith in the unseen, source materials from antiquity and, usually, some form of spiritual retribution if one strays from its values. So: "a system of belief" (such as those found in feminism) is somewhat like religion, in that religion is a system of belief. But the differences beyond than are marked.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 9, 2018 21:13:20 GMT
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."I agree with it, and I identify as feminist in that sense. And considering the fact that women are people to be "dubious, deficient and full of shortcomings" is questionable, to say the least. But it makes it easy to dismiss any other opinion on feminism someome might have, if they doubt the personhood of women.
From my understanding, that quote is tongue in cheek sarcasm, otherwise,why is the 'radical' adjective a part of it? Radical means from the root. Sort of like fundamental. Maybe radicals and fundamentalists have stuff in common. And does feminism have a reason to be radical? You bet it has. For centuries, women have not had equal rights as men. In the west, until a few decades ago, women weren't allowed to vote in some places; they were not allowed to go to work without permission of a man; and today there are still many places in the world where women are second-class citizens. Forget citizenship; some religious people have even doubted that women are human. And how is the situation today? As evidenced on this board, there are still people who believe that calling women persons is "dubious, deficient and full of shortcomings". Apparently, implanting the idea that women are people wasn't done radically enough. But hopefully, one day, it will be.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 9, 2018 22:17:12 GMT
From my understanding, that quote is tongue in cheek sarcasm, otherwise,why is the 'radical' adjective a part of it? Radical means from the root. Sort of like fundamental. Maybe radicals and fundamentalists have stuff in common. And does feminism have a reason to be radical? You bet it has. For centuries, women have not had equal rights as men. In the west, until a few decades ago, women weren't allowed to vote in some places; they were not allowed to go to work without permission of a man; and today there are still many places in the world where women are second-class citizens. Forget citizenship; some religious people have even doubted that women are human. And how is the situation today? As evidenced on this board, there are still people who believe that calling women persons is "dubious, deficient and full of shortcomings". Apparently, implanting the idea that women are people wasn't done radically enough. But hopefully, one day, it will be. You might not believe this and I have difficulties with it as well, but the special ways women have been treated in the past by various cultures was supposed to be a way of honoring them. There are advantages in not having to take responsibility, nothing is ever your fault. With more responsibility means having to take the blame at times, or least that's what it meant when men got responsibility. The notion that men and women are "equal" has appeal and it is certainly true that many things about them are equal or should be. However they are different in rather significant ways and the idea of them having an "equal" responsibility or opportunity to serve in the military is not sensible. Neither is it sensible that men and women have "equal" custody privileges when divorce makes child custody an issue. These two facts are the reason the "Equal Rights Amendment" was never ratified. Such a total equality will never happen. People who think it will or should are blithering idiots whose opinions do not matter. My personal views do not matter much either, at least certainly not simply because they are my views, but I believe that women should be allowed to accept responsibilities if they really want, but I believe it is important to note that with those responsibilities comes the need to accept blame when things go wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 5:56:00 GMT
My two cents. You want rational discourse? In that case, I will now rationally explain why most of your points are wrong. I'll start with point 2. ...Feminism, contrary to popular belief, does not have one central set of guidelines. There are plenty of "feminist manifestos", but these are always the personal opinions of the authors, and none of them can claim to speak for all feminists. In fact, there is even disagreement on what feminism is.... Exactly! What is it?
I have yet to hear of a solid, grounded and reasonable explanation that clearly defines feminism with clarity, honesty and truth. It is just an abstract label\tag, which holds an insecure need to identify as something, when the cause is dubious, deficient and full of shortcomings than can easily be deflated. It is very much like a religions belief in God in that respect. Not every female cares to identify as a feminist and males that identify as a feminists are a lost cause and don't deserve their balls.
I see that the definition is contradicting to what the movement really is about because of how it is influencing western culture in modern society. Feminism has turned into feminists demanding that women deserve rights but then neglect men's rights in the process. The term "feminism" itself already gives women higher regard so I am not convinced it's really about equality. In that case we can all call ourselves "masculinists" and claim to be for equality as well. I wonder how many feminists if any would be okay with that term considering it having the exact same definition. If it's really about equality then feminists should be advocating for men's rights as well. The "men are superior to women" or "men have more rights" statement are mostly said and believed by feminists and then these same feminists try to fight against that said statement by using feminism to feel more empowered and more superior. This is all somehow justified because of their "oppression" yet can't prove how they are oppressed. I think women can be disadvantaged in some ways just like men can be, but I would say feminists don't seem to care or take time to realize that men are disadvantaged too. It comes across they only care about themselves and don't mind hurting men for their own benefit and brainwashing women into believing that they need feminism. The only thing I can agree where men are "superior" over women generally speaking is their physical strength, but I wouldn't even say that men mostly abuse that power for their own benefit. From my experience most men agree that they should never hit a woman and they mostly use their strength to protect women when they need it and not to hurt them. Feminists seem to blame men for their oppression throughout the decades , but if I were to blame anything it would be religion used as a form of power to separate and define gender roles in certain cultures. I don't think roles should be assigned to anyone based on their gender but based on what they're experienced in and naturally skilled at doing. Btw I am open for debate if they're are any disagreements
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 10, 2018 9:56:34 GMT
Again, false equivalency on your part. I said "some" feminists believe in toxic feminist ideals. I then said that a lot of times, you'll get attacked for disagreeing with feminism. Nowhere there did I make the claim that those "some" feminists who believe in toxic ideas are the same ones, or the only ones, who do the attacking. Or the [sic] can be the ones doing the attacking, but even a small minority can easily attack multiple people multiple times. I can only repeat that you were making a general ("a lot of times") assertion about feminism based on "not a lot of them [feminists]". It seems clear enough, and there were no such convenient caveats before. But, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 10, 2018 10:23:53 GMT
Feminism has turned into feminists demanding that women deserve rights but then neglect men's rights in the process. Probably because in almost every society, men's rights are already established through culture and tradition as well as law (even if neglected, along with everyone elses' in dictatorships). I cannot think of any declaration of human rights which discriminates against men. But if you mean neglecting men's right to be superior or to be treated differently for the same, then I would agree: feminism has other things in mind. Never the less, that is the standard definition of the word. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. That is not at all the same as suggesting men ought to be 'less equal' - a trope of the males who gripe at losing ground. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism As a feminist (and a man) I am fine with it; so feel free to use it whenever, if needs be. Meantime I will always call for a more egalitarian society for all, feminism just being a part of it. This, slightly ranting, paragraph probably says more about you, and your attitude to those pesky proactive and resurgent women seeking equality within society, than it does about feminism per se. But, naturally you are welcome to your opinions. The idea that we are all disadvantaged and so women should not pay particular attention to their own situation is, however, an odd one. But at least you admit that women can be disadvantaged. Science has shown that men and women are naturally better at different things, with their respective mental skills, because of the way their brains work; this is really not controversial or surprising. I love the research of yours btw which shows that most men agree they should never hit a women. Very reassuring. Can the rest be told to stand down too?
And just who overwhelmingly formed the power structures, and wrote the books, of religion? It is also hard to make out a case out for women repressing women in society more widely throughout the decades more generally. Btw you seem to be using 'oppression' very cavalierly. For the most part oppression is what happens in dictatorship and illiberal theocracies. Women in the west tend to have most issue - these days at least - with legacy discrimination, both implicit and explicit, battles over reproductive choice, as well as misogyny EG
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-44740362
I hope that helps.
Thank you for making this one feminist argument in favour of equality, at least. Add in the notion that people should receive equal pay no matter what their gender for the same work and you should go far.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 10, 2018 11:49:21 GMT
Feminism, is a movement that represents women who choose to identify as something, to gain something, just as those that believe in a Christian God does. The main difference being that feminism is focused on things concrete, and the here and now. However I am not sure that one 'believes' in the goals of feminism (or feminism as a way to achieve things) in the same way that one believes in God. It seems forced. I can only repeat that the standard definition of feminism is one constructed around the ideal of equality ... specifically of women with an eye on parity between the sexes, where practicable and meaningful, of course. So you are wrong. Even if feminists thought that, superiority is not an 'ideal' as the standard definition shows. You sound confused between an ideal and an idea. But there is no doubt, as one can read down the centuries that men - not all - have thought that; from denying the authority of women in church, to the vote, or the ability to hold property, the chance to work in various professions, the legality of rape in marriage, etc, etc. That is not an idea, it was a fact. These were views justified in ways which consider(ed) women inferior creatures. (often hedged with notions of what they were supposedly capable of or the importance of remaining 'ladylike') Thing have changed, yes, especially in the more liberal west. But not everything. And that is the point. This appears a strawman, for feminists as already explained, do not want superiority. They want parity. And most superiority claimed for in religion is of a patriarchal nature. While the law has, yes, slowly caught up in many areas, there are still areas of concern. There are still issues surrounding implicit and legacy discrimination - for instance in pay (as recent UK surveys have shown) and reproductive rights (as the events on the US supreme court foreshadow). And misogyny, or sexual hate crime is still an issue - so much so that there are current calls for the relevant laws to be strengthened. The suggestion that feminism ought somehow be laid aside for its work is supposedly done and it has become irksome by persistence (especially for certain men it seems) is just more conservative kick-back against a necessary and on-going process within society. A strange statement, based on a value judgement. Either this means you think society needs to be more manly and less camp - cold baths and conscription any one? - or you confuse the sexualisation of western culture, and the constant, casual, commercial objectifying of the female body, with the power of women to curb it's worst excesses. LOL still with the 'whining and complaining' of women I see. Those women just won't shut up will they, when told? Talk about condescension. And irony. For what have you been doing here lately but exactly that: complaining when considering the advancement and claims of women? Please see my recent comment on such an appeal to nature, drawing lessons from what is supposedly 'natural', as in providing a supposed rule. You might contemplate Rousseau's words of advice that: ""We do not know what our nature permits us to be."
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 10, 2018 13:31:46 GMT
Again, false equivalency on your part. I said "some" feminists believe in toxic feminist ideals. I then said that a lot of times, you'll get attacked for disagreeing with feminism. Nowhere there did I make the claim that those "some" feminists who believe in toxic ideas are the same ones, or the only ones, who do the attacking. Or the [sic] can be the ones doing the attacking, but even a small minority can easily attack multiple people multiple times. I can only repeat that you were making a general ("a lot of times") assertion about feminism based on "not a lot of them [feminists]". It seems clear enough, and there were no such convenient caveats before. But, whatever. No, please stop misrepresenting what I said. I never said feminism was doing something "a lot of times" then based it only on the "some feminists" that I mentioned believed in toxic ideas. Those were two completely different set of points that I highlighted.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 10, 2018 14:28:54 GMT
I can only repeat that you were making a general ("a lot of times") assertion about feminism based on "not a lot of them [feminists]". It seems clear enough, and there were no such convenient caveats before. But, whatever. No, please stop misrepresenting what I said. I never said feminism was doing something "a lot of times" then based it only on the "some feminists" that I mentioned believed in toxic ideas. Those were two completely different set of points that I highlighted. In which case, and you really meant that the number of feminists doing "a lot of times" that which you object to (criticising their creed) is a small number, and in any case from that you don't draw any inference about the whole the issue you see, in the wider context, is really quite an insignificant one or, indeed, may not exist at all. And so one then wonders why you would need make so much of it. Or why you have something against "some (women)" but not, it appears, their male equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 10, 2018 15:51:50 GMT
No, please stop misrepresenting what I said. I never said feminism was doing something "a lot of times" then based it only on the "some feminists" that I mentioned believed in toxic ideas. Those were two completely different set of points that I highlighted. In which case, and you really meant that the number of feminists doing "a lot of times" that which you object to (criticising their creed) is a small number, and in any case from that you don't draw any inference about the whole the issue you see, in the wider context, is really quite an insignificant one or, indeed, may not exist at all. And so one then wonders why you would need make so much of it. Or why you have something against "some (women)" but not, it appears, their male equivalent. You keep trying to pigeonhole my statements into some neat little boxes that you can label. Let me try to clarify my point again, please try not to put your own spin on it: A lot of times you'll get attacked when you disagree with a feminist message/idea. That's it. No mention that this "attacking" is done by a small amount of people or a large amount. Simply that you get attacked "a lot of the times" when you outright disagree with a feminist ideal. You already have decent proof of this in this very thread. You, personally, have been nice and calm about your points... I respect that. Others have not been so. However, it seems you are (either intentionally or unintenionally) misrepresenting my words to make them seem worse than they are. For example, no where did I ever say or imply that I had something against "some women" as you are claiming. And to further clarify, this point is not dependent on the other point I made wherein there's "some" ideals that spring from feminism that are toxic.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 10, 2018 16:57:18 GMT
That is false. Nowhere did I say that they were mainstream. Unless you are trying to claim that the characterization you made was of normal, mainstream feminists, your entire argument falls apart.
The reason is that every single group has unreasonable members advocating unreasonable things. Every single social or political or scientific view has defenders who will attack you for saying things they believe are wildly inaccurate or stupid. On this basis, absolutely everything in the universe of human beings is similar to religion and you are ultimately saying absolutely nothing. (Actually, you are saying something: that you have a problem with feminism which you can't or won't articulate.)
If you are going to draw a parallel between feminism and religion, and do it on the basis of the fact that both have a history of promoting obviously silly or bad ideas (infidels will burn in hell, all men are racist), then the parallel only works if those bad ideas are just as well represented in both groups.
They are not. This is just a fact. And this leaves your "argument" in meaningless tatters.
Look around here. There are posters who think that infidels will burn in hell, that the universe may only be 6,000 years old (or that at least creationism is true) and that homosexuality is wrong or evil. They are outnumbered, but such views are fairly common among the public and not something that only a crazy minority really believe.
By contrast, there are no feminist posters here who believe any of the bad things you attributed to "some" feminists in your OP. That's because such feminists are a meaningless, powerless minority with no real influence who do not in any way represent a significant strain of feminist thought.
So no--there are no similarities between feminism and religion. Your argument is pure garbage.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 10, 2018 19:02:37 GMT
Let me try to clarify my point again, please try not to put your own spin on it: A lot of times you'll get attacked when you disagree with a feminist message/idea. That's it. No mention that this "attacking" is done by a small amount of people or a large amount. Simply that you get attacked "a lot of the times" when you outright disagree with a feminist ideal. Correction: You get attacked when you disagree with the strawman messages you made up. "Masculinity is toxic" and "all men are rapists" are not feminist positions.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 12, 2018 11:46:18 GMT
You keep trying to pigeonhole my statements into some neat little boxes that you can label. Let me try to clarify my point again, please try not to put your own spin on it: A lot of times you'll get attacked when you disagree with a feminist message/idea. No mention that this "attacking" is done by a small amount of people or a large amount. Sorry to repeat myself but originally you clearly mentioned "a lot of feminists" as well as a "lot of times" don't you remember? (No one is contesting the fact that feminists activists can be strident, repeating their demands.)Once again, I quote: "Same is true with feminism: the moment you disagree or outright contradict their beliefs, regardless of how logical your arguments, you'll immediately get called a misogynist, bigot, sexist, or some other unflattering term... In the same way, a number of feminists nowadays prefer to keep quiet about their feminism, as they don't want to get associated with the negative reputation surrounding a lot of feminists." So then: is this a "lot" now really not a proportion equivalent to a goodly amount of feminists? One also notes that, in the first sentence, with your words that the "same is true of feminism" you are talking about feminism (or, more precisely feminists) generally, since there is no opening qualification. You see how that looks.
This remark is illogical. You say, as I quoted, that "a lot" of feminists have a negative reputation. It is reasonable to assert that 'some' women are feminists, is it not? And it is against those, particularly, who would call their (frequently male) opponents "misogynist, bigot, sexist, or some other unflattering term " that you originally took issue ? Hence you have something against some - those - women. QED.
Well, the issue is then whether those 'toxic ideals' spring from "a lot" of feminists who can be identified, you say, by their "negative reputation" (since it appears you find radical feminism the most objectionable) is it not? Unless of course you think "toxic ideals" spring from those moderates who "prefer to keep quiet", which would seem odd, I would think the points are very dependent indeed. You can see how this looks, too.
I think it might be best to amend you remarks my friend to assert that 'a minority of feminists pursue ideals which some, including myself, disapprove of'. It would be more accurate and honest. There are, after all others here who share a masculine unease with modern, assertive women.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 12, 2018 13:39:41 GMT
You have responded twice to the same post but with different points and a differing tone. But not so I contradict myself... When I argue that human biology has parity between the characteristics of the sexes please feel free to raise this again. In fact I have already made the point that men and women's brains work differently. In any case feminism is usually more about the political and social rather than the biological. Like 'oppression', 'subjugated' is deliberate hyperbole, though I can see why you might wish to use it. The issue for modern-day feminism in the west, at least, is over equality - a far less dramatic (and more measureable) concept, as I have made clear all along. As for why one would not want a society in which all are not treated equally where practicable and reasonable, it is not for me to try and explain. - A claim which those in the fashion industry where body images are manipulated, let alone the abortion debate might have issues with. But the use of the word "ruse" above probably tell us more about you than it ever might the fight for a more egalitarian society. As usual though, you are welcome to your opinions. Neither did I, and since I have not suggested this, it would be strawman you are making. It is well understood in psychology that mandatorily changing actions (though introducing new laws, for instance) leads, eventually, to changed attitudes. Who feels outraged about having to wear seatbelts, or casually accepts drink-driving these days? Or in giving women the vote, for that matter.. It seems you find current (UK?) laws on hate crimes onerous. I wonder why? But extending your curious argument above about "any law" would mean an empty criminal law statute book. And boy, how you'd complain then. Perhaps you ought to suggest to any women in your life that they apologise for taking issues and to thank you for masculine largesse. Then tell them that, without sex, most likely you wouldn't be bothered with them. See how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 12, 2018 20:30:48 GMT
So what exactly is their position, apart from playing the victim, being precious and having hang ups about males not treating them fairly?More strawmen. How predictable. Elliot Rodger, Alek Minassian, Marc Lépine...
|
|