Is feminism a dirty word?

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 04:22PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Within this subgroup this would hold somewhat true and historically it certainly held more than somewhat true. As far as sexual attraction goes it would again hold somewhat true as a very broad generalisation. A young objectively good looking woman has simply more choices in potential suitors than an older plain woman and a socially aware, clever and rich man has more choices in potential suitors than a socially inept man and age is less of a restriction for men. However in the day to day real world of most of the rest of us this stuff is at most at low level background and says nothing about a woman or man's value in the rest of life's endevours.

Fair enough on the "their site their rules" (though I think that does put them in a bad light), but on this other bit, those statements implicitly read more like their views of how things should be, rather than just a mere examination of how things are or have been.

If you take that meaning from it, implying genders should be valued in that way, does come across as sexist and borderline (if not outright) misogynist.

Wibbs · 30-11-2014 04:35PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you take that meaning from it, implying genders should be valued in that way, does come across as sexist and borderline (if not outright) misogynist.

I fail to see how. As I said "historically it certainly held more than somewhat true" and that's pretty hard to deny. I also said "As far as sexual attraction goes it would again hold somewhat true as a very broad generalisation.". Again pretty arguable as far as reality goes. Even though times have thankfully changed for the better in general and women are not just seen as babymakers and marriage material, within the realm of sexual attraction and mate selection external signs of fertility and fitness in women are heavily selected for. They are not the only the only triggers but they're right up there. On the other side male sexual attractiveness is more biased towards outward signs of social success. Yes looks come into it of course, body symmetry etc, but social success is right up there. Put it another way all things being equal a young attractive woman with social anxiety is going to have a much fuller dance card than a young attractive man with social anxiety.

Oh and note I also said "However in the day to day real world of most of the rest of us this stuff is at most at low level background and says nothing about a woman or man's value in the rest of life's endevours.". How is that "misogynist"? And why given you said viewing genders in this way, why isn't it also "mysandrist"?

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 04:51PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I fail to see how. As I said "historically it certainly held more than somewhat true" and that's pretty hard to deny. I also said "As far as sexual attraction goes it would again hold somewhat true as a very broad generalisation.". Again pretty arguable as far as reality goes. Even though times have thankfully changed for the better in general and women are not just seen as babymakers and marriage material, within the realm of sexual attraction and mate selection external signs of fertility and fitness in women are heavily selected for. They are not the only the only triggers but they're right up there. On the other side male sexual attractiveness is more biased towards outward signs of social success. Yes looks come into it of course, body symmetry etc, but social success is right up there. Put it another way all things being equal a young attractive woman with social anxiety is going to have a much fuller dance card than a young attractive man with social anxiety.

Oh and note I also said "However in the day to day real world of most of the rest of us this stuff is at most at low level background and says nothing about a woman or man's value in the rest of life's endevours.". How is that "misogynist"? And why given you said viewing genders in this way, why isn't it also "mysandrist"?

Well, if you take it as implying that a womans value should be judged based on fertility/beauty, rather than on resources, intellect and character (note: I don't necessarily agree with using either set of traits, to judge value) - that that's the way it should be - isn't that advocating limiting women into a very narrowly defined role in society? (which could be considered sexist - and, depending on motivations for advocating that, potentially misogynistic)

If you take it as implying that a mans value should significantly depend on his resources, intellect, and character - judging on intellect/character doesn't seem bad, but I don't think judging based on resources is fair (given wider societal problems that can disadvantage someone there), but I'm not sure if that could be stretched to misandry.

RDM_83 again · 30-11-2014 05:01PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, if you take it as implying that a womans value should be judged based on fertility/beauty, rather than on resources, intellect and character (note: I don't necessarily agree with using either set of traits, to judge value) - that that's the way it should be - isn't that advocating limiting women into a very narrowly defined role in society? (which could be considered sexist - and, depending on motivations for advocating that, potentially misogynistic)

If you take it as implying that a mans value should significantly depend on his resources, intellect, and character - judging on intellect/character doesn't seem bad, but I don't think judging based on resources is fair (given wider societal problems that can disadvantage someone there), but I don't think that could be stretched to misandry.

This is constantly a problem when you apply behavioral theory or evolutionary biology/game theory to human behavior, its always presumed that when you say the WHY or the HOW it becomes misinterpreted as the SHOULD.
To use a rather weird example myself and others have used before. Its been shown that women tend to be physically aroused by atypical sexual behavior (apes having sex and descriptions of rape), that doesn't imply a value judgment about acceptable behavior or the idea that all women have unusual fantasies, it simply means that a broad spectrum response is an evolutionary advantageous characteristic as it would reduce injury.
Recognizing these effects doesn't make one a social Darwinist, in fact I would argue that a greater awareness actually prevents the misuse of these ideas to forward certain disagreable agendas

Wibbs · 30-11-2014 05:06PM

Oh I'm not saying they should K, I would say however that these traits do influence people's lives, particularly when it comes to finding partners and the choices they have within that. A 25 year old good looking women simply has more choice in this arena than a 45 year old woman regardless of resources involved and a high resources man has more choice than a low resources man. This does not mean that the 45 year old woman or the pretty broke man is somehow rendered valueless or that's all that defines them. It most certainly doesn't, but it isn't a level playing field, not even close.

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 05:08PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This is constantly a problem when you apply behavioral theory or evolutionary biology/game theory to human behavior, its always presumed that when you say the WHY or the HOW it becomes misinterpreted as the SHOULD.
To use a rather weird example myself and others have used before. Its been shown that women tend to be physically aroused by atypical sexual behavior (apes having sex and descriptions of rape), that doesn't imply a value judgment about acceptable behavior or the idea that all women have unusual fantasies, it simply means that a broad spectrum response is an evolutionary advantageous characteristic as it would reduce injury.
Recognizing these effects doesn't make one a social Darwinist, in fact I would argue that a greater awareness actually prevents the misuse of these ideas to forward certain disagreable agendas

Absolutely, I agree with you there, but what is ambiguous/unclear here, is that on the 'About' page of that site, it is not clear if it is meant in the way you describe it, or if 'should' is implied; I've taken it more as a 'should':
http://www.returnofkings.com/about

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 05:12PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'm not saying they should K, I would say however that these traits do influence people's lives, particularly when it comes to finding partners and the choices they have within that. A 25 year old good looking women simply has more choice in this arena than a 45 year old woman regardless of resources involved and a high resources man has more choice than a low resources man. This does not mean that the 45 year old woman or the pretty broke man is somehow rendered valueless or that's all that defines them. It most certainly doesn't, but it isn't a level playing field, not even close.

Ah, no I don't think you are saying they should

(there's no way I'd think that, as it's obvious from all your years of posting, that there's no way you'd think that) I've been focusing on the 'About' page of the site, which I've taken as implying that's how things should be.

So ya, I agree with you largely, about how things are, but my problem is with the site.

Wibbs · 30-11-2014 05:13PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To use a rather weird example myself and others have used before. Its been shown that women tend to be physically aroused by atypical sexual behavior (apes having sex and descriptions of rape), that doesn't imply a value judgment about acceptable behavior or the idea that all women have unusual fantasies, it simply means that a broad spectrum response is an evolutionary advantageous characteristic as it would reduce injury.

Or we actually don't know why this effect is seen. The injury theory, is just that, another theory, so until further research and evidence comes along we can't nail it down. For a start women who are raped are regularly injured and a couple of studies - here's one - have shown that even consensual sex can cause as many signs of injury as rape. So as an explanation the injury one doesn't look that great, or at least it's not a particularly good reduction mechanism.

TL;DR? We simply don't know enough yet.

masculinist · 30-11-2014 08:52PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, no it isn't. It's the worst source of any information, on both the feminist and mens rights side.
.

What makes boards any different apart from boards being more censored ?
If you have the ability to think and analyse then Youtube is very useful , particularly as a lot of the feminist nonsense originates on some feminists youtube channel.

Sand wrote: »

I don't use Twitter so most of the American culture war stuff passes me by, but its absolutely staggering that someone like Suey Park can be widely considered an influential figure in any political or media movement. She seems like a hypocritical, self centered fool. And a racist. And a sexist. These would seem like important disqualifications for a feminist. Yet she enjoys loud, if not wide, support from feminists. Her and the likes of Glenn Beck seem well matched for each other.

It would be easy to write it off as purely an ''American problem'' but thats not true. Feminism is an international global movement. Feminisn as a global movement mean international tranfers of funds happen to influence the political debate in foreign countries and even our own. Our President was waffling about feminism when he visited Africa a few weeks ago.
What happens in America first , eventually ends up being exported here. If you dont believe me , look here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846299/Bullying-husbands-shout-wives-guilty-domestic-abuse-new-crackdown.html

This is what we have to deal with . Draconian sexist anti-male laws against name calling even when they started calling you names first. Its unfair and contains hundreds of unforeseen problems when we already know that false rape claims happen. A sentence of up to 14 years for name calling. With all the legal resources at the disposal of women, you would think the law would stop infantilizing them, treating them like children and acknowledge they have responsibility to walk away and make their own decsions.

SeanW · 01-12-2014 01:01AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So his choice of what to wear is an expression of his right to free speech, but criticising his choice is not free speech, but a denial of his fundamental rights that can be equated to blowing people to bits?

The problem is not the individual who noticed the "problem" with the scientists shirt intially, but the indications of their impact on the health of society.

I've asked you repeatedly what would have happened had he been wearing a rainbow "PRIDE" shirt or a "Rasta rules" shirt and the complainers had been Westboro Baptist Church or Ku Klux Clan.

Would they have been able to generate such a #ShirtStorm?
Would they have been able to force the man into a grovelling tearful apology?

You have repeatedly failed to address this because you know that the answer would make feminism look very bad. To be clear, in the above hypotheticals, the above answers would likely be NO.

And this would be a healthy sign of a society that allows hatemongers to speak, but recognises them as hatemongers and utterly marginalises and disempowers them. Feminism is similar but has much more power.

So, in your "simplified" model, people can be called to account for the actions of others, and if they choose to say nothing, or if they wish to offer a nuanced reply, they are somehow wrong and deserving of opprobrium.

The kind of stuff that feminsim is achieving, like making sex between consenting adults a crime that mainly men are guilty of, or the #ShirtStorm, are the kind of things that there isn't really any room for equivocation about. Either you are on the side of freedom and egalitarianism, or you don't, likely because of feminism.

Perhaps you should give some thought to the idea that some women are reluctant to declare themselves feminists because of the intemperate position you and others take.

GOOD! People should be discouraged from associating themselves with hate groups.

I am white, but I do not "declare myself a Klansman," because I identify it as a hate group and I reject it utterly and without equivocation as a result, not blaming someone else for "intemperate positions." Why should people be temperate about hate groups?

P. Breathnach · 01-12-2014 01:38AM

SeanW wrote: »

... I've asked you repeatedly what would have happened had he been wearing a rainbow "PRIDE" shirt or a "Rasta rules" shirt and the complainers had been Westboro Baptist Church or Ku Klux Clan.

So once is "repeatedly"? Perhaps you should have figured that if I ignored it the first time, it was because I didn't want to chase that particular rabbit down into a hole in the ground.

...
GOOD! People should be discouraged from associating themselves with hate groups.

So all avowed feminists are members of hate groups? That's bollocks. As is your affirmation that it is good that some women are reluctant to declare themselves feminists because of the intemperate position taken by some of the opponents of feminism.

I don't mind if a woman (or man) has no interest in feminism, or if she (or he) disagrees with it. That's personal choice. But if she (or he) is scared off by the intemperate behaviour of others, that's bad.

SeanW · 01-12-2014 02:05PM

masculinist wrote: »

What happens in America first , eventually ends up being exported here. If you dont believe me , look here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846299/Bullying-husbands-shout-wives-guilty-domestic-abuse-new-crackdown.html

This is what we have to deal with . Draconian sexist anti-male laws against name calling even when they started calling you names first. Its unfair and contains hundreds of unforeseen problems when we already know that false rape claims happen. A sentence of up to 14 years for name calling.

I was speechless when I read that - it's very clearly a sex-biased law that is proposed - it's like only men are capable of being emotionally abusive, manipulative, controlling etc. And only ever women that are victims, WTF?

Yet it's this kind of thinking that dominates virtually every facet of life especially governance in the Western world.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So once is "repeatedly"? Perhaps you should have figured that if I ignored it the first time, it was because I didn't want to chase that particular rabbit down into a hole in the ground.

Or because you knew that it would make feminism look bad, not only like the hate group that it is, but unlike other hate groups, one that has substantial power.

So all avowed feminists are members of hate groups? That's bollocks.

Feminism has largely been about man-hatred since at least the days of Andrea Dworkin and probably further back.

We continue to see more and more evidence of this with each passing month, the completely sexist psychological abuse bill in the UK, the Swedish model on sex-work that is now coming to Ireland, the attempts by the gov't in Iceland to ban online porn, completely and disingenuously one-sided analyses of universal problems like education, spousal abuse etc. It never stops, and it never will until feminism, whether radical or otherwise, is appraised honestly throughout society.

As is your affirmation that it is good that some women are reluctant to declare themselves feminists because of the intemperate position taken by some of the opponents of feminism.

Or could it be that some women at least recognise feminism for what it is, and like white people with the KKK or straight people with the WBC, want no part of it.

masculinist · 01-12-2014 10:25PM

SeanW wrote: »

I was speechless when I read that - it's very clearly a sex-biased law that is proposed - it's like only men are capable of being emotionally abusive, manipulative, controlling etc. And only ever women that are victims, WTF?

Yet it's this kind of thinking that dominates virtually every facet of life especially governance in the Western world.

Or because you knew that it would make feminism look bad, not only like the hate group that it is, but unlike other hate groups, one that has substantial power.

Feminism has largely been about man-hatred since at least the days of Andrea Dworkin and probably further back.

We continue to see more and more evidence of this with each passing month, the completely sexist psychological abuse bill in the UK, the Swedish model on sex-work that is now coming to Ireland, the attempts by the gov't in Iceland to ban online porn, completely and disingenuously one-sided analyses of universal problems like education, spousal abuse etc. It never stops, and it never will until feminism, whether radical or otherwise, is appraised honestly throughout society.

Or could it be that some women at least recognise feminism for what it is, and like white people with the KKK or straight people with the WBC, want no part of it.

Consider those laws even making it illegal to raise your voice to your wife or female partner, even if she is shouting at you and contrast that with the lack of domestic violence shelters for men [thanks feminism for taking all the funding] at the same time. Put a woman on the streets and especially if she has a child [which she is automatically given custody and 'ownership' of] she will be housed or sheltered in 12 to 24 hours at worst. So as an adult she always has a choice to walk away and then deal with the situation legally from a distance. However men basically have to ''man up'' and take their punishment from abusive partners in homes they pay for, cant fight back and have nowhere to go except the streets as 90% of homeless people are male. Its disgusting. It's psychologically abusive and long term damaging. And the kids caught in the middle wont' get the best possible outcome - to be with the most responsible and caring parent.

hatrickpatrick · 02-12-2014 04:01PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So his choice of what to wear is an expression of his right to free speech, but criticising his choice is not free speech, but a denial of his fundamental rights that can be equated to blowing people to bits?

You're missing my point I feel. Feminists have every right to object to someone else's choice of free speech, but they do not have the right to claim that feminism is about equality, when it's about equality and social control at the same time.

In other words, if feminists tolerate censorship in the name of feminism, they are tacitly agreeing with the statement "censorship is a legitimate principle within feminism".

So, in your "simplified" model, people can be called to account for the actions of others, and if they choose to say nothing, or if they wish to offer a nuanced reply, they are somehow wrong and deserving of opprobrium.

Perhaps you should give some thought to the idea that some women are reluctant to declare themselves feminists because of the intemperate position you and others take.

Do you accept the feminist argument that the MRM should be criticized as a movement because those who are part of it don't attack Paul Elam's brain farts?

Earl Turner · 02-12-2014 06:16PM

masculinist wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846299/Bullying-husbands-shout-wives-guilty-domestic-abuse-new-crackdown.html

This is what we have to deal with . Draconian sexist anti-male laws against name calling even when they started calling you names first. Its unfair and contains hundreds of unforeseen problems when we already know that false rape claims happen. A sentence of up to 14 years for name calling. With all the legal resources at the disposal of women, you would think the law would stop infantilizing them, treating them like children and acknowledge they have responsibility to walk away and make their own decsions.

****in femanazis man. Something needs to be done about these people.

P. Breathnach · 02-12-2014 09:50PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're missing my point I feel. Feminists have every right to object to someone else's choice of free speech, but they do not have the right to claim that feminism is about equality, when it's about equality and social control at the same time.

In other words, if feminists tolerate censorship in the name of feminism, they are tacitly agreeing with the statement "censorship is a legitimate principle within feminism".

No, I am not missing your point. You cannot set yourself up as an advocate of free speech and then deny people the right to express their opinions. Most particularly, those who speak from a feminist point of view are not bound by your interpretation of what feminism is about. And that's without going back to the point that has been made many times that feminism is a movement that comprises a range of somewhat disparate viewpoints, so there is no "one-generalisation-fits-all" model of feminism.

Do you accept the feminist argument that the MRM should be criticized as a movement because those who are part of it don't attack Paul Elam's brain farts?

Frankly, I think most feminists aren't aware of Paul Elam. Similarly, I believe that most feminists do not follow Dworkin. In most mass movements, the majority of participants are moderate, and have little time for extremists.

The main function of loud-mouth extremists is to provide ammunition for those opposed to whatever the movement is. That is damaging to reasonable discussion.

masculinist · 03-12-2014 04:11AM

Earl Turner wrote: »

****in femanazis man. Something needs to be done about these people.

Feminists have taken advantage of their privilege given by chivalry and special snowflake treatment for decades. Either we hold women accountable in the same way for men or we ease up on men. Look at the double standards in this short clip.

steddyeddy · 03-12-2014 11:34AM

I think my best bet is aim for equal rights wherever there is a lack of equality present. Now I can completely relate to feminism when it's fighting for equal rights (the vote, pro-choice, eqaul pay and working conditions) but in the lack of a coherent set of goals I can't know what modern feminism is about.

I can only judge a movement by it's actions and in the western world I have seen feminism make fashion critiques on one of the scientists behind a comet landing, complain of unequal opportunity in the work place and the more extreme "men are bad" feminists.

Feminists in developing countries like Tanzania and Kenya are fighting for the right to education a vote and equal pay. Those are clear aims I can support but I cannot give blanket support to something as non uniform as feminism.

hatrickpatrick · 04-12-2014 05:35PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, I am not missing your point. You cannot set yourself up as an advocate of free speech and then deny people the right to express their opinions.

I'm not denying anyone the right to express their opinions, I am denying them the right to be hypocritical in their representation of them.

Most particularly, those who speak from a feminist point of view are not bound by your interpretation of what feminism is about. And that's without going back to the point that has been made many times that feminism is a movement that comprises a range of somewhat disparate viewpoints, so there is no "one-generalisation-fits-all" model of feminism.

In that case, if you accept that people who identify as feminist should not be bound by the idea that feminism is about gender equality and not political correctness, then you must also accept that it's legitimate to be pro-equality and anti feminist at the same time. Most feminists do not accept this, and regard "feminism" as synonymous with "pro gender equality".

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Frankly, I think most feminists aren't aware of Paul Elam. Similarly, I believe that most feminists do not follow Dworkin. In most mass movements, the majority of participants are moderate, and have little time for extremists.

I'd disagree that the pro-censorship lobby are "extremists" since they seem to have some degree of mainstream support. This is where we fundamentally differ, I feel. You seem to regard them are fringe extremists who shouldn't be taken seriously, I regard them as a fairly powerful lobby on account of their actually achieving degrees of censorship in various arenas.

The main function of loud-mouth extremists is to provide ammunition for those opposed to whatever the movement is. That is damaging to reasonable discussion.

So you think the pro-censorship lobby are in fact agent provocateurs who are deliberately blackening the name of feminism, as opposed to people who genuinely believe that speech should be restricted if some people find it objectionable?

P. Breathnach · 04-12-2014 06:16PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not denying anyone the right to express their opinions, I am denying them the right to be hypocritical in their representation of them...

And following that piece of nonsense, I have no more to say to you on the matter.

steddyeddy · 04-12-2014 08:29PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And following that piece of nonsense, I have no more to say to you on the matter.

Well what is feminism for you. I always bang on about disadvantaged communities on here but I have a clear idea of what reforms I'd like to see happen. Most of the self proclaimed feminists seem very good at saying what doesn't represent them but terrible at defining what does.

P. Breathnach · 04-12-2014 09:17PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well what is feminism for you. I always bang on about disadvantaged communities on here but I have a clear idea of what reforms I'd like to see happen. Most of the self proclaimed feminists seem very good at saying what doesn't represent them but terrible at defining what does.

And that is anti-feminism for you. I was in a side discussion about ideas of free speech and decided to disengage from it - and you contrive to draw a conclusion about feminists from that.

hatrickpatrick · 04-12-2014 11:00PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And following that piece of nonsense, I have no more to say to you on the matter.

Fairly typical feminist tactic if you don't mind my saying

Get outfoxed in a debate and run away from it.
I suspect this is why feminists are always going on about the concept of "safe space" (but of course only for women, men are "privileged" so we don't deserve one) - a place where they can be immune from reasonable debate.

hatrickpatrick · 04-12-2014 11:04PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And that is anti-feminism for you. I was in a side discussion about ideas of free speech and decided to disengage from it - and you contrive to draw a conclusion about feminists from that.

Because you're failing to address the central point. The word "feminism" is now inextricably linked with the concept of crackdowns against "offensive" speech, and so-called moderate feminists refuse to take any action against that, yet at the same time claim people like myself are wrong to assume that they are happy to be associated with it.

P. Breathnach · 04-12-2014 11:04PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fairly typical feminist tactic if you don't mind my saying Get outfoxed in a debate and run away from it.
I suspect this is why feminists are always going on about the concept of "safe space" (but of course only for women, men are "privileged" so we don't deserve one) - a place where they can be immune from reasonable debate.

I do very much mind your saying it, because it is simply untrue. I ceased discussing what you had to say because I am not prepared to waste time dealing with your fluid definition of free speech. That is not a feminist issue.

Declaring oneself the victor in any argument is a juvenile behaviour that I outgrew at about the age of 12.

hatrickpatrick · 04-12-2014 11:07PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I do very much mind your saying it, because it is simply untrue. I ceased discussing what you had to say because I am not prepared to waste time dealing with your fluid definition of free speech. That is not a feminist issue.

My definition of free speech is that everyone has the right to express anything they want to express. My only exception to this involves invasions of privacy and libel. It does not include offense. It has become a feminist issue because so many feminists tolerate the "this offends me, so it should be banned" ideology within their movement.

Declaring oneself the victor in any argument is a juvenile behaviour that I outgrew at about the age of 12.

I didn't actually declare myself the victor of any argument, but in my view if you walk away from a debate it's the same as walking away from a football match. It's known as forfeiting. Haven't you seen Dodgeball?

steddyeddy · 04-12-2014 11:24PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And that is anti-feminism for you. I was in a side discussion about ideas of free speech and decided to disengage from it - and you contrive to draw a conclusion about feminists from that.

Asking to define feminism is anti-feminist. Absolutely hysterical.

dark crystal · 04-12-2014 11:47PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And following that piece of nonsense, I have no more to say to you on the matter.

I think it's the most sensible option, tbh. You simply cannot debate an issue when one of the sides believes all feminists have one hive mind. There's no arguing against that mindset. It's an argument you'll never win.

I explained earlier in the thread how I personally view feminism and what it means to me, but then you get the "..But look at what this extreme feminist said on the internet...you must agree with her because you're part of her movement" type reply and it's like banging your head against the wall over and over again.

I'm not part of any movement. I'm an individual. When this concept just won't register, you have to politely remove yourself from the 'debate' for your own sanity!

Bipolar Joe · 05-12-2014 12:04AM

Jurassic World wrote: »

The fact that feminists rarely criticise other feminists opinions is more evidence to me that feminism is in effect a self serving trade union for women rather than a cause to achieve gender equality.

I think it's like a Garda criticising some Gardai procedure. You mightn't agree with it, but questioning it can make life difficult, and can maybe be a bitter pill (Probably not the most accurate way of wording that, but there you go).

Lyaiera · 05-12-2014 12:30AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fairly typical feminist tactic if you don't mind my saying Get outfoxed in a debate and run away from it.
I suspect this is why feminists are always going on about the concept of "safe space" (but of course only for women, men are "privileged" so we don't deserve one) - a place where they can be immune from reasonable debate.

Safe spaces more have to do with allowing a certain type of communication. Broadly, women and men speak differently when in different social settings: women amongst women, women and men, and men amongst men. Safe spaces are about allowing a certain form of communication (on average) between people. If you were to look at the men's right lobby it's why the many suicide services and things like Men's Sheds provide a broadly male only space, and why many women also like women's only spaces.

Historically men and women had traditional spaces where these forms of communication happened. Women amongst themselves in the care of family, and men at jobs, pubs and at clubs. It's interesting to note in modern socialisation that men typically had areas dedicated to solely respite activities: pubs, golf courses, at matches, while women's respite was normally seen as an extension of their social function: shopping, having their friends over while they were looking after the kids, etc. Agency is a good area to look into for this.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments