[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRCyELQnSw[/youtube]
But is Horse-shit Feminism?
Only if it is brought to life and begins complaining about patriarchy and rape culture.
I have to disagree.
I think it is cow.
I see what you did there, James, “cow”… very clever
Feminism is NOT gay, because feminists have no sense of humor.
Ok serious post.
i think transhumanism is mostly a rubbish idea, but i dont think the concept, is entirely rubbish. I believe the humanapes can only evolve so further. i believe at this moment they are devolving into tards worldwide. therefore, augmentation may be required to further their evolution, to bridge the cycle of tides (human saga is a saga of devolution, then building the broken pieces all over again.)
I believe this quote is total rubbish. I suppose little kids play with legos, make art, creative things, to get suzie’s twat next door hmmm? No, creative genius is simply a masculine trait, the drive to build is seperate from the drive to procreate. it is a survival tactic, to build shelter and weapons, or provide for the family or community. Its not related to the mechanism of entering sarah’s twat. If anything women destroy male creativity by damaging his psychology, modern feminism makes the modern male feel unwanted unloved and entirely useless. Not a great climate for creative output, but due to the male’s resilient nature, he still builds, still creates, even in an oppressive, lonely climate (something most fragile, pathetic female brats cannot do.)
I say no to a lot of women. I am not a masculinist. I piss on ismists. I would never fuck a feminist. I would not get my cucumber on the rise. They are the most sodden and humorless scurryings on the planet.
The male need to differentiate oneself from women is to procreate with them to expand self-possibilities, self-prolongation into the maximum future…if the male is not a unit first, how will he get selected when women evolved to sense and select for wholesomeness, and strong patterns of individuality?
This thread is interesting, because most of the serious participants are descriptively feminist by many definitions of the term, and yet here they are, almost to a person, criticizing feminism. Likely much of the debate between feminists and anti-feminists is actually between supporters of small-f, descriptive feminism, and detractors from big-F, political Feminism.
Case in point. ‘Women should be allowed to drive a car and vote’ is widely accepted now, as a result of organized feminist (small-f) movements. To the extent it spreads to places where it’s not currently taken for granted, it will be spread by organized feminist (small-f) movements.
The use of ‘people’ here is interesting. Certainly it seems that most of the ‘people’ in this thread are using ‘feminism’ to mean “crazy extreme stuff [they’re] all mostly tired of hearing about”. But probably most of the people who use feminism don’t mean anything like that (it is, after all, highly likely that the majority of people using the word feminism are self-identified feminists).
And you probably agree with the sentiment behind many, if not most uses of the word ‘feminist/ism’ too, as do most of the people in this thread criticizing feminism. You’re focusing on the vocal minority of extreme gender theory feminists, but there are plenty of moderate feminists who are still mostly talking about allowing women in the middle east to drive and divorce abusive husbands and feel the sun on their cheeks without being stoned to death.
You might not want to call what they do feminism, but if we define feminism as support for those social changes, virtually everyone here is a feminist (and many Feminists mean just that when they so identify themselves).
I think there’s a reasonable middle ground on this question. First, It’s worth clarifying that what you’re talking about is still the liberal wing of the liberal wing of liberal academia. This isn’t even mainstream feminism, and it’s certainly not all Feminists (there are plenty of anti-trans feminists).
Second, the middle ground position is that there are overlapping bell curves, which is demonstrably true. Both physically and psychologically, whatever traits tend across the entire population to be associated with one set of genitals are not so closely associated that knowing what set of genitals a person has will tell you much of anything about what to expect in terms of individual physical and psychological traits.
There are also outliers, edge cases that aren’t well captured by the strict dichotomy between men and women. There are edge cases between physically male and physically female. Even at the level of chromosomes, some people have three chromosomes, two Xs and a Y, and they tend to display physical characteristics that are a combination of male-like and female-like traits. That grouping doesn’t fit neatly into a men/women dichotomy.
We can certainly say that the dichotomy is good enough for most situations, and can be meaningfully applied in most situations. But there are some situations where it is too blunt, and there are some people who will be excluded by such language and overstated conceptual parsing of the world.
No one is forcing you to change your language, no one should, but if you know that the way you’re speaking is going to hurt someone who has done nothing to deserve to be hurt, and it costs you little to change the way you speak, shouldn’t you? We can quibble about how much it costs to change the way you speak, and how much it hurts the people you’re hurting, but certainly we can imagine some situations where it is the humane thing to do to accommodate the existence of not-quite male, not-quite-female people.
The extent you want to generalize from that point is also something that can also be quibbled about (if sexuality is genetically determined separate from biologic sex, maybe it’s worth accommodating those people as well). But I don’t think any of this is particularly radical.
What a load of BS
- The crazy feminists appear to constitute the majority, which, along with the movement’s name being biased in favor of female gender and thus misleading, turns people away from feminism. The crazy ones are not a minority anymore, they have become a majority.
But the only real way to argue that is by providing examples from the real world, and don’t you think that they show that an overwhelming majority is the batshit crazy ones? I mean, have you seen the entire crowds with their tits and genitalia exposed and written upon, demanding the right to be sluts (I can provide examples of this) and not suffer the consequences, like children do? And have you seen feminist art, that was actually attended by people? Or what the feminist organizations are doing, like denying men equality in court, or that they support discrimination based on skin color and gender in jobs and colleges (white cis male scum), or how feminists think they can’t be racist if they aren’t white/male or something? I can back all this up and show you the sources, on demand.
Is that your idea of moderacy, or do you have something else in mind?
The idea that feminism = advocacy of gender equality is about as sensible as blackism or whiteism being the name for a movement advocating racial equality. One must be an intensely brainwashed mangina to believe it.
- If you can impregnate a woman, you are male, if you can get impregnated, you are female.
What you’re suggesting is that people should have the power to change the definitions of words and cause confusion in others due to ideological reasons and then rightfully expect of others to comply based on emotional blackmail. I say no.
- The key word here is “appear”, which you use in the same way that word is used in the phrase, “things aren’t always as they appear”. If you’re going to cite news reports, social media, twitter, etc., I’m sure you’ll find more examples of crazy feminism. But those sources are not a representative sample, and you can’t draw conclusions about what the group looks like from a biased sample of that group.
You seem to agree that if we define feminism as “advocacy of gender equality”, then you and I are feminists. And certainly many feminists do in fact define the word that way. I agree that ‘feminism’-the-word is at odds with feminism-the-referent, but I still think by many definitions ‘feminism’-the-word applies by definition to most of the people posting in this thread.
- So someone who is infertile is what, neither male nor female? There are no sexes over the age of 70? Your narrow and dogmatic definition fails capture the world; it does not recognize the fact that male and female are categories we place on the world that aren’t strictly defined delimited in the world. As I said, the categories have value, and in the vase majority of uses they are meaningful and appropriate, but there are edge cases where the categorization breaks down.
EDIT: better word.
- Yes, appear, because I admittedly do not know the exact numbers, nor do I think the exact numbers are available. What I can do, is make judgments based on what I can, what I perceive. If they are not a source, what is? How is that a biased sample?
If a substantial number of KKK hate and advocate murder of black people, and others claim they don’t but still identify with KKK, what am I supposed to think about those others?
If a substantial number of feminists hate and advocate murder of men, and others claim they don’t yet they still identify as a feminist, what am I supposed to think about those others?
youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4
But I guess as long as there aren’t concrete numbers, you can just keep playing evasion and trying to make it out as the crowds of crazy, vulgar, ignorant, bigoted feminists are the tiny minority, while the majority are just silent, hiding, there somewhere.
What’s worse is, even if we disregard the majority/minority, what the feminist organizations do and advocate exposes their intentions more than anything else, see:
[tab]Josh O’Brien (youtuber) comments:
"
NOW - The National Organisation for Women. Biggest feminist group in the US. Oppose shared parenting, called all fathers rights groups paedophiles.
London Feminist Network - Biggest feminist organisation in UK. Opposed a law that would give those accused (not charged or convicted, simply accused) of rape anonymity to protect from vigilante violence in the event of a false accusation.
Fawcett Society - Second biggest feminist organisation in the UK. Fighting to make a justice system that sends men and not women to prison, where women are NEVER imprisoned.
The US Gov’t - Repeats the wage gap despite it being debunked. Creates laws like Yes means Yes which criminalise consensual sex. Uses a biased (feminist created) model of rape that excludes men based on a study which actively and deliberately excluded male victims. Uses a biased (feminist created) model of DV which excludes men (except as perpetrators) based on nothing more than the whims of feminists."[/tab]
And if we define KKK as the organization for racial equality then what, you belong to them too? Why are some of you people trying to define words in a way as to detach them from how they are used in present, or have been used in the past?
No, I do not think the genders are equal, or should be equal, and under the law they should only be equal in certain aspects, not everything. Obviously, males shouldn’t have the right to enter female bathrooms, and females shouldn’t have the right to enter male bathrooms, for one.
- Someone who is infertile is irrelevant in an evolutionary context.
That is admittedly true, I have seen people whose gender I could not determine instantly, but only maybe 2 in my entire lifetime so I ended up performing verbal gymnastics in order to get them to identify themselves as he or she. That doesn’t mean I will call a person whatever they wish to be called because of their emotions.
Have you ever engaged with any actual feminists? They’re incredibly toxic and controlling. They get offended at everything, and attempt to manipulate you into acting the way they want you to by shaming and playing the victim, essentially, by behaving like little children and using taunts and insults on the level of children.
If you’re making a claim about the beliefs of the majority of feminists, you can look for scholarship that compares what people who self-identify as feminists state their beliefs to be against the population as a whole, and that use rigorous methods to get a representative sample of the population as a whole. The sample you’re going off of (assuming it is accurately described by something like “news reports, social media, twitter, etc.”) is biased because the majority of voices identifying as feminist that comes across in those media is not the same as the average voice of the population as a whole: they select for the most boisterous, the most outrageous, the outliers by definition. You can’t generalize to ‘the majority of feminism’ from ‘the majority of feminism that makes the nightly news’.
I’m not talking about a small number of feminists who happen not to fit the norm. Rather, the feminists you take to be the norm are actually more like the small number of KKK members who claim not to hate black people. Again, a source more robust that Twitter will back this up. Here’s a paper that compared self-identified feminists to nonfeminists and found that feminists were generally less hostile towards men than nonfeminists. Don’t take that one as gospel, I’m sure there are other studies that have found otherwise; best would be a meta-study of questions like these. But certainly this study, that actually lays out a methodology and allows statistical inference within a known confidence interval, is better than the picture of feminism that randomly bombards you through the tubes.
Also, somewhat an aside: consider the difference between equity feminism and gender feminism. Equity feminism makes many fewer claims than are being ascribed to feminism here, and it’s worth exploring if only to note that feminism is not a monolith, and generalization are likely to elide distinct subsets that are very much opposed in their political and moral beliefs.
This is a little cold. Emotional harm is real harm. Modern societies recognize many purely emotional torts and crimes, because emotional harm is costly to individuals.
And refusing to recognize someone’s existence is a particularly pernicious form of emotional harm. Humans are social animals, and we have a strong instinct to perceive social othering as a threat to our survival (evolutionarily, it was).
That said, it’s only a little cold. If it’s too much trouble to avoid the possibility of hurting someone, no one’s making you do it. 99% of the people you interact with won’t notice, because they’ve made the same choice (or simply avoided choosing by not thinking too deeply about the question).
I went to one of the most liberal schools in the country for undergrad; it actually started as a women’s college, and when I was there it was still very much a feminist institution, if there is such a thing. So I’ve interacted with enough self-identified feminists to know that there are toxic feminists and there are sweet feminists and there are awesome feminists, just as there are toxic and sweet and awesome people in just about any sizable subset of the whole. I won’t pretend my sample was representative, but certainly its bias was in a different direction from that of yours.
I admire your patience, but you’re wasting your time, Carleas. Misogynist MRA’s and Gamergaters have a profound hatred for women that doesn’t allow for women to express their humanity or anything else. Just look at their harassment, abuse, and/or death threats they’ve sent to Anita Sarkeesian, Brianne Wu, and Zoe Quinn. You might as well try to convince Nazis of a Jew’s rights and humanity…total waste of time.
I wish that I could ask if you are kidding me, but I know better. Could there possibly be a more naive, absolutely hypnotized moronic belief than what you have expressed? I doubt it.
How does the level of abuse relate to actual accuracy of expression? Absolutely ZERO. Whether women, on average, have been abused or not, is entirely an issue of what the purpose of life happens to be. Do you have even the slightest inkling of what that might be? I am pretty certain that you do not.
Everyone; male or female, white or black, Jewish or Nazi, human or animal,… are ALL, every one, abused by the others. And the reason is that none of them have yet to figure out what actually, really works. But even if they had, how would YOU know, one way or another?
You profess that anyone who doesn’t believe that women are superior to men (being “equal” is not an option), are [b]“women HATERS!!!”
Absolute, total, 100% BULLSHIT!!
[/b]
I personally do not believe that the average woman and the average man are equal in almost any regard. Yet I have a hard time hating any woman, despite how ridiculous she might behave (despite how very, very common her hateful behavior might be).
The simple truth is that you express the very common, embarrassingly common and vulgar, propaganda of the day. You are expressing NO philosophical understanding of your real situation what … - … so … - … ever.
Thank you for confirming everything I said in my first post. You are a perfect example of the troglodytic misogynist who couldn’t put together two coherent sentences, much less two coherent thoughts, if you tried. So, the only one expressing a hypnotized moronic belief is you, and I can’t imagine a more moronic one ever. You are so hypnotized by your fear of women, and your hatred of them for consistently resisting your repugnant advances, that you can’t think straight on the subject. So, I bid you goodbye to continue your hatred for women and your desperate hopes one of them might like you…which will never happen. So, welcome to my ignore list, Mr. MRA, and enjoy your women-hating company.
And YOU are the “perfect” example (not that you could possibly perfect anything) of the absolutely blind, hypnotized [size=200]Misandrist[/size], having (again) ABSOLUTELY ZERO CLUE what is really going on ALL around YOU.
You babble the most common and vulgar propaganda of the new age hatred of Man (apparently expecting women to love you for sucking their privates).
Most pathetic … beyond comment.
A Misandrist Drone.
And btw, I have noticed that some of the MOST intelligent and civilized people that I have met online (women included), are on your ignore list. I suspect that being on such a list is a compliment. More people should strive for such accomplishment.
I doubt it. Very few people seem to self-identify as feminists, for just the reason I said- to self identify as a feminist implies a lot more than "women should be allowed to wear long pants and work outside the home". It's similar to how a person doesn't call themselves 'leftist' because they want black people to be able to vote and think alcohol should be legal (pretending for a moment that progressives supported either of these things when they were controversial). A person identifies as a group if they are in favor of the things the group is currently working on, not things from a century ago.
It would be NICE if the feminists working to protect women in the Middle East from being stoned for showing their ankles outnumbered the feminists trying to define the word ‘bossy’ as a microagression, but I see no evidence that this is the case- again, speaking just of those people who present themselves as “I am a feminist”, not just people that you are classifying as a feminist because they agree wth what feminists did in the 1800’s. Of course, there could be millions of feminists working on Middle-East issues that don’t speak English and so don’t get media exposure in English-speaking-space.
There is no liberal wing of academia, because that would be to imply there are wings in academia where it is absent. There is academia, which has been taken over by the liberal wing of the general population. Also, progressivism more so than other positions has the dubious honor of always moving towards something new- so what you’re thinking of as fringe may in fact just be ‘cutting edge’.
I'm sorry, but I can't really take the conversation seriously if you means to imply that in 2015 the left isn't about policing language.
Did you know that there’s a bot active on Twitter that will send you a message correcting you if you refer to Caitlyn Jenner as a ‘he’?
Nobody is forcing me to change my language? I’m almost 40. I could write a fucking book about the things people are no longer allowed to say because of the left totally not trying to force people to change their language in my lifetime, and trannies are gonna be any different, eh? Do I really need to start listing the people who have been shamed in to public tearful apologies, lost their jobs, and etc. just in the past couple years because they wore a fucking shirt a feminist didn’t like, or said something about women in the work place that a feminist didn’t want to hear, or applied the wrong gender-pronoun to some self-mutilating tranny, etc.? Be honest- did me saying ‘self-mutiliating tranny’ just now spark in you a desire to punish me?
Not trying to force me to change my language. Tell it to the Redskins.
Anyway, there’s all sorts of ways a persons genitals and genetics can be screwed up such that standard gender definitions don’t apply to them very well. We generally don’t define a creature by it’s disordered states- unless it’s related to human sexuality. I feel totally comfortable saying “humans have two legs” without worrying that somebody is going to jump out of the bushes and try to get me fired from my job or kicked off this site because I have somehow revealed my hatred of amputees by such a statement*. But go say humans have two genders on Tumblr or Twitter, and see how long it is before somebody is taking pictures outside your house and trying to ruin your life.
-
- Oh, but give it time, I suppose.