I believe this is a point very much in women's favors. Politics is a horrible, slimy, disgusting profession, and most people who actually want to be a part of it are egomaniacal, corrupt, thieving, murdering monsters who are better off rotting in jail. And why is it okay for feminists to insult/condemn women who do want children and not a career? Because as noted on the previous page, there isn't an actual pay disparity? And the last thing we need is more un-enforcable, bureaucratic bullshit whose end result is fucking over everyone, men and women included? Like the Middle East, where raping a woman not covering her head and face is protected by Sharia law? As for Western societies, you will have to be a bit more specific. Totally agree! And you know where it's needed the most? The Middle East. A society where women have their clitorises chopped off at birth so they can't enjoy sexual pleasure, and have their heads chopped off by family members if they commit the horrible crime of being raped by a man. That is a society where men and women don't have even close to equal rights. But curiously enough, all those prominent feminists, and even the amazing, open-minded ones in this topic included, are completely silent whenever you mention that. I wonder why that is?
What do you mean, 'so what'? You made a claim that no other feminist condemns or opposes the views of a few prominent feminists. That was what I was responding to. There was no point missed. I got your point. It was wrong. I'm missing the point because it's being poorly made. Godwin's Law is now mentioned. Comparing feminists to Nazis? How original.
Right, most colleges have more women in them than men. Women are encouraged to join the hard sciences (this is good, and should continue), not discouraged. In fact, between a man and a woman with equal credentials, a woman will most likely be admitted into a hard science program first, and get the fellowship. Men get catcalled too and are called "creeps" for having a you know what. Oh, and men can get raped..by other men. That's just life. If we took this any further, what we'd have would be a long crybaby list of complaints from both genders. Ironpalm would take lead for the guys, rightfully mentioning how courts often side with females (I know a bazillion dudes paying half their paychecks to their ex-wives). Then we'd get into the draft (and military in general), and how the majority of homeless people are male, how school systems today favor women, how men are called "creeps" for just saying hello to a girl, and a bunch of other crap. And the females have their crap to complain about, too, of course. Guess what? People complain. It's a natural instinct of the human species. And it's easier to complain within a group, where people have shared complaints. The only difference is, men don't have a movement named after it. There are civil rights issues out there as well as real inequality, and they certainly exist (though at this time in American history, my concern is more with mexican immigrants, inner city children, and the last few native americans shoved out in Arizona) than it is with the fairer sex.
Sorry, how is this the same thing? This has to be one of the most stupid things I have read for a long time.
I think we tend to prefer to talk about or act upon issues that touch us, that happen in our little sphere of existence. We can also affect more concretely things that are close to us while it feels like our hands are tied when it comes to issues elsewhere. I wrote a blog post some time ago about First World Feminist Problems, and while I did not mean to trivialize or mitigate the issues we have in the West (there are still some), it was a cry-out for the more pressing issues in developing countries, and that, while it may sound corny, it's our sisters there that could use some help and support right now. We don't know if the father saying he'd kill himself if his son danced (whether it was ballet or jazz or pole or whatever) was just a provocative reaction towards an annoying soccer mom, which kind of makes a discussion based on just that line pretty moot, while it is or can be fruitful and worthwhile to discuss whether kids should or shouldn't be bound by gender roles and to what extent and why. Now this discussion appears to have taken an equally moot turn, bashing first world feminists here seems to lead nowhere... or maybe I'm just on an impatient mood today and should shut up...
No, I didn't. That's something you made up as a strawman, not something anyone actually wrote. Care to find the quote where I supposedly wrote that? By the way, you notice how most feminists are fundamentally incapable of arguing an issue on its own merits, and always have to resort to ascribing ridiculous strawman positions to the opposing side? Too funny, and painfully predictable. I will type it again, in simpler terms; just like the individual views of Germans during the 30s and 40s were irrelevant to the Nazi movement, so too are your individual feminist views irrelevant to the feminist movement. Of course, considering your sole interpretation of my first post was "feminists = Nazis", I have few hopes this will make any dent. Because I specifically said they were the same thing, as opposed to making a point about how flawed a certain argument was? And it's not like I specifically wrote that they were not the same, right? Oh wait, I did. Maybe you should read the whole quote next time? The irony is flabbergasting. The grammar/syntax mistakes only make it more appropriate.
Fair enough. But again, compare the amount of attention those "first world feminist problems" get versus the actual problems of women being raped, murdered, and having their sexual organs butchered in the Middle East. And hell, you don't even have to look to the Middle East. This is pretty appalling; If that's the case, that actually makes the father kind of awesome!
Sure. "These are the leaders of the movement and most revered, powerful feminists on the planet. And furthermore, other feminists have never condemned any of those quotes." Well, I'm glad that amused you. Meh. To be fair, you lost me at the mention of Nazis and I couldn't be fucked reading past it. I'm too used to anti-feminists online using the Nazi analogy. Sure, but there are other reasons this analogy is flawed.
[MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION]. You did state that the feminist movement was not the same as the Nazis but then went on to compare them anyway. Why? Anyone who uses the Nazi party in an argument, knows how inflammatory that is going to be. So I assume it was to deliberately provoke a reaction. We all have a right to stand against something that is wrong (the suppression of women in this example) and to disagree with extreme views. I don't see that it is relevant whether people who hold the extreme views pay attention to me or not (they wouldn't, anyway, because I am a man).
Unequality is appalling, yes, but on the other hand, the more privileged female college students deserve protection just like those on the poorer side of town. Unfortunately money always seems to flow in the wrong direction, and those who get it, have to fulfill certain criteria that seem unfair (e.g. the receiver is already quite privileged to begin with). Hmm, I read the whole article. It was actually quite interesting and stuck to the issue of rape instead of going out of its way to attack certain feminists. Thanks for sharing. What strikes me unsurprising, again, is that those who lack education, end up to the bottom of the barrel. Besides, to me it seems that the politics of channeling of funds work the same way I tackle old food in the fridge. When it's still a couple of days old, I take the container, pour the food into garbage and wash the container for re-use. But sometimes I forget it there for weeks, after which I don't even dare open the container, fearing the moldy, smelly horrors inside, and just chuck the whole container into the bin, hell, it's beyond help already, thus wasting something I could re-use, but I tell myself that the container couldn't be saved anymore, though in reality I just didn't want to deal with said horrors inside. Okay, that wasn't the best of allegories, but perhaps some decisions are made for the benefit of targets that can still be helped, while those in severe need of help are actually considered beyond help and get ignored. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
Feminists with actual influence. The ones who hold high government/judicial posts, edit important magazines or even blogs, have tenured professorships, etc. Self-identified feminists who write posts on writingforums.org have no real power or influence in society. Pretty much what I figured, but at least you're honest about your intellectual laziness. Care to elaborate? I compared the argument to distinguish between individuals and the larger movement. Arguments about the former have zero bearing on the latter. You still don't get this? So one shouldn't use good analogies because inevitably, idiots will misinterpret one's words, fail to understand basic logic, and solely focus on "Nazi! Nazi!"? That is going to happen regardless, I'm afraid!
Well, many of us are writers or aspiring writers from all over the world who can have real influence in society, and many of us hold jobs and posititions in our communities that give us power to influence others, perhaps even those who hold e.g. government posts.
Okay, but that's still a factual claim. Where's your evidence? I'm lazy in general, not just intellectually haha. I might later. Might wanna think the analogy over yourself, in the meantime. Unless you're feeling intellectually lazy. Look, I get what you're TRYING to say. But I just think the analogy is flawed.
The problem is (and we are not going to agree on this point) I do not think that you have used a good anology.
It appeals to the gender wars and equality for people of different sexual orientation that's very relevant to our societies today, and the little boy is very optimistic, and we all like to see people who're able to be positive in the face of horrible things - that kind of strength moves people. The two combined makes for a potent combination and that's probably why FB's been raving about it.
I know who they are. I was referring to your claim that (correct me if I'm wrong) no prominent feminists ever condemn/disagree with other prominent feminists' views. Think what you want, I had something else other than debating online with a brick wall to do. However, my point stands. You brought up the analogy without thinking if it was appropriate. This isn't even worth arguing over. While in hindsight, I could have toned down the sass on that post, is just presumptious, pompous and laughable. If people don't understand your analogy, they're automatically idiots, misinterpreting your words or failing to understand logic. Did it never occur to you that you may not be making the clearest of arguments?
His analogy was pretty clear, both big movements. Not everyone in the movement may agree with everything but unless they are big they can't change a thing. And when they help push the movement forward, it won't be their idea of the movement but of the big players(Like hitler for example)
While I understand IronPalm isn't suggesting feminism = nazism, the analogy can only lead to us comparing them, so I'm confused as to why he appended: "I expect you to respond with outrage, claim this is a comparison (ignoring that I mentioned the Nazis were far worse), mention Godwin's Law, and totally miss the point". to his analogy when it was inevitable. I wasn't outraged, so much as bored. Admittedly, I glazed over, assuming it was another dude shaking his fist at those nasty femnazis. I apologise to IronPalm for that. For the record, I went back and read his full post, I didn't ignore the fact he mentioned the Nazis were far worse. That's a given. Still, I think the analogy's an over-simplification, disregarding that feminism is the umbrella term for a collection of different movements, theories and ideologies, rather than a more singular pseudo-religion as Nazism is. It's like saying all atheists are anti-theists. No, but there are atheists who are anti-theists and anti-theists who are atheists. The same goes for socialist feminists, radical feminists, liberal feminists, marxist feminists etc. Yadig? PS. In the case Hilary Clinton does become as powerful as Hitler was and starts shipping men into concentration camps, I'll still be pro-feminist, anti-Clinton. Edit: Again, apologies are due to [MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION] for the sass. In fact, I did a quick google search of some prominent self-identified feminists who oppose the types of feminism you were targeting. Among the names I came across was Christina Hoff Sommers, the writer of the article you posted. In fact, I think we probably share similar views on the matter, so I don't know why I got into a pissing contest with you.
I'd give you more rep points for this link but it's maxed out. This a great argument you're oferring, informative, and, on this forum, bold. Nice work.
If we can all tone back the personal insults, that would be great. Some very legitimate and hard-hitting points have been raised, ones well worthy of discussion, but we shouldn't be slipping into name-calling like this thread has been. You've all been warned.
