Is feminism a dirty word?

whats newxt · 29-11-2014 10:12PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zbul7EnI3w

hatrickpatrick · 29-11-2014 11:01PM

dark crystal wrote: »

*Sigh*

One dumb clickbait article does not represent all feminists. Really, this has been covered numerous times now. The vast majority of feminists couldn't give two hairy hoots about the shirt on this guy's back.

Enough gender war bullshit now please AH!!

A verse of Kumbaya anyone?

The guy had to apologize on television. I have seen not one single feminist condemn those who attacked him for exercising his right to free speech. Not one.

P. Breathnach · 29-11-2014 11:31PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The guy had to apologize on television. I have seen not one single feminist condemn those who attacked him for exercising his right to free speech. Not one.

I'm not going to trawl through a long thread, but I'm fairly sure that some who identified themselves as feminists dissociated from the criticism of him.

But if wearing that shirt was an exercise in free speech, so too was criticising his choice.

And failing, or not bothering, to condemn those who attacked him is also exercising the right of free speech, because the right to free speech also includes the right to say nothing.

SeanW · 29-11-2014 11:49PM

Also you missed the point that if feminsim were not a powerful movement, he would never have had to apologise. Because it would never have been an issue, any more than for example a gay man (wearing a "Pride" shirt) would have had to apologise to the Westboro Baptist Church.

steddyeddy · 30-11-2014 12:13AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The guy had to apologize on television. I have seen not one single feminist condemn those who attacked him for exercising his right to free speech. Not one.

Well prehaps they'll do it now because as a scientist I find what happened despicable. Humankind landed a man made craft on a comet and one woman picked up on fashion and blamed men for female exclusion in science.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 12:29AM

SeanW wrote: »

Also you missed the point that if feminsim were not a powerful movement, he would never have had to apologise. Because it would never have been an issue, any more than for example a gay man (wearing a "Pride" shirt) would have had to apologise to the Westboro Baptist Church.

The row was because one journalist/blogger expressed an opinion.

steddyeddy · 30-11-2014 12:31AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The row was because one journalist/blogger expressed an opinion.

She did more damage to women in science than any man in recent years yet feminists left her alone. Why?

SeanW · 30-11-2014 12:34AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The row was because one journalist/blogger expressed an opinion.

That is simply not true. It was much more than one journalist/blogger.

If he had been wearing a "Pride" shirt with a rainbow on it, and the whiners had been Westboro Baptist Church, would have had to apologise? If not, why not?

steddyeddy · 30-11-2014 12:58AM

Any chance of of the people claiming to be feminist can condemn the shirt-science incident. I.E can people say this woman doesn't represent my view because it looks like she does if people haven't the courage to say so.

TheBeardedLady · 30-11-2014 01:12AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Any chance of of the people claiming to be feminist can condemn the shirt-science incident. I.E can people say this woman doesn't represent my view because it looks like she does if people haven't the courage to say so.

Where would you like this proclamation to be made?

By not condemning every single thing another feminist says that we don't agree with, it looks like we do? That's a bit unfair!

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 01:55AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Any chance of of the people claiming to be feminist can condemn the shirt-science incident. I.E can people say this woman doesn't represent my view because it looks like she does if people haven't the courage to say so.

There was a thread on this in TLL with plenty of people - some probably feminists - doing exactly this.

The problem with the "moderate feminists should vocally condemn the extremist feminists" demand, is that if moderate feminists agree to do that on demand, then extremist anti-feminists (who are looking to pan all feminists, even the moderate ones), can exploit that to hijack any gender-based debate, so that they become a debate about "how bad the extremist feminists are".

Keeping the focus on the negative parts of parts of feminism like that (even when it's not representative of feminists here), and just constantly demanding that feminists condemn any/every random act of bad behaviour from extremist feminists, allows the extremist anti-feminists to engage in cheap rhetorical tactics (just making the same demand again and again, to condemn extremist feminists, while acting as if never 'satisfied' or 'convinced' when examples are given - hence making the same demand again in the future, where they don't care about the answer - so it's literally rhetoric/a-rhetorical-demand).

This is aimed at shifting the overton-window, to try and pan/disparage feminism and negatively change the perception of feminism overall; and it works.

This doesn't mean feminists shouldn't distance themselves from extremists however, but it does mean that feminists are right to not let demands for that, be used as a rhetorical tactic against them - when people pick trivial/minority examples, of a small number of unrepresentative extremist feminists doing something bad, and hold them up demanding moderates distance themselves from those extremists, then it's pretty fair to ignore that.

This is why a lot of the extreme anti-feminists try to whip-up a social media frenzy, over extremist feminists who are often just nobodies with a YouTube channel or a blog on some corner of the Internet - they're not representative of feminists overall, but they're perfect rhetorical ammo for demanding that moderate feminists distance themselves.

Littlekittylou · 30-11-2014 01:56AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Any chance of of the people claiming to be feminist can condemn the shirt-science incident. I.E can people say this woman doesn't represent my view because it looks like she does if people haven't the courage to say so.

I condemn it, it was ridiculous.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 02:07AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

She did more damage to women in science than any man in recent years yet feminists left her alone. Why?

I already said why:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not going to trawl through a long thread, but I'm fairly sure that some who identified themselves as feminists dissociated from the criticism of him.

But if wearing that shirt was an exercise in free speech, so too was criticising his choice.

And failing, or not bothering, to condemn those who attacked him is also exercising the right of free speech, because the right to free speech also includes the right to say nothing.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 02:11AM

SeanW wrote: »

That is simply not true. It was much more than one journalist/blogger....

It started with one blogger/journalist. Yes, it rippled out from that, but so far as I can see, with more people disagreeing with her than agreeing. But some people won't be satisfied with anything less than a lynching.

osarusan · 30-11-2014 03:15AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Any chance of of the people claiming to be feminist can condemn the shirt-science incident. I.E can people say this woman doesn't represent my view because it looks like she does if people haven't the courage to say so.

Argument is weak as water.

There was a poster on a different thread who said that feminism in its current incarnation is a mental illness.

You haven't condemned that so I can only assume that you actually agree with that comment and feel it represents your position.

You happy with that?

masculinist · 30-11-2014 03:36AM

osarusan wrote: »

feminism in its current incarnation is a mental illness.

I agree with this.

hatrickpatrick · 30-11-2014 04:52AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not going to trawl through a long thread, but I'm fairly sure that some who identified themselves as feminists dissociated from the criticism of him.

That's not the same as outright condemning it.

[But if wearing that shirt was an exercise in free speech, so too was criticising his choice.

And failing, or not bothering, to condemn those who attacked him is also exercising the right of free speech, because the right to free speech also includes the right to say nothing.

I agree, but it's impossible to both do nothing, and then go on to claim that feminism supports freedom of speech. If people within your movement are causing actual harm to freedom of speech, and you stand by and do nothing, you are essentially saying that at best you don't care about it and at worst you tacitly approve.

I once again use the analogy of republicanism and terrorism. If you self identify as "republican" and fail to condemn terrorist bombings, it's entirely reasonable for people to draw the conclusion that you don't disapprove of them. You're sharing a label with the people responsible and you're not saying "this isn't what we should be doing".

Same goes for MRAs who fail to condemn Paul Elam's brain farts, same goes for US Republicans who don't condemn torture... I could go on and on.

masculinist · 30-11-2014 05:52AM

YouTube is a fantastic resource for dissecting and analyzing feminist viewpoints.

I would never ram opinions down anyones throat. I encourage people to listen and think for themselves.

Scroll to 2:30 in this clip above and you will see a tactic used by a Feminist which has been used against me on these boards. Denigration of somebodys point of view even if backed up with a factual resource followed by a refusal to engage in the debate, a dismissing of the facts.

osarusan · 30-11-2014 08:24AM

masculinist wrote: »

I agree with this.

Is this one of those well-constructed, honest, reasoned posts you keep waffling on about?

Pocoyo · 30-11-2014 08:59AM

The most vocal feminists online tend to be unattractive childless extremists.

My advice to genuine feminists is hound those internet trolls out of existence in the comments sections and then focus on women in the 3rd world,Because lets face it men experience just as much discrimination in the western world.

The biggest injustice of all being fathers rights.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 09:31AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

... I once again use the analogy of republicanism and terrorism. If you self identify as "republican" and fail to condemn terrorist bombings, it's entirely reasonable for people to draw the conclusion that you don't disapprove of them. You're sharing a label with the people responsible and you're not saying "this isn't what we should be doing"....

It's an inappropriate analogy: there is a considerable difference of scale between criticising a man's choice of apparel and blowing people to bits.

Demanding that people condemn the actions of others is a way of trying to restrict their freedom by setting an agenda for them:
- "You are not an acceptable feminist unless you condemn the attacks on the wearing of such a shirt. Do you condemn them?"
- "It's not as simple as that. We have to consider..."
- "Answer 'yes' or 'no': do you condemn them?"

steddyeddy · 30-11-2014 09:59AM

osarusan wrote: »

Argument is weak as water.

There was a poster on a different thread who said that feminism in its current incarnation is a mental illness.

You haven't condemned that so I can only assume that you actually agree with that comment and feel it represents your position.

You happy with that?

You're equating the impact of an argument from a science journalist with a poster on Boards?

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 10:21AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're equating the impact of an argument from a science journalist with a poster on Boards?

The arguments of Boards posters should given weight only when they accord with your own point of view.

steddyeddy · 30-11-2014 10:23AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The arguments of Boards posters should given weight only when they accord with your own point of view.

That's an interesting view point but not one I subscribe to.

30-11-2014 10:30AM

The problem with feminism as with all seemingly virtous politically correct crusades, is that they started out with a great cause, fought the good fight, but never really set out an 'end game'.

Nobody in those movements (I would lump in anti-racism and anti-homophobia) can agree on what "victory" looks like.

I am in no way comparing these, but on a completely unrelated topic it's like the 'war on terror'. Nobody knows what victory looks like.

steddyeddy · 30-11-2014 10:33AM

There is not just one type of feminist. Some have meaningful arguments some are blaming things like glass ceilings on society.

30-11-2014 10:36AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some have meaningful arguments some are blaming thongs like glass ceilings on society.

Some of them are blaming thongs too :pac:

UCDVet · 30-11-2014 10:48AM

I feel like half of the arguing on the internet is just two (or more) groups of people using the same word to mean something different. Feminism is one of those words.

Some people think Feminism is about the promotion of woman's rights with the goal of gender equality. That's a very noble goal. And a lot of people can't understand how anyone would be against feminism...unless they were sexist/misogynist.

Some other people think Feminism is about the promotion of woman's rights OVER and above men's rights. That's a very sexist goal. And, especially online, a very vocal minority of people claiming to be feminists are clearly and proudly misandrists. They post pictures wearing T-Shirts that say things like 'I hate men'. These other people think Feminism is, essentially, a hate group towards men; because that is what a small but vocal minority promote as their ideology.

Most reasonable people will agree that equal rights are great. And hating one sex, whichever sex it is, is bad.

But if you use the word feminism, half of them are talking about one thing and the other half are talking about the other. And they'll both fight thinking the other half is completely unreasonable.

Wibbs · 30-11-2014 10:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with feminism as with all seemingly virtous politically correct crusades, is that they started out with a great cause, fought the good fight, but never really set out an 'end game'.

Nobody in those movements (I would lump in anti-racism and anti-homophobia) can agree on what "victory" looks like.

I am in no way comparing these, but on a completely unrelated topic it's like the 'war on terror'. Nobody knows what victory looks like.

There's a lot of that going on alright. Like attempting to make an individual happy whose worldview and reason to be is based on them being unhappy, you can never come to a status quo with any movement whose very reason for existence is fighting the status quo. There will always be dragons to slay, real or imagined. At the start the dragons are real, but as a near given the imagined dragons grow over time.

UCDVet wrote:

I feel like half of the arguing on the internet is just two (or more) groups of people using the same word to mean something different. Feminism is one of those words.

Some people think Feminism is about the promotion of woman's rights with the goal of gender equality. That's a very noble goal. And a lot of people can't understand how anyone would be against feminism...unless they were sexist/misogynist.

Some other people think Feminism is about the promotion of woman's rights OVER and above men's rights. That's a very sexist goal. And, especially online, a very vocal minority of people claiming to be feminists are clearly and proudly misandrists. They post pictures wearing T-Shirts that say things like 'I hate men'. These other people think Feminism is, essentially, a hate group towards men; because that is what a small but vocal minority promote as their ideology.

+1, though I'd add a third group U, the whingers, the offence seekers and magnets always looking for another windmill to tilt at and that equally goes for too many in the men's rights camp too.

osarusan · 30-11-2014 11:31AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're equating the impact of an argument from a science journalist with a poster on Boards?

It's the principle of the argument.

You had a chance to condemn it, but didn't. Therefore you agree with it.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments