Originally posted by -Pr-
What double thinking are you talking about, exactly?
You've been convinced that the word feminist, when used without qualifiers, implies shrill misandrist whining. At the same time you're obviously clear that this doesn't reflect reality. You flickered between "feminism means this" and "feminism means the other thing" within the space of a single paragraph.
Originally posted by -Pr-Anyway, I was saying what I only think would constitute a real feminist i.e. from my limited understanding of feminism, its true goal is equality between the sexes. That's what I've read as being the true motivation behind it. I could be wrong.
This...doesn't make any sense.
First, you declare that you are not a feminist. Then, you label "true" feminism as precisely what you (presumably) support.
Logic dictates that you are, therefore, a feminist. Yet you deny it; talk about conclusions not following from premises.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've been convinced that the word feminist, when used without qualifiers, implies shrill misandrist whining. At the same time you're obviously clear that this doesn't reflect reality. You flickered between "feminism means this" and "feminism means the other thing" within the space of a single paragraph.
Okay, that wasn't what I was saying at all, so my bad if it came across that way.
I'll have to read back over my posts to see where I went wrong.
Originally posted by Master Han
This...doesn't make any sense.First, you declare that you are not a feminist. Then, you label "true" feminism as precisely what you (presumably) support.
Logic dictates that you are, therefore, a feminist. Yet you deny it; talk about conclusions not following from premises.
I declared no such thing.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I declared no such thing. [/B]
Let's lay out your argument, and feel free to point out where I go wrong.
1. You are not a feminist.
2. "true" feminism = gender egalitarianism
3. [my presumption] you support gender egalitarianism
4. Ergo, you are a feminist (by your supporting its defining ideal)
Do you see the contradiction between points 1 and 4?
I suppose presumption 3 could be wrong, but that's about it.
Sorry for the double post.
Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, some feminists fit an almost exact definition of "egalitarian" but choose the divisive label of "feminist", anyway. 🙁
I don't see the contradiction here.
Abolitionists were largely egalitarians, but they called themselves "abolitionists" because the emancipation of slaves was their focus, even if their ultimate, driving ideology was egalitarianism.
Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, some feminists fit an almost exact definition of "egalitarian" but choose the divisive label of "feminist", anyway. 🙁
Ah, okay.
Originally posted by Master Han
Let's lay out your argument, and feel free to point out where I go wrong.1. You are not a feminist.
2. "true" feminism = gender egalitarianism
3. [my presumption] you support gender egalitarianism
4. Ergo, you are a feminist (by your supporting its defining ideal)Do you see the contradiction between points 1 and 4?
I suppose presumption 3 could be wrong, but that's about it.
You're already wrong at #1. I said I didn't know If I was, not that I wasn't. I very well might be, as I'm not going to discount the possibility.
Originally posted by -Pr-
You're already wrong at #1. I said I didn't know If I was, not that I wasn't. I very well might be, as I'm not going to discount the possibility.
How could you not know if you are "any kind" of feminist, when your own definition of feminism fits your [presumed] ideology perfectly?
I mean, few people deny wanting [practical] gender equality.
Is it simply a product of the taboo the label "feminist" has, especially among men? I mean, if you're male and label yourself a feminist, you might fear guys calling you a pussy, or getting labeled some homophobic slur.
Originally posted by Master Han
How could you not know if you are "any kind" of feminist, when your own definition of feminism fits your [presumed] ideology perfectly?I mean, few people deny wanting [practical] gender equality.
Is it simply a product of the taboo the label "feminist" has, especially among men? I mean, if you're male and label yourself a feminist, you might fear guys calling you a pussy, or getting labeled some homophobic slur.
Like I said, I don't know, as I don't know all of the facets and kinds of feminism that exist in the world.
I have no problem being called a feminist, as long as it's true.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Like I said, I don't know, as I don't know all of the facets and kinds of feminism that exist in the world.
You questioned if you were "any kind of feminist". Gender equality is doubtlessly one kind of feminist, so you are indeed a feminist, by your own definition.
Whether or not this accurately reflects mainstream feminism is up to debate.
Originally posted by Master Han
You questioned if you were "[b]any kind of feminist". Gender equality is doubtlessly one kind of feminist, so you are indeed a feminist, by your own definition.Whether or not this accurately reflects mainstream feminism is up to debate. [/B]
If I am, then I am. shrug
Or I'm an egalitarian, like DDM said.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
srug Its other people who want it to be divisive.
Okay, I think I figured out where I misled you, so I'll try to clarify.
When I said "real feminist", I mean that they were an actual feminist, ie, they are what a feminist is supposed to be, in terms of the definition as I understand it. They want to help women. All good and well, as there are things that women really need addressed in modern society.
real/actual/true/genuine feminist = feminist.
What I was talking more about, or trying to at least, was that I don't consider those that talk about castrating men, or how the patriarchy is keeping them down and that all men are the enemy, as being actual/real/genuine feminists, or to be more precise, any kind of feminist at all.
Does that make any kind of sense? I get that my lack of eloquence is hurting me here, but I'm trying.
==
Also, is it me or did this really go off topic somehow?
Originally posted by -Pr-
What I was talking more about, or trying to at least, was that I don't consider those that talk about castrating men, or how the patriarchy is keeping them down and that all men are the enemy, as being actual/real/genuine feminists, or to be more precise, any kind of feminist at all.Does that make any kind of sense? I get that my lack of eloquence is hurting me here, but I'm trying.
Fair enough.
Now explain to me why my dismissing men's rights advocates led you to accuse me of hating men.
You do realize there's a difference, right?
Originally posted by Master Han
Fair enough.Now explain to me why my dismissing men's rights advocates led you to accuse me of hating men.
You do realize there's a difference, right?
You didn't just dismiss men's advocates, you came across as diminishing men's rights in general.
If that wasn't your intention, then fair enough, but frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time reading up on said MRA groups, you come across as being unusually harsh and judgmental.
Originally posted by -Pr-
You didn't just dismiss men's advocates, you came across as diminishing men's rights in general.If that wasn't your intention, then fair enough, but frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time reading up on said MRA groups, you come across as being unusually harsh and judgmental.
I don't know why you took off wrong with me, when we seem to hold nearly identical positions.
My problems with MRA's:
1. They haven't accomplished anything (note that I don't disagree with legitimate disadvantages men possess, but point out that feminists have been the primary driving force for rectifying such disparities).
2. 99% of their complaints are petty.
3. I didn't mention this, but there's a very fine line between being a MRA, and bashing everything that even remotely supports females - note almost every MRA website's token denigrating of RAINN.
There is no egalitarian movement that desires the liberation of women (and men) to speak off (I have to qualify it because there are egalitarian movements with other goals). It's a bullshit phrase. Another bullshit term that just means "stop talking about the oppression of women".
Feminism has real people behind it. It has actual goals. It has years of thought and scholarship put into it. It has actually achieved things. Neither Men's Right's Activism or any "Egalitarian" movement with supposed similar goals has any of these things.
If you truly believe in equality for all genders, and you understand how oppression works and that it's not magically vanishing when the laws written down are "equal", then you should be feminist. The thing is most people who say "we should all just be Egalitarians" do not believe in equality, they do not understand how oppression works and they only say it cause they don't want to hear any more hard truths about their privileges.
Originally posted by Master Han
I don't know why you took off wrong with me, when we seem to hold nearly identical positions.My problems with MRA's:
1. They haven't accomplished anything (note that I don't disagree with legitimate disadvantages men possess, but point out that feminists have been the primary driving force for rectifying such disparities).
2. 99% of their complaints are petty.
3. I didn't mention this, but there's a very fine line between being a MRA, and bashing everything that even remotely supports females - note almost every MRA website's token denigrating of RAINN.
1. They are an incredibly young movement, one that is still finding its feet. Its not like the movement has been around as long as, say, feminism. At the very least, they've done a job informing men and smashing some preconceptions.
2. Don't agree in the slightest. In fact, when it comes to their genuine complaints, I think they have a lot of weight.
3. Don't agree either. There are plenty of MRAs that just want equality in those situations in which men are at a disadvantage. Sure, there are the assholes that try to incite hate, but you get those in any organisation. Not saying it's right. It isn't. Just that it exists, and that a bad minority shouldn't speak for a more reasonable majority.