Feminism

[Hurlshort]

I see your point TN.  I am not trying to dispute the idea that there is a real struggle within feminism on how to move forward, it is pretty clear that there are dramatically different schools of thought.  My concern lies with the response that I'm seeing towards feminism across the internet, but particularly here.  There is this burgeoning passive aggression about the patriarchy.  We are a community with very few women, yet the threads on sexism and feminism are hotbeds of opinions and conflicts.  It's really created a weird environment, one that did not exist a few years ago.  It is hard to define, and so I'll step away and shrug my shoulders for a bit. 

Edited February 16, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Fighter]

I just want to clarify:

 

Feminism is now a bad thing because of Tumblr and Anita Saarkesian.

 

 

Is this correct?

 

Well you look at that Janice Fiamengo video and at her opponents. That's not tumblr.

 

I've seen other videos where people with her opinions aren't even allowed to speak. Or when people are prevented from speaking at universities, even comedians, because they have the "wrong" opinions on gender issues. That's not tumblr. Students raised in that environment will go into the real world one day.

 

The shifting definitions of sexism where it is now not possible to be sexist against a man is not tumblr it's those same gender studies courses.

 

The sexual assault procedures at US universities that's got even Harward Law professors complaining about shoddy due process for men isn't tumblr.

 

A man who landed a spaceship on a comet being reduced to tears over a shirt (made by a woman no less) isn't just tumblr either. The outrage culture isn't just in some obscure blogs, it's in the mainstream.

 

Now most of those things are American. But given the moment in time and American influence that's coming to other places too.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Fighter

[Blarghagh]

Who is rolling over on it on the concept? Doesn't seem like people (here) are against the concept, that concept being equality, some idiotic exceptions aside. At most it's a terminology thing. Not to be associated with that vocal group (of high level prominents that can be argued to have enough pull to represent feminism), they'll be equalists or egalitarians or humanists or whatever. Sounds like a language change to me. I don't mourn the loss of someone identifying as a feminist if they identify as something else that means the same bloody thing without the annoying bagagge. What matters is what people do, not what word they rationalize fits it best.

 

EDIT: FYI, Hurl adjusted the post that I was responding to so... this may make no more sense.

[Longknife]

It seems odd that we are giving a small but vocal group the power to change such a historical and groundbreaking concept.  Why are you guys so quick to roll over on this?

 

Christina Sommers uses the term Equity Feminist to distinguish her brand.  She still identifies as a feminist.

 

 

You are blatantly taking things out of context here.

 

No one is saying this changes history. No one is saying Susan B. Anthony was a tumblroni who ran around telling cis men to check their privilege, she was a woman who recognized her natural born rights and rightly fought for them. No one is saying Malala is not an absolutely inspirational human being and - for my money - the Martin Luther King of our day and age.

 

  All we are saying is that the true feminists are needlessly fighting a losing battle. And for what?

 

 

A word.

 

A title.

 

 

Why? Why do you insist on defending this word? Why not grab a new one? Yes I'm aware they have different divisions of feminism, but this is meaningless because every single one of those feminists wants to lay claim to the vanilla term "feminist" when put on national TV in front of a camera. Why do seemingly educated women like Emma Watson insist on holding the title "feminist" and thereby being lumped into the same group as the loons, rather than adopting a new word to distance themselves from the loons? If the answer is "why should she change her title, make the loons do it," then that is the logic of a child, and pro-tip: the loons themselves are children and will never ever ever abandon the word feminism.

 

 

I realize there's a level of ridiculousness with statements like "why not call yourselves equalists" or the like because a change in title doesn't simply happen overnight, but at the same time, yes, we have hit a point where that vocal minority is driving the perception of the word. You do not blame the world for associating the word with the vocal minority, that's not how it works. The word simply becomes polluted, and it seems as though we live in a day and age where that ship is setting sail and - whether you like it or not - the word is developing a negative connotation. This means nothing to historians who write our history books or for the generation of 2255 who will read about feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Malala, but for you and me, yes, this means worlds.

 

Again, I reiterate: why fight for a word? Words change meanings. This is how the world works. A hundred years ago if I called you a son of a b****, that might warrant a physical fight between you and I. Nowadays it can be anything from a sarcastic quip to a minor insult. Fifty years ago, the variant of the N-word now heard constantly in rap music would not be nearly as accepted and neutrally-received as it is now. Times change, so do words. There is no meaning, purpose or motivation to insist on a definition for a word, NOR is there any purpose in you sitting there and hoping that the entirety of the world adopt your meaning and your perception of the word. There's no way you can accomplish that, nor do you have any objective superiority with which to claim your connotation of the word is "better."

 

 

I will keep asking "why." It's yet to be answered, despite how often I've brought this issue up. What purpose is there in Emma Watson fighting for a change of the word rather than adopting a new one? What purpose is there in you lamenting that it doesn't mean the same thing it meant a hundred years ago? It's a word. Stop caring about words, care about people. Care about teaching what a great person Susan B. Anthony was to your daughter, don't care about ingraining certain connotations for words into her mind where any deviance or change of the word is unacceptable.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Longknife

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I think I'll just repeat my statement about things getting weird here.  You guys win, I've been shouted down.  I'll shamble off now.  

[Fighter]

Wasn't my intention. Internet and all that.

[Blarghagh]

I see your point TN.  I am not trying to dispute the idea that there is a real struggle within feminism on how to move forward, it is pretty clear that there are dramatically different schools of thought.  My concern lies with the response that I'm seeing towards feminism across the internet, but particularly here.  There is this burgeoning passive aggression about the patriarchy.  We are a community with very few women, yet the threads on sexism and feminism are hotbeds of opinions and conflicts.  It's really created a weird environment, one that did not exist a few years ago.  It is hard to define, and so I'll step away and shrug my shoulders for a bit. 

 

I do agree with this. The sad thing is that the current culture surrounding it and the terminology it uses is probably keeping some women away thinking these guys are all hardcore MRAs rather than disillusioned with feminism as a movement due to radicals and media treatment. Almost every single one of these guys has posted "I support real equality, I'm an egalitarian" or somesuch so really, by the definition we wish people still saw feminism as, most of them would be feminists. But definitions and perceptions change and differ from person to person. Whaddya gonna do, it's a hot button issue right now. Eventually it'll blow over, but right now you only have to mention the word feminist and people start foaming at the mouth. I just don't think going around saying things like "you're on the wrong side of history" is helping much either, tbh. It's more complicated than just being a winning side and a losing side.

 

As for the threads about it, well, I had hoped to keep it somewhat contained to the sexism/journalism thread these days but... here's this thread.

[Oerwinde]

Its amazing how similar these arguments are to the ones around Gamergate.

[LadyCrimson]

I don't like labels and didn't call myself a feminist even back in the late 70's/80's. Even then for many it tended to bring forth images of, say, "hippies" in shirts with printed slogans on their chests and that is not who I am at all, so I've never liked the term.

 

I am for equality in legal, political and social rights, whether gender or race or other based, but this does not translate into what is often popularly viewed/depicted in media/seen as "feminism." It's not about a single gender, it's about a general concept of principle, like "morality."

[Longknife]

Who was shouting wtf?

[Blarghagh]

Its amazing how similar these arguments are to the ones around Gamergate.

 

I know, right? If I had a quarter for every time in those threads I pointed out the humor of a bunch gamers generalizing all feminists over a bunch of feminists generalizing all gamers I'd have... well, probably a buck fifty or so... this is my most anticlimatic post ever.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't really have much to add to the discussion, but what the hell.

 

A problem with feminism in the electronic era is the rise of bombastic bloggers like anyone at Jezebel, Jessica Valenti, or Amanda Marcotte. Another problem could be that as legal equality has pretty much been accomplished in the first world, some feminists are focusing on rather mild things or broaching censorship territory(see anti-porn feminists). Then you have the fact that women outside the western world, particularly Islamic states, have it terribly yet there seems to be very little focus on that from first-world feminists. We could spend quite a bit of time dissecting and discussing why modern feminism is viewed negatively, but I'd rather focus on the fact that it is viewed negatively.

 

Modern feminism is viewed by a sizable portion of people as being anti-male and advocating for special privileges for women rather than equality. In 'Murica most people agree with the notion of equality but only %20 consider themselves feminists. You can make the "no true feminist" argument until you're blue in the face, but it does not change the perception the general public holds.

 

I support legal equality for everyone(ie equal treatment under the law), and I think any reasonable person should. I agree that depictions of women in media could use substantial improvement(ironically, I find most self-described feminist male writers are the worst at writing women cough*whedon*cough). I am not a bigot, an I do not like being labeled a misogynist because I think "strong female character" is a lazy cop out to creating more interesting female characters in fiction or that diversity quotas are misguided and ineffective.

 

Yet I have found myself and my friends attacked several turns by self-described feminists. I was shouted down for stating my opinion that class and wealth were bigger indicators of privilege than gender or race at my university. While attending a gig with my girlfriend, I was screeched at by someone for treating my girlfriend like an object(I opened the door for her, got her a drink, and gave her my jacket) and my girlfriend was subjected to accusations of internalizing misogyny and racism(I'm white, she isn't). I have been equated with the KKK and ISIS for having a problem with certain online publications and sending e-mails to Gawker advertisers. A friend of mine was sent threats because she expressed an opposition to the "guilty until proven innocent" standards in UK rape cases.

 

If this is the feminist method of achieving equality, then I want no part of it.

 

Sorry for the wall of text guys.

[Blarghagh]

I agree that depictions of women in media could use substantial improvement(ironically, I find most self-described feminist male writers are the worst at writing women cough*whedon*cough).

 

I wouldn't say he's "the worst", but a lot of his work does show some deepseated issues. I'm not sure how he became a feminist icon or why people credit him with writing "strong women". If there's a scene in Firefly with Mal and a female character in which he is not asserting his dominance over them, I have yet to find it. The ultimate alpha.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I agree that depictions of women in media could use substantial improvement(ironically, I find most self-described feminist male writers are the worst at writing women cough*whedon*cough).

 

I wouldn't say he's "the worst", but a lot of his work does show some deepseated issues. I'm not sure how he became a feminist icon or why people credit him with writing "strong women". If there's a scene in Firefly with Mal and a female character in which he is not asserting his dominance over them, I have yet to find it. The ultimate alpha.

 

He's respected because he kissed the ring. Most of his female characters are Buffy with different names, ditzy attractive white women who beat up lots of men with kung-fu. I find it a bit insulting to women to be honest.

[Barothmuk]

No one is saying Malala is not an absolutely inspirational human being and - for my money - the Martin Luther King of our day and age.

A powerful and inspirational figure whose message (in the case of Malala the condemnation of U.S. imperialism, condemnation of U.S. drone strikes as well as her support of socialism) will be distorted and co-opted by those in power and bastardised by reactionaries seeking to silence dissent amongst the oppressed?

 

I can see that.

 

EDIT: Whedon sucks.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Volourn]

"Feminism is now a bad thing because of Tumblr and Anita Saarkesian."\

 

No. Feminism is bad because, BY ITS VERY NATURE, it is sexist.

 

The very word implies that feminism = good and masculinity = bad thehrefore it is  sexist and by its existence is anti male.

 

That's why equalist/equalism is VASTLY superior.  It's about equality and showing EVERYONE respect which feminism is NOT about. feminism is about hating men and disrespecting women.

[Barothmuk]

[BruceVC]

As most people know I firmly believe in Feminism\Gender equality

 

But I have come to realize that for certain audiences that word feminism has negative connotations to it so I tell people I believe in gender equality. And its not just on these forums where the word feminism immediately causes venting and outrage  by some. I find in RL its better to tell people you support gender equality. I get a more constructive debate if I just don't say "feminism "

 

 

Is this wrong that the meaning of a word has been hijacked to mean something negative. Yes it is but I am more concerned with a discussion over the issues than debating semantics 

 

And since I fairly regularly debate these types of SJ issues on forums and RL I prefer using the word gender equality, I'm in the trenches and I like  to use the most effective tools to achieve my goals in debates

[Sarex]

Fighter is right at any rate. If you compare men and women who train similarly, the men will generally be able to lift more weight, as testosterone encourages muscle growth and males have about 7-8 times more than females on average.

 

 

That was the same argument I made, but yeah you can imagine the arguments I had to go through.

[Valsuelm]

The King of modern feminism has arrived!

 

 

Well.. perhaps he's just a Duke, as his realm (so far as I know anyways) goes no further than the boundaries of this forum. On second thought:

 

 

All hail the Obsidian King Bruce! Lord of the locale feminists!

 

 

Or should we call him Queen? Cause King is a male, and those are bad according to feminists. Hmmmm.... maybe a gender neutral title. Here we go:

 

 

A great round of applause for the arrival of General Secretary BruceVC, leader of the Obsidian Feminist Party. Gardener of Human Happiness. Brilliant Genius of Humanity!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, for cereal:

 

I'd been thinking it's been awhile since Bruce had started some thread about the injustices women suffer and how feminism is a good thing. I was actually beginning to wonder if the SJWs and mangina folks around here had come to see the light. Alas, I guess not.

Do you live in a box Hurl? Seriously. That feminism has become a reviled thing by many is news to you? It's been a reviled thing by many and deservedly so at least as far back as when I was a kid (probably further). Limbaugh coined the term 'feminazi' over two decades ago, which became part of contemporary lexicon. While I'm no fan of Limbaugh, his criticisms of those he was referring to as 'feminazis' were very valid then (so no one is confused: Limbaugh is for equal rights under the law (as are the vast majority out there in the western world who are not fans of feminists), and he was far from the only person making those criticisms or observations. The feminist movement got poisoned a long long time ago. Organizations like NOW (which was the premier (maybe still is) feminist organization in the U.S. (as touted by the mainstream media) throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s), has been sailing on the Sea of Misandry since pretty much it's very inception.

 

Equal rights for all is what it should be about. The word 'feminism' is sexist itself, even without the deserved negative connotations it's earned by the acts and words of many of it's loudest supporters. Most people in the western world are and have been for at least the better part of a century for equal rights. The good battle was fought and won in the west before most if not all of the people here were born. What's been going on in the name of 'feminism' since has largely been a disgrace.

 

In a way Hurl looks at feminism in the way some look at the Confederate Flag. For some that flag is a great standard of liberty, freedom, rebellion, and other good things. They don't see the evils that others (who tend to not know their history) associate with the flag, or they dismiss them as that's not what the flag was originally about. And like Feminism, the meaning of the Confederate Flag was poisoned in the minds of many through the evil deeds of some who flew that flag. Is it unfortunate that Feminism and the Confederate Flag nowadays are something that they were never originally meant to be (at least in the minds of many good people who support(ed) them)? Sure thing. But it is what it is. Adapt and move on. Remember the history, but don't wrap yourself up in it's battle standards (be they a flag or a word) when others spouting evil are doing the same.

 

The moral of the story: Be for equal rights. Don't be a feminist.

 

Oh, and hey... enjoy the fact that you live in a nation (pretty sure most if not all here do) where those equal rights exist.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Barothmuk]

And like Feminism, the meaning of the Confederate Flag was poisoned in the minds of many through the evil deeds of some who flew that flag. Is it unfortunate that Feminism and the Confederate Flag nowadays are something that they were never originally meant to be (at least in the minds of many good people who support(ed) them)?

Ignoring the colossal dumb****ery of comparing the confederate flag to feminism (or saying that the Confederate flag ever represented something positive); you do realise the achievements the feminists made in the past weren't all they wanted. The feminists at the forefront of the movements of the 60's and 70's were Radical Feminists and had greater ambitions than just the pill and an end to kitchen slavery and the feminists of the first-wave had greater ambitions than just "the right to vote". **** feminists have been fighting to abolish prostitution since the first-wave.

 

Your "the women of the past had the right idea, now they're just whining" is a complete rehash of the same bull**** that's been regurgitated over and over.

 

Look here's some man-hating from near a hundred years ago:

 

Edited February 16, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Rostere]

I would be very interested in discussing this, but to be honest, the debate has become completely idiotic lately. Lots of quoting a few "feminists", lots of male entitlement and confirmation bias. I don't care what you call feminism (if you want to call it "egalitarianism" or something) - frankly both sides should give each other the benefit of doubt there. English people typically say "decade" and not "decennium", but I'm not about to start a war over that. Likewise, you should allow people to call themselves "feminists", "egalitarianists", or whatever. It doesn't matter, it's just semantics.

 

There are a lot of people who get very angry over the quips of some deranged self-professed feminists. Maybe you should ask yourselves why you care so much. There are a lot of people saying questionable stuff which frankly matters a lot more, but inexplicably a "feminist" can make a blog post about "all heterosexual intercourse is rape" and then half the world's entitled males start hacking away threats on their little keyboards (further proving the need for feminism...). This entire question of "crazy feminists" has been hugely overblown. Just ignore them and save yourselves time and the risk of making yourself look stupid.

 

The feminism debate is one of the few things which really makes me lose faith in humanity. When the world is on the brink of ruin, people will not be discussing the global economy, climate change or international relations. People will be discussing what some feminist blogger said, Phil Fish quitting the game industry for the nth time, and Kim Kardashian's personal life. Radical feminism is one of those non-questions which yet manages to generate huge amounts of interest.

[Volourn]

"half the world's entitled males hacking away threats on their little keyboards (further proving the need for feminism...)."

 

L0LZ

[Meshugger]

I would be very interested in discussing this, but to be honest, the debate has become completely idiotic lately. Lots of quoting a few "feminists", lots of male entitlement and confirmation bias. I don't care what you call feminism (if you want to call it "egalitarianism" or something) - frankly both sides should give each other the benefit of doubt there. English people typically say "decade" and not "decennium", but I'm not about to start a war over that. Likewise, you should allow people to call themselves "feminists", "egalitarianists", or whatever. It doesn't matter, it's just semantics.

 

There are a lot of people who get very angry over the quips of some deranged self-professed feminists. Maybe you should ask yourselves why you care so much. There are a lot of people saying questionable stuff which frankly matters a lot more, but inexplicably a "feminist" can make a blog post about "all heterosexual intercourse is rape" and then half the world's entitled males start hacking away threats on their little keyboards (further proving the need for feminism...). This entire question of "crazy feminists" has been hugely overblown. Just ignore them and save yourselves time and the risk of making yourself look stupid.

 

The feminism debate is one of the few things which really makes me lose faith in humanity. When the world is on the brink of ruin, people will not be discussing the global economy, climate change or international relations. People will be discussing what some feminist blogger said, Phil Fish quitting the game industry for the nth time, and Kim Kardashian's personal life. Radical feminism is one of those non-questions which yet manages to generate huge amounts of interest.

 

I've agreed with the bolded a few years ago. But as the GG-controversy has shown, the crazies, the evil and the tyrannical ones simply do not dissappear if you ignore them. They have to be exposed, mocked and laughed at continously, all while trying to expose the real corruption that lies underneath.

 

As for the response to the text formatted in red, and without pointing out that logical fallacy of bringing in bigger problems in a discussion, i can tell from personal experience it is of several reasons: People do not feel that they have any influence on 'big' questions that the statemen ultimately decide. Why? That i cannot point out just yet, but i think it is a combination of cynicism, lack social cohesion for larger groups to form due to the individualist mantra that is celebrated via not only the social media, but from regular media as well. Also, there is the growth of beaurocracy that makes it a structural problem since much of the decision making is a complicated process that ultimately ends up with critical decisions being decided by groups of people that are not accountable to the constituency. There is also the big difficulty with what constitutes as a society to begin with when people are getting mixed signals of what the purpose of the nation state really is? Nationalism is hamped down, but at the same time people are encouraged to take part in the decision making for the state as long as it is within the narrow definition of what is politically acceptable.

 

Finally there is the part of virtue and sense of purpose. What virtues are expected by society to uphold as its dearest? It has been since forever established that people can kill anyone for no reason whatsoever, but there is little discussion on what ideals people are ready to die for. Is is family? The nature and the lands around you? For liberty? For your faith? When there's enough people without any sense of destiny and purpose in society where the basic needs for survival are catered, then of what interest is there for them to make a better society if they feel that they have no purpose to do so?

 

Just my 2 cents though.

[Fionavar]

I find it most interesting that most of the ... opinions shared here come from an apparent male perspective and that - in turn - a general counter-narrative (in respect to those who either choose solidarity in this regard (i.e. those who identify as male) or those who advocate as a feminist) seems generally absent. I have no doubt that many in the sandbox will infer as to my intent, but as it seems a time-out is in order, perhaps a momentary question for reflection would be helpful: when those who speak loudest are unaware that they silence, can those who have been silenced be heard?

 

PS: If you like to debate my choice to clean the sandbox with a time-out, please do feel free to PM me ... it sure does get lonely on the Roost ...