Feminism

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

I'll just speak my mind. There are feminists; those in favor of equal rights between each gender. One of which I consider myself to be. 

 

Then there are the man haters. Those who just hate men unconditionally. That's not feminism. It's misandry.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Then there are the man haters. Those who just hate men unconditionally. That's not feminism. It's misogyny.

 

psst, hey, that's not misogyny, it's misandry.  I got your back, dude.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

 

Then there are the man haters. Those who just hate men unconditionally. That's not feminism. It's misogyny.

 

psst, hey, that's not misogyny, it's misandry.  I got your back, dude.

 

 

Eh. Pfft. It's one gender hating on another.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Enough, already.

 

This thread has not achieved what it was intended to do, but has degenerated into rather specious arguments about morals.

 

Feminism, IMHO, is just another squeaky wheel that doesn't deserve to be greased.

[cmdp123789 710]

But that is exactly what is wrong, because the way we are raised, women and men have different roles in society.. Imagine a valentines day in which the women should go out and get us flowers and chocolates, or imagine if going out to a restaurant, and you expect the women to pay for you.. And so on...

Putting aside the physical attributions, we are all raised in a way in which men have certain things to do that are part of our culture, that feminism goes against of.

If women and men are equal (which I believe they are) has nothing to do with the way we are raised into.

Second, that part where they say women earn less money than men.. Well yeah, I've seen some statistics and that may be true, yet, have a look at developed countries statistics and look for the number of people with an undergraduate degree , or a graduate one... See things don't just happen, there are parallel things to look for, and if you ask women, not everyone is interested in feminism, because they don't believe that this inequality exists in such an exaggerated way... I don't see my mom complaining... In fact, I see my mom making sure my sister gets to college.. And that's the way feminism is shown, by having the same standards for both in important aspects of life, such us education, health.. If they are pay less or more, that has nothing to do (in most of the cases) by the only fact that they are women... I don't see Angela Merkel complaining.. And I don't see Chilean president.. Or Argentinian one... Or Michelle Obama...

[Fantozzi 4,067]

In my language "feminism" and "womans right fighters (womans movement?)" mean different things.

 

Feminism is a social theory about genders, strongly influenced by the french philosopher Michel Foucault. Womans right fighters are people who wants to have equal rights between genders, for example the same payment for the same work.

 

Womans Right Fighters/womans movement (?) started in the middle of the 19th century (1848, declaration of sentiments -> womans right for voting in the United States of America) influenced by the french revolution.

 

Feminism raised much later, about 1960 or 1970.

 

So just for historic reasons womans right fighter don't need a foundation in femnism. For example "womans right" can mean that there are special laws to protect pregnant women from to much heavy work. A feminist might argue that such laws exists only for economic reasons, for public interest not for the wealth of women.

 

feminism (in my language) and womans rights fighters can have quite contrary opinions.

 

Is this different in english?

 

 

Edit:

 

An example

 

In my homecountry till 1958 women weren't allowed to make a driving licences if they hadn't a written permission from their husbands

-> womans rights.

 

Women play with dolls, boys play with guns

-> feminism.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Some food for thought...

 

 

I also recommend everyone interested in this topic, whether they agree or disagree with Sommers, read Who Stole Feminism. The link is to the full book in PDF format.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Women's rights being separate is becoming a myth.  The so-called "glass ceiling" doesn't seem to exist or has become very permeable.  If a qualified person seeks a position in the world, the only thing that stops them is lack of determination.

 

Now there are some people who believe that women as the child-bearers should be at home raising the kids.  This can be true and less than true.  My wife took seven years off full-time work as a programmer/analyst to raise our two kids, but continued to do contract work during this period.  Once the kids were in school, she found a job that let her work pretty much full time and still be available for the kids after school.  This all occurred in the 1970s and 1980s.  A number of our neighbours did the same, and one of them determined that, since the wife earned more than the husband at full time work, he was the one to stay home and raise the kids.  This model worked fine.

 

If the model described in the last paragraph works, why are there so many complaining that it doesn't?  Single parents?  Well, folks, it was often your choice, and if you didn't think of the consequences, you now have reason to think of them now.

[bitsaul 9]

Feminism is unnecessary today.  It was a bold and progressive movement in decades past with plenty of positive results, but I think it should now be abandoned for two reasons:

 

1. It is divisive.  It's a label that separates from group of people from another.  As I understand it, feminism was/is a movement to bring equality among the two genders.  Now we have more than 2 genders and a whole spectrum of gender identities.  If feminism is to stay true to its creed of equality for all people then it would have to incorporate these people (can a male be a feminist? what about a person with both sex organs? what about a person with no sex organs? what about a person with male organs who gender identifies as a woman... can he/she be feminist?).  Additionally, when trying to bond people together the word feminist is as corrosive as the word chauvinist.  There is no need to separate people with labels if we are trying to unite the species in commonality.

 

2. The term feminist has been irreversibly highjacked by venomous organizations and people that do not represent the core feminist ideal.  We will never be able to wrestle back the reigns of a progressive and non-violent feminist movement from people like Anita Sarkeesian, Melody Hensley, etc.   A few bad apples have unfortunately spoiled the whole bunch for the current generation and there is no way to make up for that first bad impression.  Today's kids mostly see feminism in the same light they see racism.  Trying to untangle that mess and then reeducate them on the true purpose of feminism is not practical nor is it desired for reasons listed in my first point.  No need to try and save this sinking ship when we can just move forward as human beings.

 

I think the #gamergate is appropriate to mention here as well.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

If the model described in the last paragraph works, why are there so many complaining that it doesn't?  Single parents?  Well, folks, it was often your choice, and if you didn't think of the consequences, you now have reason to think of them now.

 

The thing is it doesn't always work everywhere. there are countries, regions and families where different genders are treated with different amounts of respect. I think at some places, feminism will always be needed.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Enough, already.

 

This thread has not achieved what it was intended to do, but has degenerated into rather specious arguments about morals.

 

Well then what was it intended to do? I don't see an end to this subject any time soon. There's not really any way to dive further into this subject without talking about those "moral" arguments.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

If the model described in the last paragraph works, why are there so many complaining that it doesn't?  Single parents?  Well, folks, it was often your choice, and if you didn't think of the consequences, you now have reason to think of them now.

 

The thing is it doesn't always work everywhere. there are countries, regions and families where different genders are treated with different amounts of respect. I think at some places, feminism will always be needed.

 

One of the things we can never do, and must not even attempt, is to impose a system of behaviours on others from without.  Look at the horrible mess that various missionaries have made across the world.  Any such movement has to come from within the society because the idea's time has come for that particular group. 

 

Ideas don't always arrive everywhere simultaneously, although with our present communication systems, there is getting to be a considerable levelling of the playing fields.

 

If one digs back far enough into history (about 6000 years), the cult of the Mother and a full matriarchal society can be found.  This survived, often in secret, right up to the Roman Republic.  However, it was well on the way to being suppressed by then.  Maybe things like this run in cycles.

[LexusInfernus 908]

But that is exactly what is wrong, because the way we are raised, women and men have different roles in society.. Imagine a valentines day in which the women should go out and get us flowers and chocolates, or imagine if going out to a restaurant, and you expect the women to pay for you.. And so on...

Putting aside the physical attributions, we are all raised in a way in which men have certain things to do that are part of our culture, that feminism goes against of.

If women and men are equal (which I believe they are) has nothing to do with the way we are raised into.

Ask yourself the question, WHY are people raised to fulfill certain roles? What use do those roles serve in todays world? Why should we keep them around? So why is that men have to buy flowers on valentines day or pay for the restaurant bill. Why is it that women have to cook and clean the house? Are women somehow inherently better at cooking and cleaning? Well no, they are not. Are men by definition rich enough to pay for the restaurant bill or are they better at picking flowers on valentines day? No they are not. Those roles are arbitrarily defined by society, there is no rational basis for them to exist and there is no rational basis to say its a good thing to have those rules around. So, if the women is rich and the guy is not, why can't the girl pay for dinner? And if the guy loves cooking and is good at it, why shouldn't he do the cooking? 

 

And equality does not exist if people do not get a choice about what role they want to fulfill in society. If we raise people to play a certain role, we deny them the choice, we deny them freedom and we deny them equality. We tell them that they *must* fulfill a certain role simply because they were born with a certain chromosome, not because its something they want or something they choose. And even worse, the roles we give people are very clearly not equal. Not equal in terms of intellect, of importance or of impact. 

 

Some food for thought...

 

 

I also recommend everyone interested in this topic, whether they agree or disagree with Sommers, read Who Stole Feminism. The link is to the full book in PDF format.

The source of that video is junk. Shes from the most prominent conservative think tank in America. A group that is ideologically opposed to anything and anyone challenging the status quo is automatically gonna say that feminism is terrible for whatever reason. 

 

Ironically, she says that women in the US are some of the most liberated women in the world. That is true, but not thanks to her or the people shes working for. It are only conservatives that are behind the push for legislation against abortion and reproductive rights in general. Honestly, her employers are one of the most important reasons why Feminism is still around and desperately needed. 

 

And authors like Sommers are the number one reason why so many men think Feminism is just about hating males. They are representing the patriarchy at its most insidious form. A classic tactic, trying to turn around who is your friend and who is your foe. Ironic though how her book's subtitle is 'how women have betrayed women' with her being a women and all. 

 

1. It is divisive.  It's a label that separates from group of people from another.  As I understand it, feminism was/is a movement to bring equality among the two genders.  Now we have more than 2 genders and a whole spectrum of gender identities.  If feminism is to stay true to its creed of equality for all people then it would have to incorporate these people (can a male be a feminist? what about a person with both sex organs? what about a person with no sex organs? what about a person with male organs who gender identifies as a woman... can he/she be feminist?).  Additionally, when trying to bond people together the word feminist is as corrosive as the word chauvinist.  There is no need to separate people with labels if we are trying to unite the species in commonality.

No its not. Just because gender is now considered to be more of a spectrum doesn't mean that feminism needs to go. It can easily include people who have different notions of gender than most of us (yes all those people you described can be feminists if they want to). As for whether you like the word or not, others have made that argument before. The simple fact is still though that the male-female cleavage is one of the most prominent cleavages that still exists and persists and that for the most part women still get left behind more than males. Its much more an uphill struggle for women than it is for men. So the term Feminism applies just fine. Changing the name just to please the male demographic because they are uncomfortable with a movement thats calling out the traditional male privilege...well you can maybe see the irony in that, and how self defeating it would be for the movement. 

 

 

2. The term feminist has been irreversibly highjacked by venomous organizations and people that do not represent the core feminist ideal.  We will never be able to wrestle back the reigns of a progressive and non-violent feminist movement from people like Anita Sarkeesian, Melody Hensley, etc.   A few bad apples have unfortunately spoiled the whole bunch for the current generation and there is no way to make up for that first bad impression.  Today's kids mostly see feminism in the same light they see racism.  Trying to untangle that mess and then reeducate them on the true purpose of feminism is not practical nor is it desired for reasons listed in my first point.  No need to try and save this sinking ship when we can just move forward as human beings.

 

I think the #gamergate is appropriate to mention here as well.

 

Implying that Anita Sarkeesian is a violent radical when all she has ever done is create a youtube series about how women are portrayed in the media. Or a women that claims on twitter to have PTSD from online abuse. Really? Those are the venomous people? They give feminism a bad name? 

 

Look, as a feminist I do not agree with everything Anita Sarkeesian says or claims. There are definitely valid criticisms that can be made against her arguments. But who's making those valid criticisms? The people that hate her have completely and utterly justified EVERYTHING she has said by not engaging her arguments but by sending her a stream of rape and death threats. They have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that she has a point about how women are treated by our society if we can't even engage them in an intellectual debate, thereby demonstrating the need for feminism. If people had acted in a sane and rational matter and argued the pro's and cons of the arguments she made like people with common sense, we would have forgotten she even existed by now and she would have never even made international headlines. 

 

So do we need to wrestle back Feminism from people like Sarkeesian? No we don't because people like Sarkeesian are not the problem. It are the people that go ape over people like Sarkeesian that are the problem, but they are not feminists and we don't need to wrestle Feminism away from them. 

[iLoveMusic 66]

So everybody agrees with my views on prostitution? Great then!  My work is done here!

[LexusInfernus 908]

So everybody agrees with my views on prostitution? Great then!  My work is done here!

Well, I do agree with you that prostitution should perhaps be legal. But still, legalizing it will not magically solve all the problems that come with prostitution when its illegal. Take it from someone who lives in a country where its legal that its an area that will always be problematic at best. So be careful not to think that just because you legalized prostitution all the problems are gone. 

[KonstantinII 1,106]

No to feminism, just no. It doesn't work in an advanced civilization. It is just one of the problems (along with crime, poverty...) that are the cause of our flawed society. You can remove all the porn houses with force.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

But that is exactly what is wrong, because the way we are raised, women and men have different roles in society.. Imagine a valentines day in which the women should go out and get us flowers and chocolates, or imagine if going out to a restaurant, and you expect the women to pay for you.. And so on...

 

In Japan on Valentine's Day, women go out and buy (or make) chocolates and cards and give them to the men.  There are two levels, one is the real level where the girls want to give the guys chocolate, and the other is giri-choco, where they are obligated to give a guy (or guys) chocolate, like their bosses or their teachers or something.  I get mad amounts of chocolate because the girls, they like me.  Or at least they're obligated to.  Anyways, they balance it out in March by declaring the 14th to be White Day, and the guys return chocolates and crap to the girls who gave it to them, because chocolate-making companies gotta make money somehow.

[Duke87 1,070]

But that is exactly what is wrong, because the way we are raised, women and men have different roles in society.. Imagine a valentines day in which the women should go out and get us flowers and chocolates, or imagine if going out to a restaurant, and you expect the women to pay for you.. And so on...

 

This probably varies from place to place but where I'm from it is typical and normal for both people to share the cost of dating. My girlfriend and I don't split bills, and I paid for our first date, but she has since then paid for plenty of other things, and has contributed about as much moneywise as I have. Which is only fair, because both of us are gainfully employed. The idea that the man pays for all the dates is a relic from a time when most young women did not have paychecks of their own, or had paychecks that were much smaller than those of the man involved.

 

On the other hand, cut flowers aggravate my allergies so badly that I can't have them inside my house and need to have all the windows open in order to have them in my car. So it's really not a good idea to give me any as a gift.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

The source of that video is junk. Shes from the most prominent conservative think tank in America. A group that is ideologically opposed to anything and anyone challenging the status quo is automatically gonna say that feminism is terrible for whatever reason.

 

I don't know about the other issues but I do think that video makes a very good point about the whole wage gap thing: if women truly were paid less for the same work, why don't companies prefer to hire women so they can pay them less and make more profit? After all, corporations in the US will do anything they can get away with to increase their profits, right?

 

Okay, now step back here a sec and remember:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." (one of my all-time favorite quotes)

 

It therefore logically follows via reduuctio ad absurdum that either women are not as unfairly paid as the "77 cents for every dollar" statistic implies, or companies in the US are not madly profit driven and willing to do anything to further that goal. We of course know the latter to be false, and therefore...

 

Now, granted, there is a third possibility here: that companies would do this if they could, but don't believe they can get away with it. This seems unlikely, though, since while you can't discriminate on the record, you can discriminate all you want off the record so long as there are other official reasons for why you chose someone. And it happens all the time.

 

No, instead it would seem that in reality the average women is paid less because the average women provides less value to her employer. Indeed, there are several obvious reasons why this would be true. Men never go on maternity leave, forcing their employer to keep paying them while they're not working in the meantime. Men are a lot less likely to reduce their hours when they have children in order to spend more time taking care of them.

 

Men also place more emphasis on the size of their paycheck in determining whether they are happy with their job than women do. Men are more likely to sign up for more stressful and more difficult jobs in exchange for higher pay than women are.

 

 

Moral of the story: beware of soundbyte size talking points, as the real world is always far too complicated to sum up so quickly. And remember that you can make statistics imply anything you want depending on what numbers you choose to look at and how you choose to represent them.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I don't know about the other issues but I do think that video makes a very good point about the whole wage gap thing: if women truly were paid less for the same work, why don't companies prefer to hire women so they can pay them less and make more profit? After all, corporations in the US will do anything they can get away with to increase their profits, right?

Well yeah, I think the wage gap isn't as big as some people claim it is. But I also don't know exactly how big of a deal it is within feminist groups. Personally (and I might be entirely wrong here) I get the idea that their priority for the most part is much more focused on things like reproductive health issues (at least in the US). 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The fact of the matter is that women working in the same field as men earn 1-10% less than men in the same field but get several benefits (such as maternity leave) that men do not. On average, an employed female American makes 77% of what an employed male American because the women work in lower-paying fields.

http://ow.ly/thkZG

Duke87, your logic pans out and you understand the profit motive.

--Ocram

[bitsaul 9]

 

But that is exactly what is wrong, because the way we are raised, women and men have different roles in society.. Imagine a valentines day in which the women should go out and get us flowers and chocolates, or imagine if going out to a restaurant, and you expect the women to pay for you.. And so on...

Putting aside the physical attributions, we are all raised in a way in which men have certain things to do that are part of our culture, that feminism goes against of.

If women and men are equal (which I believe they are) has nothing to do with the way we are raised into.

Ask yourself the question, WHY are people raised to fulfill certain roles? What use do those roles serve in todays world? Why should we keep them around? So why is that men have to buy flowers on valentines day or pay for the restaurant bill. Why is it that women have to cook and clean the house? Are women somehow inherently better at cooking and cleaning? Well no, they are not. Are men by definition rich enough to pay for the restaurant bill or are they better at picking flowers on valentines day? No they are not. Those roles are arbitrarily defined by society, there is no rational basis for them to exist and there is no rational basis to say its a good thing to have those rules around. So, if the women is rich and the guy is not, why can't the girl pay for dinner? And if the guy loves cooking and is good at it, why shouldn't he do the cooking? 

 

And equality does not exist if people do not get a choice about what role they want to fulfill in society. If we raise people to play a certain role, we deny them the choice, we deny them freedom and we deny them equality. We tell them that they *must* fulfill a certain role simply because they were born with a certain chromosome, not because its something they want or something they choose. And even worse, the roles we give people are very clearly not equal. Not equal in terms of intellect, of importance or of impact. 

 

Some food for thought...

 

 

I also recommend everyone interested in this topic, whether they agree or disagree with Sommers, read Who Stole Feminism. The link is to the full book in PDF format.

The source of that video is junk. Shes from the most prominent conservative think tank in America. A group that is ideologically opposed to anything and anyone challenging the status quo is automatically gonna say that feminism is terrible for whatever reason. 

 

Ironically, she says that women in the US are some of the most liberated women in the world. That is true, but not thanks to her or the people shes working for. It are only conservatives that are behind the push for legislation against abortion and reproductive rights in general. Honestly, her employers are one of the most important reasons why Feminism is still around and desperately needed. 

 

And authors like Sommers are the number one reason why so many men think Feminism is just about hating males. They are representing the patriarchy at its most insidious form. A classic tactic, trying to turn around who is your friend and who is your foe. Ironic though how her book's subtitle is 'how women have betrayed women' with her being a women and all. 

 

1. It is divisive.  It's a label that separates from group of people from another.  As I understand it, feminism was/is a movement to bring equality among the two genders.  Now we have more than 2 genders and a whole spectrum of gender identities.  If feminism is to stay true to its creed of equality for all people then it would have to incorporate these people (can a male be a feminist? what about a person with both sex organs? what about a person with no sex organs? what about a person with male organs who gender identifies as a woman... can he/she be feminist?).  Additionally, when trying to bond people together the word feminist is as corrosive as the word chauvinist.  There is no need to separate people with labels if we are trying to unite the species in commonality.

No its not. Just because gender is now considered to be more of a spectrum doesn't mean that feminism needs to go. It can easily include people who have different notions of gender than most of us (yes all those people you described can be feminists if they want to). As for whether you like the word or not, others have made that argument before. The simple fact is still though that the male-female cleavage is one of the most prominent cleavages that still exists and persists and that for the most part women still get left behind more than males. Its much more an uphill struggle for women than it is for men. So the term Feminism applies just fine. Changing the name just to please the male demographic because they are uncomfortable with a movement thats calling out the traditional male privilege...well you can maybe see the irony in that, and how self defeating it would be for the movement. 

 

 

2. The term feminist has been irreversibly highjacked by venomous organizations and people that do not represent the core feminist ideal.  We will never be able to wrestle back the reigns of a progressive and non-violent feminist movement from people like Anita Sarkeesian, Melody Hensley, etc.   A few bad apples have unfortunately spoiled the whole bunch for the current generation and there is no way to make up for that first bad impression.  Today's kids mostly see feminism in the same light they see racism.  Trying to untangle that mess and then reeducate them on the true purpose of feminism is not practical nor is it desired for reasons listed in my first point.  No need to try and save this sinking ship when we can just move forward as human beings.

 

I think the #gamergate is appropriate to mention here as well.

 

Implying that Anita Sarkeesian is a violent radical when all she has ever done is create a youtube series about how women are portrayed in the media. Or a women that claims on twitter to have PTSD from online abuse. Really? Those are the venomous people? They give feminism a bad name? 

 

Look, as a feminist I do not agree with everything Anita Sarkeesian says or claims. There are definitely valid criticisms that can be made against her arguments. But who's making those valid criticisms? The people that hate her have completely and utterly justified EVERYTHING she has said by not engaging her arguments but by sending her a stream of rape and death threats. They have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that she has a point about how women are treated by our society if we can't even engage them in an intellectual debate, thereby demonstrating the need for feminism. If people had acted in a sane and rational matter and argued the pro's and cons of the arguments she made like people with common sense, we would have forgotten she even existed by now and she would have never even made international headlines. 

 

So do we need to wrestle back Feminism from people like Sarkeesian? No we don't because people like Sarkeesian are not the problem. It are the people that go ape over people like Sarkeesian that are the problem, but they are not feminists and we don't need to wrestle Feminism away from them. 

 

I can tell you haven't really looked into the counter-arguments concerning that issue.  It is a well exposed fact that Sarkeesian is a scam artist and her ridiculous arguments about misogyny in the gaming community are downright inflammatory and sexist in addition to be absent of any evidence (aside from "evidence" that she was busted creating herself...Ooops!).  They are sufficiently dismantled by thousands of critics on hundreds of YT channels so I won't bother trying to unpack any of that here.

I can only suggest you reflect on how it makes you react (aka your response in quote) when someone criticizes this label that you identify with.  I would think that kind of defensive reaction is proof enough that what I said about labels being divisive is quite valid.  It wastes time, as well.  I'll cite this thread as an example:  Rather than being engaged in conversation over an issue that you might consider important to women you are wasting effort defending a personal label.  You have to unpack your whole system of beliefs and try to validate why things should be viewed this way instead of how this other person calling themselves a feminist says.  There is very little agreement in the feminist community as to what being a feminist even means, so they all have to waste this same amount of time explaining themselves and why they are different and their version of feminism is valid.

There's just a billion reasons why it is divisive and unproductive depending on how honest you want to be in conversation...

It will cause people that have a bad view of feminism to instantly dislike you, which is unfair but also unavoidable.  Similarly, it may cause people to follow a cause that is invalid simply because someone labels it as a feminist one.  Do you want to engage with people that will criticize your bad ideas or do you want to surround yourself with people that will do anything in the name of your organization?

I hope you understand this is quite different from the theory of "Changing the name just to please the male demographic because they are uncomfortable with a movement that's calling out the traditional male privilege...".  It's a matter of clearing the space for dialogue.  We simply don't have the luxury to play teams if the human race is going to honestly discuss issues of great moral, social and ethical importance.  It served a purpose and got the ball rolling, but now we can evolve that conversation further and we don't need it anymore.  To use a metaphor, Feminism was the crowbar and it opened the door to a unlit room, however, if we are going to explore that space we do not need the crowbar any longer, now we need a flashlight.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I can tell you haven't really looked into the counter-arguments concerning that issue.  It is a well exposed fact that Sarkeesian is a scam artist and her ridiculous arguments about misogyny in the gaming community are downright inflammatory and sexist in addition to be absent of any evidence (aside from "evidence" that she was busted creating herself...Ooops!).  They are sufficiently dismantled by thousands of critics on hundreds of YT channels so I won't bother trying to unpack any of that here.

Yes, I've seen a lot of those videos 'dismantling' her arguments. Well, that is if you count piling fallacy after fallacy on top of each other as effectively dismantling something. Not to mention the fact that half of them mix their counter argument with misogyny and blind hatred for anything resembling Feminism, and deriding everyone who say she has a point as SJW's or White Knights (who are apparantly both worse than Nazis). 

 

But sure, there are also a bunch good critiques on her videos. But you'll find that all of those will at least concede that the gaming industry has a massive problem with female representation and that she has point, but simply goes to far in some of her assertions. Because honestly, the gaming industry HAS a problem with representing anything but straight white heterosexual men. 

 

 

I can only suggest you reflect on how it makes you react (aka your response in quote) when someone criticizes this label that you identify with.  I would think that kind of defensive reaction is proof enough that what I said about labels being divisive is quite valid.  It wastes time, as well.  I'll cite this thread as an example:  Rather than being engaged in conversation over an issue that you might consider important to women you are wasting effort defending a personal label.  You have to unpack your whole system of beliefs and try to validate why things should be viewed this way instead of how this other person calling themselves a feminist says.  There is very little agreement in the feminist community as to what being a feminist even means, so they all have to waste this same amount of time explaining themselves and why they are different and their version of feminism is valid.

*Ahem*

"It is a well exposed fact that Sarkeesian is a scam artist and her ridiculous arguments about misogyny in the gaming community are downright inflammatory and sexist"

Your words when someone attacked one of your favorite past times. You instantly accused that person of being a liar and fraud whose very words are insulting and sexist (because saying something else is sexist makes you the sexist, just like pointing out instances of racism means you played the race card which actually makes you the racist. Conservatives logic).  

 

So should we get rid of the label 'games' or 'gamer' as well then, because clearly those are also quite divisive (incidentally, when someone suggested that those labels were dead it sparked a massive controversy). 

 

In reality, every label acts divisively. Its what labels do, they split people into groups. Changing the name doesn't change any of that, even if you turned feminist into something else, like 'humanist' or 'equalist' the divisive element of the label remains. Furthermore, changing the label here just so mostly males feel more comfortable in a movement that has a big focus on advancing the position of women in society...well, that would send a message would it not? Again, women have to take a step back so males can feel more comfortable when the whole point is that society is already based on the idea of making life as comfortable for guys as possible. Youd basically be telling everyone that women can only speak out for themselves as long as they dont make guys to uncomfortable. 

 

 

There's just a billion reasons why it is divisive and unproductive depending on how honest you want to be in conversation...

It will cause people that have a bad view of feminism to instantly dislike you, which is unfair but also unavoidable.  Similarly, it may cause people to follow a cause that is invalid simply because someone labels it as a feminist one.  Do you want to engage with people that will criticize your bad ideas or do you want to surround yourself with people that will do anything in the name of your organization?

I hope you understand this is quite different from the theory of "Changing the name just to please the male demographic because they are uncomfortable with a movement that's calling out the traditional male privilege...".  It's a matter of clearing the space for dialogue.  We simply don't have the luxury to play teams if the human race is going to honestly discuss issues of great moral, social and ethical importance.  It served a purpose and got the ball rolling, but now we can evolve that conversation further and we don't need it anymore.  To use a metaphor, Feminism was the crowbar and it opened the door to a unlit room, however, if we are going to explore that space we do not need the crowbar any longer, now we need a flashlight.

 

People who have a bad view of feminism will also instantly dislike the next label we would come up with. To be honest, feminism is not about trying to get being liked by people who already have a bad view of us. Those people feel threatened because they are getting called out and they don't like that. Also, feminism is not an organization. Its a movement. 

 

If you really think that we dont have the luxury of playing teams, then why do you care about the name? It shouldn't matter right? 

 

As for your metaphor, I fail to see why feminism can't be that flashlight as well. Especially since 3rd wave feminism covers those needs quite nicely. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Feminism has been hijacked by so many people with other agendas that it needs to re-identify itself.

[iLoveMusic 66]

No to feminism, just no. It doesn't work in an advanced civilization. It is just one of the problems (along with crime, poverty...) that are the cause of our flawed society. You can remove all the porn houses with force.

 

I strongly disagree that our civilization can be called "advanced" by any means. It may be the farthest technology has ever come (although keep in mind, "Technology is not neutral." ~ Godfrey Reggio), but our species is a complete mess in just about every way it can be right now. There's too many problems, and I'm going to quote George Carlin here:

 

"What we are, is semi-civilized beasts - with baseball caps and automatic weapons."

 

I mean, can you imagine how uncivilized we look to intelligent life around the universe (aliens)? Sorry, back to feminism....

 

I'm going to go with Nonny Moose - feminism is not what it was anymore. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I suppose people generally have the same attitude towards it as they do towards racism these days - that it's "over" and not to be taken seriously anymore. *shudder*

[KonstantinII 1,106]

 

 

"What we are, is semi-civilized beasts - with baseball caps and automatic weapons."

 

 

 

What we currently are, is a Type 0 civilization.

 

This is what we should be, a Type I civilization.

 

[KonstantinII 1,106]

 

Why are white Europeans better at influencing the world? Well, mostly because we got more weapons than the rest of the world. Also, we got more organized states and we had big empires that spanned most of the world. Because of that, we still have a disproportionate influence over the world. But that has nothing to do with race. We did not do all those things because our skin color somehow made us better at those things. Its the result of centuries of history, of conflict and circumstances that happened in Europe and not somewhere else. Its the product of cause and effect. .

 

 

 

 

And you can clearly see this when voting rights are expanded. First the rich can vote, after that males in general can vote (in some countries even that part takes several stages) and only after a womens movement is set up, do women get the right to vote. Had they not spoken up, they would have never been considered, rich or poor. 

 

 

 

So, great and all-mighty, powerful Europe is it? Just look at the mess you've gotten yourselves into. Europeans tried to take over: North America, South America, Middle East, Russia, Africa, India, the list goes on and on. No wonder the whole world hates Europe. And now, Europe will be taken over by the Muslims. How ironic.

 

 

 

And why do we need to vote anyway? Vote for the established system? So that is how your democracy functions?

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

 

 

"What we are, is semi-civilized beasts - with baseball caps and automatic weapons."

 

 

 

What we currently are, is a Type 0 civilization.

 

This is what we should be, a Type I civilization.

 

 

 

That video proves both of our points, although it never mentioned civilization "types" like you posted. I'm glad you posted that video - good find. Watched the whole thing. I'd discuss it further, but our posts would get deleted since it is not on-topic.

 

And why do we need to vote anyway? Vote for the established system? So that is how your democracy functions?

 

I agree with you there. I've already gone deep into my views on voting in the American Politics thread.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

 

 

And why do we need to vote anyway? Vote for the established system? So that is how your democracy functions?

 

I agree with you there. I've already gone deep into my views on voting in the American Politics thread.

 

 

Sorry to bump just this once. This quote, originally posted by another memeber of this site, basically sums up how our society functions.

 

 

 

There is nothing more dangerous to democracy than people who vote because they think it is a civic duty.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

 

 

And why do we need to vote anyway? Vote for the established system? So that is how your democracy functions?

 

I agree with you there. I've already gone deep into my views on voting in the American Politics thread.

 

 

Sorry to bump just this once. This quote, originally posted by another member of this site, basically sums up how our society functions.

 

 

 

There is nothing more dangerous to democracy than people who vote because they think it is a civic duty.

 

To put it in another light, replace the word 'people' above with 'sheeple'.  Voting is only a part of the civic duty,  The major part is to be informed in why and what you are voting for (or against).  There is no point in a universal franchise if it has no effect.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Even if you dont believe your vote matters, you should still vote because there is someone else who does believe his vote matters and that person is likely going to vote on some incredible backward idiot. You vote to cancel out that persons vote. 

 

In any case, this topic is about Feminism, not why you should or should not vote.