So for some reason my quote button isn't giving me the quotes in the text editing box, so apologies for the cutandpastes.
@Jade:
Haha, what? That's exactly what your first post was referencing. ...Taking a quote about gender and then changing it so that it's about race is pretty much exactly what the example you posted does.
Ah, well I don't consider that much of a change. As I said, it is still comparing inherent traits.
Feminist, however, is not an inherent trait. Not all women are feminists - thankfully.
When people generalize feminists to be man-hating, anti-equal rights, or oppressive, they are literally referring to every woman I know, care about, and admire. My mother, my grandmother, all of my friends, all of my mother's friends, all of their daughters, all of my favorite professors and teachers and female co-workers, not to mention many activists whom I read and follow who fight for women's rights both in America and in much more dangerous places around the world. Women who want to feel safe to express an opinion without getting death/rape threats for it. Women who want to make as much money as men do for the same amount of work when they have the same skills and experience. Women who want to know that if they are assaulted, they won't be blamed for being victims, and there will actually be justice for them.
Ok...you appear to be offended.
Literally, so what?
This reminds me of how Christians react when you tell them that you're not convinced their group isn't the last best hope for humanity that they believe it to be.
No, Jade, not all feminists are man-hating, oppressive, etc. - indeed I never claimed that, and I explicitly pointed that out to Paradoxum early on in the thread. But the level of misandry, oppressiveness, inegalitarianism and downright hypocrisy in your movement hasn't made me inclined to stick around to check out the rest - not least when you're using the same concepts and rhetoric as they are to back up your views.
Not all of us are spending our time on 'the cause', and some of us are louder than others, but with the exception of women who grew up in oppressive cultures and are still mentally chained to the kitchen, you ARE making negative statements about women as a whole.
Given that even in the comparatively progressive US, only 20% of people - nevermind women - call themselves feminists, then no, I'm really not. You can try and spin this into an anti-woman statement as much as you like, it's not going to work. Up your game and try something else
When you try to turn a label like feminist into a dirty word to be ashamed of, when all it really means is someone who thinks that men and women should have equal rights (as we repeatedly, tirelessly tell you)
It's rarely about that. If you don't repeat the same dogma and talking points as a feminist, they usually won't see you as one. I've lost count of the number of times I've said that I want equality, but I don't agree with the conceptualisations of the patriarchy, privilege, oppression, misogyny, and whatever the feminist topic du jour is - and guess what? I'm not presumed to be a feminist.
But I believe in equality, right?
Why should I bother to identify myself with a movement that I not only disagree with at a fundamental conceptual level on almost everything but one that also regularly doesn't consider me one of their own?
then you are exactly the reason this fight isn't over yet.
Surrre I am. Rather than feminists who wouldn't know equality if it was staring them in the face
It's only hideous if you take it out of context.
Let's stop you right there.
There is no way whatsoever commending or rationalising hatred of any group is justifiable.
The fact that you even think there is only proves my point.
Valenti's statement was disgusting because not only did it claim female misandry doesn't exist, it also claims if it were to exist it wouldn't be a big deal.
I don't really know how we're going to solve this whole inequality thing if we don't get rid of attitudes that invariably produce inequality - like hating another group based on innate traits - but this is, sadly, a mistake many so-called equality activists blunder into.
A perusal of the full article shows that it is a) written tongue in cheek
*sigh*...you're really just gonna power on through this one anyway, aren't you?
Since when does "it's only a joke" about an issue make it ok? Last time I checked, feminists were more than a little up in arms about sexist jokes and rape jokes.
b) specifically points out that 'manhating' is not a real thing that feminists do, much like 'turning children gay' is not a real thing homosexuals do, except as an exaggerated parody of it for humor's sake
I'd say singling men and only men out for their responsibility in a problem (like rape, for example), or giving men a hard time over completely inconsequential things like what they wear or how they sit falls well within the bounds of misandry.
Certainly if we compare it to what usually gets called "misogyny" these days by feminists, although that bar is set increasingly lower
and c) there are definitely strong antagonistic feelings on both sides of this divide, but statistically one side is a lot more likely to be violently attacked or sexually harassed due to those feelings, which makes said side somewhat blazé about complaints from the other.
"Due to those feelings"? Do you mean people being harassed because they are feminists, like online?
If that's the case, then you should take a closer look at some self-identified feminists behave online when confronted with people who challenge their views.
A homosexual rights supporter isn't against heterosexual rights, and civil rights supporters aren't against unoppressed people having rights... that would make them all egalitarians, eh? There are many places where the scales need to be balanced, and a person can't effectively focus on all issues equally. There's nothing wrong with using more specific labels based on the subject at hand and the person's degree of commitment to the cause of their choice.
True - but I don't judge certain feminists to be against equality based on what they claim to be in favour of. Rather, I base it on what they otherwise actually say and do.
Honestly, I've never seen feminists doing any of the things you are talking about. If you provide specific links to examples of these things, then I will be happy to discuss them, but what you're saying above is a bit like asking athiests why they want to send people to hell, hate god, make christianity illegal, and tear down cherished religious symbols and monuments that bring people hope and joy. It's a misunderstanding of another person's position so far from what they are actually saying that all they can respond with is 'um... no?' Certainly there are a few extremists in every group, but to insist that their fringe opinions represent the whole is just a way to dismiss and ignore the very real concerns that group may have regarding the state of the world, while conveniently vilifying all of the members due to the actions or opinions of a few.
So far Daisy Day and I have both told you guys, 'That's not what feminism is really about' and the response we have gotten is 'No that IS what it's about'. I KNOW that as an atheist, you are constantly having religious people try to tell you what atheism *really* is and ignoring you when you try to explain that they are wrong. That is what you are doing here, to us.
Wow....ok. Now, while this wouldn't make the same being done to you ok, your movement does this to men, critics of feminism and men's activist groups AAAAAALL THE TIME. You don't like being generalised and judged by the worst of you? Well, welcome to our world when many feminists talk about men. Sucky, isn't it?
But as I said earlier - I'm not claiming that all feminists behave this way, I'm saying that there is to my view enough of the crappy things I have mentioned within feminism to not consider the movement worth defending.
I'm going to post links in a separate post seeing as the editor is still misbehaving with me. Although I do have to go to work soon, so it might have to wait.