Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[May90]

It works based on the general consensus. In what way could that be obtained here? Don't insult yourself by playing dumb.

It doesn't work based on general consensus. You wish it did, because it would make your point relevant - only it doesn't. People use words to express themselves; since everyone can come up with any words, some kind of standardization is needed - and this standardization is provided by dictionaries. No dictionaries I've seen agree that "feminism" means what some folks on these forums think it means - so linguistic consensus is that feminism is not what you think it is. And only that consensus matters, since only it is able to make us able to communicate with each other successfully, regardless of our personal stories.

I don't understand what's so complicated in this. Why don't people on these forums have a problem, say, with definition of "milk"? Maybe because "milk" doesn't provide for many hateful topics they can participate in and make themselves feel better by blaming someone else for their problems?

[May90]

Milk is a disgusting liquid. Ergo, "milk" now means "disgusting liquid."

A torrent of milk poured forth from the sewage pipe.

Also, milk is produced by cows. Nasty cows! I think we found the source of all our problems!

[Jotaux]

Milk is a disgusting liquid. Ergo, "milk" now means "disgusting liquid."

A torrent of milk poured forth from the sewage pipe.

See you are confusing description with definition.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, milk is produced by cows. Nasty cows! I think we found the source of all our problems!

Incredibly off topic but I can see why you wouldn't like to continue making a fool of yourself.

[Jotaux]

I was actually lampooning your treatment of "feminism." It's interesting that you immediately recognize the problem as soon as I switch the word though.

Like I said you are confused, I've been quite plainly talking about the definition of feminism.

Feminism will do that to you.

[May90]

Incredibly off topic but I can see why you wouldn't like to continue making a fool of yourself.

So, instead of addressing my actual point, you decided to pick on a joke not even addressed to you with one more of your ad hominems? I think at this point you are supposed to walk away, before rotten tomatoes start flying in your direction.

[Jotaux]

So, instead of addressing my actual point, you decided to pick on a joke not even addressed to you with one more of your ad hominems? I think at this point you are supposed to walk away, before rotten tomatoes start flying in your direction.

Is that a threat? I will not abide being threatened.

[May90]

Is that a threat? I will not abide being threatened.

Oh, sowwy! *pats* I was just trying to protect you from harm!

[Jotaux]

And now we've switched back to "feminism" and you started derping again.

Weird.

It's like you don't understand language...

[Jotaux]

I do, which is why I know you keep mixing up your opinion of feminism with the definition of the word.

No, you are hopelessly confused.

[May90]

Here is an example. There is Democratic party in the US; its members are Democrats. Then, there is ideology of democracy, and its members are democrats. Not all democrats are Democrats and not all Democrats are democrats. Criticizing Democrats for the flaws of their party and members does not imply criticizing democrats and democracy. Criticizing certain Feminists (as members of self-proclaimed Feminist movements) does not imply criticizing feminists (as people who advocate for feminism).

What you, Jotaux, call "feminism" is actually called "Feminism", and there are countless various "Feminisms", not all of which are even based on "feminism".

[Tempguy]

Lol no, at both of you.

All I ask is for one simple thing. Frminists need to stop tearing down anything that is beneficial to men. That's all. Keep doing what you do, just do it without attacking men's issues.


It's interesting that such a simple request still draws the ire of some. I mean, I support gay rights. But I draw the line if the LGBT movement starts actively working against issues that straight people deal with. I support affirmative action and black lives , until you start demonizing white people. I support religion, until you start infringing on others rights to beleive what they choose.


I dislike the westboro church. It's a horrid organization. However, hating them for their horrid views does not mean I hate religion. If they stopped being dicks, I'd have no issue with them. Same with feminism. Just cause I do not agree with a lot of what it has become, does not mean I am against equality. You can be pro equality without being feminist. Just like you can beleive in God without being Christian.

Muslim
Catholic
Jewish
Etc

Feminism fors not own the patent on equality, just like Christianity does not hold the patent on godhood. The fact that some in this thread try to claim this as so, shows how misguided the movement has become. The fact that anyone not claiming to be a feminist is seen as ignorant or even sexist is a problem.

[May90]

All I ask is for one simple thing. Frminists need to stop tearing down anything that is beneficial to men. That's all. Keep doing what you do, just do it without attacking men's issues.

What do you mean "Frminists need to"? Feminists is not some kind of hive minded species that all act the same. What about those feminists that do not tear down anything that is beneficial to men? You say things like "feminists do not care about men" - it is the same as saying "blacks are criminals", it is a silly generalization with a wrong implication: that all people of a certain group act the same way.

I get it that you dislike the ways certain feminists act; I dislike them too. The difference is, I do not blame everyone for the words/actions of some. That's basically all there is to it.

[Tempguy]

1.Typo. On cell.

2. When prominent black people get on the world stage and support violence in the black community, and they have the support a huge following and are considered the voice of their people ,I will say that black people are becoming criminals.

The difference between your example and Frminism, is that even the ones who promote insane shit and organize these shitty demonstrations are embraced as feminists still. Just look on any feminist blog, site, book or gathering.

Mansplaining is a sexist term aimed at shutting down men.
( my college professor even used this term like it was nothing. )

Man spreading was an actual campaign and had laws changed to actually punish it.

Toxic masculinity is a real term used even now and is even found in media.

The GB crew pick is hailed despite being all female...

I could go on man. This shit is main stream. It's not even the crazy fringe stuff.

[May90]

1.Typo. On cell.

2. When prominent black people get on the world stage and support violence in the black community, and they have the support a huge following and are considered the voice of their people ,I will say that black people are becoming criminals.

The difference between your example and Frminism, is that even the ones who promote insane shit and organize these shitty demonstrations are embraced as feminists still. Just look on any feminist blog, site, book or gathering.

Mansplaining is a sexist term aimed at shutting down men.
( my college professor even used this term like it was nothing. )

Man spreading was an actual campaign and had laws changed to actually punish it.

Toxic masculinity is a real term used even now and is even found in media.

The GB crew pick is hailed despite being all female...

I could go on man. This shit is main stream. It's not even the crazy fringe stuff.

I don't know how mainstream it is, nor do I care, really. But if you think you can judge all people of a group by the actions of some, then, I guess, we don't have much to talk about. If at least one feminist in the world disapproves of the things you are mentioning, then your generalization is wrong; and you bet, there are such. There are such even on these very forums.

[oplawlz]

What do you mean "Frminists need to"? Feminists is not some kind of hive minded species that all act the same. What about those feminists that do not tear down anything that is beneficial to men? You say things like "feminists do not care about men" - it is the same as saying "blacks are criminals", it is a silly generalization with a wrong implication: that all people of a certain group act the same way.

I get it that you dislike the ways certain feminists act; I dislike them too. The difference is, I do not blame everyone for the words/actions of some. That's basically all there is to it.

I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation for rational members of any group to shout down the nutcases. To his point about westboro baptist, they've been wholly rejected by every denomination of christianity, thus their actions are not attributed to that group.

Meanwhile when countless nutters go on about how women are oppressed by video games there is no such rejection by rational-minded folks just looking for equal treatment. Those nutcases are given speaker slots at conventions, further legitimizing their views by the feminist movement as a whole. It may be unfair, but that's how these things work.

OT though, I agree with you for the most part OP. Equality should mean equality, treating everyone the same way regardless of sex color or creed. Unfortunately we're just not there as a species, so we have to work with what we've got, stamping out blatant discrimination where we find it.

[hrugner]

Well, that's why you don't just randomly label groups and think you've identified the problem, but try to find correlation and causation first. "We may end up being wrong" is not a reason to disregard the whole idea, don't you think?

It isn't so much that you "may end up being wrong" as that since you are assuming the significance of one demographic slice, you are likely to find significance in any patterns found there in. It's apophenia at that point, and certainly not the best way to solve problems.

[Tempguy]

The things you complained feminists don't recognize earlier are some of the consequences of toxic masculinity, which simply refers to the harmful elements of the male gender role. Now you're complaining that they talk about them and call them bad. Make up your mind.

My mind is made up. There is no toxic masculinity just like there is no toxic feminity. To label traits specific to a gender as being inherently bad is the definition of sexism.

[May90]

I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation for rational members of any group to shout down the nutcases. To his point about westboro baptist, they've been wholly rejected by every denomination of christianity, thus their actions are not attributed to that group.

Meanwhile when countless nutters go on about how women are oppressed by video games there is no such rejection by rational-minded folks just looking for equal treatment. Those nutcases are given speaker slots at conventions, further legitimizing their views by the feminist movement as a whole. It may be unfair, but that's how these things work.

People do not have the obligation to shout down crazies. Some decide to do that, others don't. People are different, and not everyone wants to waste their time on opposing nutcases: they have better things to do. If my neighbor tells me that Martians are planning an attack on Earth and the only way for us to save ourselves is to bow before Buddha - I won't spend time trying to shout him down: I will just walk away.

It isn't so much that you "may end up being wrong" as that since you are assuming the significance of one demographic slice, you are likely to find significance in any patterns found there in. It's apophenia at that point, and certainly not the best way to solve problems.

That depends on the method. If you are being objective, then you won't find the patterns that are not caused by the object of your study. If you are not, if you have a confirmation bias and it manifests in your research - then yes, you are right; but it doesn't have to be that way.

[Tempguy]

A combination of a strawman and gross oversimplification.

Yes. Cause Anita Sarkeesian is in no way a feminist and feminist fall over themselves to denounce her bullshit. That's why she got to speak at th UN. And being a man and spreading your legs in the New York subway is totally made up. Nope. Feminist have nothing to do with that.

You're right. I made it all up. These things don't exist and all Feminists love men

[Tempguy]

u r confusing gender with gender performance pal.

No one is talking to you. Move on pal.