First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Times article - A Better Feminism
36990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Bellingham WA, USA
Offline
Posted 3/9/15
Nobody is going to take feminism seriously in the civilized world so long as tumblr continues to exist.
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 3/9/15
A better feminism would be feminist not wanting to be above men. Females should be treated exactly like men. Get the same pay, get the same respect, get the same education, get the same punishment for crimes, not be raped, murdered, sexual abused, assaulted, and drugged. Everyone needs to be treated with respect and have a healthy relationship. Same goes for different races.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/9/15 , edited 3/9/15
I won't pretend to know a darn thing about "waves" of feminism but it think we should aim for equality among the sexes. I want my children to feel like they can be who they want to be and do what they want to do regardless of their sex. There are some mechanical issues actually achieving wage equality but these tend to arise out of cultural expectations we put on to out children with any intent of treating them differently. We still seem to treat women who leave their career to raise their children as making a responsible choice while a male partner doing the same thing is treated with scorn. The correct choice on who if either parent should quit their career to look after children is going to depend entirely on the individual situation. I was raised mainly by my grandparents so my parents could continue to work and pay to have private schooling for me and my sister.

I think we need to consider people as individuals more than trying to put them into groups and demand they conform to our ways of thinking. Ultimately people aren't going to entirely agree on what is and what isn't sexist, there will be mainstream opinions and fringe ones were just going to have to deal with that and try our best. I guess if we all generally want men and women and intersex people to be treated equally then that's a good start. How we make that happen is going to take a lot of guess work and experimentation and not everyone will agree on the path even if they have the same goal.

As for the whole antagonistic side of the Feminist vs MRA/CIS thing going on its counterproductive and is just going to entrench everybody its best to try to not set up offensive straw-men of what you disagree with and then knock them down, it rarely leads to healthy discussions which stand a chance of changing anyone's mind. We should be try to be more pro what we are for not against what others are for.

Apologies for possibly bad English I tend to just type out my thought train.

Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15 , edited 3/9/15

BlueOni wrote:


Rohzek wrote:

Another big problem was with college rapes. Rape is a crime, and should not be handled by the universities. It should be handled by the appropriate government authorities. Universities don't have the same standards for any sort of trial. There is no "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I had a friend accused of stalking and sexual harassment in graduate school. He was quickly expelled without being given a chance. He filed a lawsuit for unjust procedures and racial discrimination. He won. It just goes to show how ill-equiped colleges really are to handle criminal cases.


In principle that's exactly how things ought to go. In practice, however, there are some hurdles to be overcome. Prosecutors tend toward cases they actually think stand a strong chance of going through to a conviction since they've a limited amount of money and time to devote to the enormous amount of cases they receive, and unfortunately that frequently translates into passing on prosecuting rape cases unless they're especially strong. It's certainly not the responsibility of universities to pick up the judicial system's slack, but it's also not as straightforward as saying that rape cases ought to be handled in public courts instead of by university proceedings. There's only so much money, so many prosecutors/defenders to work with, and so many hours in a day for court proceedings to occur.

Part of the call for increasing the attention of prosecutors and defenders toward rape cases is to call for increased funding for them to work with. Another part of it is to better enable law enforcement to respond to incidents by getting universities to more accurately represent the rates of incidents on their campuses, as some have underreported this information. Yet a third thing to do is to seek to make the processes by which universities' decisions are made in response to incidents (suspensions, expulsions, and so forth) as transparent as is possible in each specific case, and to ensure that these decisions aren't being made in a kangaroo court sort of way.


I didn't think about the prosecution side of the issue. They should either raise taxes or quit wasting money on harmless crimes (such as drug use/War on Drugs). Maybe then they wouldn't have the issue on shortages of time and money.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15 , edited 3/19/15

GodGreatestEver wrote:

Too inconsistent. "Women should be treated equally." -- Ok, totally agree.
>"Ladies first."
>"Guys should never hit girls."
>"Guys should treat girls with respect."
== Guys should treat girls specially. --Ok, wait... what?

Do they want to be treated equally or specially? Surely, equally would mean treating them like guys. If so, all those things that were taught about chivalry/gentlemen was completely pointless.
>Men fight for first.
>Men hit each other for the dumbest reasons.
>Men have to earn each other's respect.


This kind of outlook is too silly, I have to respond to it. It's not got anything to do with feminism to include the old gender role stereotypes and why you think they're still applicable, that's something else entirely. Chivalry comes from the outlook of knightliness, which inherently considers the knight more valuable than the commoner, and so it's somehow worth more for a knight to do a good deed for a commoner than a commoner for another commoner. Women couldn't be knights. Thankfully, language evolves with it's usage, and now chivalry is more about treating others respectfully as equals every chance you get.

It's not that chivalry/gentlemanliness is pointless, it's that you're supposed to extend it for reasons other than hooking a girl, and believe me, it's been dead in society longer than you've thought these feminists are making it pointless. But again, usage can change definition and I think I've got a piece that you're missing, and I've found a piece of what I'm missing.

As a precursor, the definite rule is guys should never hit gals, but that's also because nobody should physically strike anybody, especially not anybody smaller than them. As a counterpoint, have you never seen the youtube video of the girl throwing the shovel at the other girl? Hitting is what boys do and girls do it too. Girl fights were the best when I was in high school, fights were only like twice a month.

Guys should treat gals specially because presumably you're trying to hook one, but also because that's the first step in empathy. It's about recognizing that men and women have different challenges to face, but systemically it seems like women are more stifled than men. Men are treated specially too (and special doesn't always mean good in this sense, think of special-ed), because in one contrast out of a million it's assumed that guys should be rough and tumble jackasses and gals should be clueless delicate flowers.

But that doesn't make it less important to be chivalrous, we just need to learn to treat everybody specially. In this regard, chivalry is not gender-specific and shouldn't be under threat from any form of feminism.

How do men have to earn each others' respect any differently from women or from men earning women's respect? I'm thinking that maybe you just give your respect out to women for nothing, only because I think I've been confused similarly, but it is something you should do to everybody.

I dated a die-hard feminist for a little bit who liked to hold doors open for me because she could tell it created this internal anxiety of "this isn't right" and "there's nothing wrong with this." She made fun of me for it. What she couldn't understand is that I feel that way whenever anybody holds a door open for me, it was special and begrudgingly fun for me because she saw it and got enjoyment out of it, not because she's a woman and I wanted to hold doors for her. I was raised to hold a door for anybody and everybody, I'm a very good door holder thank you, it's something I like to do. The reasons go back to my parents' teaching and praise/scold habits, not sexism. In contrast I don't pull chairs out or close car doors for anybody, I was never taught to do that and it never crosses my mind.

I dunno, these problems with the feminist movement you've got seem to be from your personal experience, which is no way to look at an ideology if you want to understand it. I like to be treated specially and get the chance to talk mindlessly about things nobody else cares about, but I don't think anybody's demanding that specific right. Feminism as outlined in the OP's link is just a clever way of closing the door on the nut-jobs that have used feminism as a platform to be crazy.

Feminism itself, like chivalry, has just never become anything nasty in my opinion, and I think it's important that we ignore nut-jobs instead of using their arguments against credible concerns.
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15 , edited 3/9/15
If women had no rights, they would not be able to voice such horrible and stupid things while hiding under the false title of 'feminist.'

True feminism has been lost. Today, it is just a corrupted husk that no longer stands for what it used to.

The main reason why it is so damaging, IMO, is that it seeks to accomplish something impossible. Equality is impossible to begin with. No matter how close you match the societal worth of males and females, they will never be exactly the same in all aspects. The average woman will not be as strong as an average man when you pull out statistics. The average man will not live as long as the average woman when you pull out statistics. The average man is more aggressive than the average woman when you pull out the statistics. These things seem small but cause ripples that cannot be stopped by mere ideology. Work that relies on some of these things will not treat men and women as exact equals because they are not equal in the properties that such work demands. Pretending that everything should be split 50/50 down the middle is blindly idealistic, impossible, and damaging. It teaches people that as long as they believe something, it can be made true, and that's stupid when used as a crutch for everything. It's unreasonable, unrealistic, and inefficient. They don't know how to say "sh** happens" and move on to expend energy on less frivolous matters. Unarguably, the ability to say "sh** happens" and move on is a valuable skill. It is damaging when used too much, just as it is damaging when "believe and it can happen" is used too much. There must be a constant balancing with reasonable give on each side. No matter how great of a person you are, bad things will occasionally happen to you. No matter how much you mean well, your decisions will cause bad things to happen sometimes. No matter what you do, there is an up and there is a down. That is the fundamental of what life is, that is reality, and no amount of spinning in circles in one's own mind will change that.

Additionally, the name itself is not good for promoting equality. Obviously, most people think of female empowerment when they think of feminism. They do not see a balancing of the scale but, rather, added weight being put on just one side of the scale. This draws people who don't understand what it is supposed to be, and it is far too damaged and twisted at this point to be salvageable. They will literally pick at tiny issues and make a mountain out a molehill while ignoring blatantly pressing issues that are actually of real concern. Their language regarding what equality should be does not include 'reasonable' anywhere in the vocabulary. It is imprecise and misleading.

As funny as it may sounds, since I am a pessimist who believes people are hopeless, stupid, and innately bad, I consider myself a humanitarian. Not an egalitarian or feminist. There are many ways to reach the goal of reasonable societal equilibrium, and I believe hardcore feminists are overlooking this in their blind zeal. Either they are overlooking it or they are just warped people with unhealthy beliefs.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

If women had no rights, they would not be able to voice such horrible and stupid things while hiding under the false title of 'feminist.'

True feminism has been lost. Today, it is just a corrupted husk that no longer stands for what it used to.

The main reason why it is so damaging, IMO, is that it seeks to accomplish something impossible. Equality is impossible to begin with. No matter how close you match the societal worth of males and females, they will never be exactly the same in all aspects. The average woman will not be as strong as an average man when you pull out statistics. The average man will not live as long as the average woman when you pull out statistics. The average man is more aggressive than the average woman when you pull out the statistics. These things seem small but cause ripples that cannot be stopped by mere ideology. Work that relies on some of these things will not treat men and women as exact equals because they are not equal in the properties that such work demands. Pretending that everything should be split 50/50 down the middle is blindly idealistic, impossible, and damaging. It teaches people that as long as they believe something, it can be made true, and that's stupid when used as a crutch for everything. It's unreasonable, unrealistic, and inefficient. They don't know how to say "sh** happens" and move on to expend energy on less frivolous matters. Unarguably, the ability to say "sh** happens" and move on is a valuable skill. It is damaging when used too much, just as it is damaging when "believe and it can happen" is used too much. There must be a constant balancing with reasonable give on each side. No matter how great of a person you are, bad things will occasionally happen to you. No matter how much you mean well, your decisions will cause bad things to happen sometimes. No matter what you do, there is an up and there is a down. That is the fundamental of what life is, that is reality, and no amount of spinning in circles in one's own mind will change that.

Additionally, the name itself is not good for promoting equality. Obviously, most people think of female empowerment when they think of feminism. They do not see a balancing of the scale but, rather, added weight being put on just one side of the scale. This draws people who don't understand what it is supposed to be, and it is far too damaged and twisted at this point to be salvageable. They will literally pick at tiny issues and make a mountain out a molehill while ignoring blatantly pressing issues that are actually of real concern. Their language regarding what equality should be does not include 'reasonable' anywhere in the vocabulary. It is imprecise and misleading.

As funny as it may sounds, since I am a pessimist who believes people are hopeless, stupid, and innately bad, I consider myself a humanitarian. Not an egalitarian or feminist. There are many ways to reach the goal of reasonable societal equilibrium, and I believe hardcore feminists are overlooking this in their blind zeal. Either they are overlooking it or they are just warped people with unhealthy beliefs.


I believe you are less exposed to the world than you think you are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/ferguson-justice-department-report_n_6810766.html

Your opinion on blind zeal is valid but does nothing to support this equilibrium that you speak of. Feminism in name is bad for the promotion of the ideal because people won't learn it or take it seriously. Civil rights are good, that's an idea that suffered the rigors of doubt and is still underemployed (pun).

31839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/9/15

serifsansserif wrote:

http://time.com/3651057/a-better-feminism-for-2015/

I stumbled across this a few weeks back.

Rather than posting in the whole "why are you against feminism" debate, I figure I'd rather start a discussion based on this article, which, hopefully may lead into a more positive direction.

For me, I grew up in the 80's which meant that I went through the biggest push for equality amongst the sexes in a LOOOONG time. This was the time where longitudinal studies between the sexes were being published frequently, where women pushed to stop color coding babies (blue for boys, pink for girls). In the schools we were taught as children to avoid sexist language. It's now a waitress, it's a server, it's not a stewardess, it's a flight attendant.. etc.

During the 90's I got to witness the change of the definition of rape in the eyes of the law to include men as possible victims of the crime, and if you read the FBI handbook now on how to identify sexual harassment, it's quite a magnificent piece of work in gender and sexual orientation inclusion.(I, unfortunately, can't find it on their site again :P)

I witness an unprecidented number of strong female figures rise to power and fame, and too this day, see more women dominating the conversations we have about policy. It was during the past 40 years that we've had, not once, but twice women run for presidential office, and there's a very likely chance that our last female candidate may run again in years.

The pay gap, according to pew research, is approximately 7 cents for each newly minted worker, although child rearing and career choices seem to make it difficult in maintaining that close number (on the other hand, more men than women find dissatisfaction at how much time they spend trying to raise their kids).

For all of the possibilities that feminism has made possible, I'm thrilled to see them come to fruition during the 90's and even into the 00's. But somewhere along the way, feminism changed. And it changed particularly last year. It seemed like once we had finally come ever so close to achieving a level of equality for women, the dialog changed from equality to something else.

In the end, I have to admit, I agree that if I am going to go back to being pro feminism, some things need to change, and the article is perhaps one of the best critiques of the movement that I've seen.

Please, read and discuss.
it was never about equality but more like a lesbian movement that turned women to be man-haters and the like.to tell a woman that her first priority in her life is to get a career is cheating her of the blessings of mother-bearing and being a wife.i mean the main reason why people are not sticking together is because of the amounts cheating and competition that couples are engaging in to

27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15 , edited 3/9/15

morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

If women had no rights, they would not be able to voice such horrible and stupid things while hiding under the false title of 'feminist.'

True feminism has been lost. Today, it is just a corrupted husk that no longer stands for what it used to.

The main reason why it is so damaging, IMO, is that it seeks to accomplish something impossible. Equality is impossible to begin with. No matter how close you match the societal worth of males and females, they will never be exactly the same in all aspects. The average woman will not be as strong as an average man when you pull out statistics. The average man will not live as long as the average woman when you pull out statistics. The average man is more aggressive than the average woman when you pull out the statistics. These things seem small but cause ripples that cannot be stopped by mere ideology. Work that relies on some of these things will not treat men and women as exact equals because they are not equal in the properties that such work demands. Pretending that everything should be split 50/50 down the middle is blindly idealistic, impossible, and damaging. It teaches people that as long as they believe something, it can be made true, and that's stupid when used as a crutch for everything. It's unreasonable, unrealistic, and inefficient. They don't know how to say "sh** happens" and move on to expend energy on less frivolous matters. Unarguably, the ability to say "sh** happens" and move on is a valuable skill. It is damaging when used too much, just as it is damaging when "believe and it can happen" is used too much. There must be a constant balancing with reasonable give on each side. No matter how great of a person you are, bad things will occasionally happen to you. No matter how much you mean well, your decisions will cause bad things to happen sometimes. No matter what you do, there is an up and there is a down. That is the fundamental of what life is, that is reality, and no amount of spinning in circles in one's own mind will change that.

Additionally, the name itself is not good for promoting equality. Obviously, most people think of female empowerment when they think of feminism. They do not see a balancing of the scale but, rather, added weight being put on just one side of the scale. This draws people who don't understand what it is supposed to be, and it is far too damaged and twisted at this point to be salvageable. They will literally pick at tiny issues and make a mountain out a molehill while ignoring blatantly pressing issues that are actually of real concern. Their language regarding what equality should be does not include 'reasonable' anywhere in the vocabulary. It is imprecise and misleading.

As funny as it may sounds, since I am a pessimist who believes people are hopeless, stupid, and innately bad, I consider myself a humanitarian. Not an egalitarian or feminist. There are many ways to reach the goal of reasonable societal equilibrium, and I believe hardcore feminists are overlooking this in their blind zeal. Either they are overlooking it or they are just warped people with unhealthy beliefs.


I believe you are less exposed to the world than you think you are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/ferguson-justice-department-report_n_6810766.html

Your opinion on blind zeal is valid but does nothing to support this equilibrium that you speak of. Feminism in name is bad for the promotion of the ideal because people won't learn it or take it seriously. Civil rights are good, that's an idea that suffered the rigors of doubt and is still underemployed (pun).



I study law. I know how messed up and scattered court decisions are. That is how they make it into the case books.

We are discussing feminism. I'm aware the world is messed up and how unfair the world is. I am not claiming I know the magic formula for reaching reasonable societal equality, nor am I claiming that I know how to maintain it when it is ever reached. I cannot even say how much give each side should have before we arrive back at inequality. I am not saying things that support equilibrium. I am saying that equilibrium is even harder to achieve through unrealistic ideas. Civil rights are nice but that is not the same as the unrealistic standard of equality that I mentioned. There is an overlap but they are not the same thing.

People are lazy and you can't expect most of the population to do research to inform themselves adequately. You have to spoon-feed them information in small bits that are easy to understand.

I may not have been exposed to the world as much as someone older than me but even I know the world is unfair, reality is harsh, and always adhering to pipe dream ideologies is bad.

6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15 , edited 3/9/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

If women had no rights, they would not be able to voice such horrible and stupid things while hiding under the false title of 'feminist.'

True feminism has been lost. Today, it is just a corrupted husk that no longer stands for what it used to.

The main reason why it is so damaging, IMO, is that it seeks to accomplish something impossible. Equality is impossible to begin with. No matter how close you match the societal worth of males and females, they will never be exactly the same in all aspects. The average woman will not be as strong as an average man when you pull out statistics. The average man will not live as long as the average woman when you pull out statistics. The average man is more aggressive than the average woman when you pull out the statistics. These things seem small but cause ripples that cannot be stopped by mere ideology. Work that relies on some of these things will not treat men and women as exact equals because they are not equal in the properties that such work demands. Pretending that everything should be split 50/50 down the middle is blindly idealistic, impossible, and damaging. It teaches people that as long as they believe something, it can be made true, and that's stupid when used as a crutch for everything. It's unreasonable, unrealistic, and inefficient. They don't know how to say "sh** happens" and move on to expend energy on less frivolous matters. Unarguably, the ability to say "sh** happens" and move on is a valuable skill. It is damaging when used too much, just as it is damaging when "believe and it can happen" is used too much. There must be a constant balancing with reasonable give on each side. No matter how great of a person you are, bad things will occasionally happen to you. No matter how much you mean well, your decisions will cause bad things to happen sometimes. No matter what you do, there is an up and there is a down. That is the fundamental of what life is, that is reality, and no amount of spinning in circles in one's own mind will change that.

Additionally, the name itself is not good for promoting equality. Obviously, most people think of female empowerment when they think of feminism. They do not see a balancing of the scale but, rather, added weight being put on just one side of the scale. This draws people who don't understand what it is supposed to be, and it is far too damaged and twisted at this point to be salvageable. They will literally pick at tiny issues and make a mountain out a molehill while ignoring blatantly pressing issues that are actually of real concern. Their language regarding what equality should be does not include 'reasonable' anywhere in the vocabulary. It is imprecise and misleading.

As funny as it may sounds, since I am a pessimist who believes people are hopeless, stupid, and innately bad, I consider myself a humanitarian. Not an egalitarian or feminist. There are many ways to reach the goal of reasonable societal equilibrium, and I believe hardcore feminists are overlooking this in their blind zeal. Either they are overlooking it or they are just warped people with unhealthy beliefs.


I believe you are less exposed to the world than you think you are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/ferguson-justice-department-report_n_6810766.html

Your opinion on blind zeal is valid but does nothing to support this equilibrium that you speak of. Feminism in name is bad for the promotion of the ideal because people won't learn it or take it seriously. Civil rights are good, that's an idea that suffered the rigors of doubt and is still underemployed (pun).



I study law. I know how messed up and scattered court decisions are. That is how they make it into the case books.

We are discussing feminism. I'm aware the world is messed up and how unfair the world is. I am not claiming I know the magic formula for reaching reasonable societal equality, nor am I claiming that I know how to maintain it when it is ever reached. I cannot even say how much give each side should have before we arrive back at inequality. I am not saying things that support equilibrium. I am saying that equilibrium is even harder to achieve through unrealistic ideas. Civil rights are nice but that is not the same as the unrealistic standard of equality that I mentioned. There is an overlap but they are not the same thing.

People are lazy and you can't expect most of the population to do research to inform themselves adequately. You have to spoon-feed them information in small bits that are easy to understand.

I may not have been exposed to the world as much as someone older than me but even I know the world is unfair, reality is harsh, and always adhering to pipe dream ideologies is bad.



That's fine, if I don't have to spoon feed you I will stop trying. But I'm surprised about your opinion, as a fellow pessimist. People are going to screw it up, let's give them the opportunity to screw it up closer to right.

Loud people represent each cause. It's up to the quiet people to get the loud people to make a little bit of sense.

Feminism is a movement from the seventies that really found legs in the following decades and almost caught up, Now, frustrated feminists can finally voice every opinion they have on the internet at any time, and somehow shockingly, this don't always synch up to the core feminist movement.

Also, Taylor Swift says and does stupid things. She is very popular, I hear people read her tweets.

Like racism, the new generation doesn't care because to them. it's already defeated, which is so good! New generation -100pts racism! But it's not gone, because old people who haven't lost sight of Benjamin Rush or Jim Crow are still making big decisions. Why does Benjamin Rush's false claim about race and lineage not defeat the movement? Because we haven't figured out how to solve it, but we've decided skin color isn't even the tip of the iceberg and genetically we are all indeterminately the same. I don't get Christianity, which I admit, but when it gets in the way of scientific analysis I'm lost.

Please tell me what you don't appreciate about feminism because again I'm lost. Make sure it's not in reference to feminsts, because good or bad, that won't change how the individual acts on the belief. This is pessimism we're talking about, which is why peer review is so important.
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15

morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

If women had no rights, they would not be able to voice such horrible and stupid things while hiding under the false title of 'feminist.'

True feminism has been lost. Today, it is just a corrupted husk that no longer stands for what it used to.

The main reason why it is so damaging, IMO, is that it seeks to accomplish something impossible. Equality is impossible to begin with. No matter how close you match the societal worth of males and females, they will never be exactly the same in all aspects. The average woman will not be as strong as an average man when you pull out statistics. The average man will not live as long as the average woman when you pull out statistics. The average man is more aggressive than the average woman when you pull out the statistics. These things seem small but cause ripples that cannot be stopped by mere ideology. Work that relies on some of these things will not treat men and women as exact equals because they are not equal in the properties that such work demands. Pretending that everything should be split 50/50 down the middle is blindly idealistic, impossible, and damaging. It teaches people that as long as they believe something, it can be made true, and that's stupid when used as a crutch for everything. It's unreasonable, unrealistic, and inefficient. They don't know how to say "sh** happens" and move on to expend energy on less frivolous matters. Unarguably, the ability to say "sh** happens" and move on is a valuable skill. It is damaging when used too much, just as it is damaging when "believe and it can happen" is used too much. There must be a constant balancing with reasonable give on each side. No matter how great of a person you are, bad things will occasionally happen to you. No matter how much you mean well, your decisions will cause bad things to happen sometimes. No matter what you do, there is an up and there is a down. That is the fundamental of what life is, that is reality, and no amount of spinning in circles in one's own mind will change that.

Additionally, the name itself is not good for promoting equality. Obviously, most people think of female empowerment when they think of feminism. They do not see a balancing of the scale but, rather, added weight being put on just one side of the scale. This draws people who don't understand what it is supposed to be, and it is far too damaged and twisted at this point to be salvageable. They will literally pick at tiny issues and make a mountain out a molehill while ignoring blatantly pressing issues that are actually of real concern. Their language regarding what equality should be does not include 'reasonable' anywhere in the vocabulary. It is imprecise and misleading.

As funny as it may sounds, since I am a pessimist who believes people are hopeless, stupid, and innately bad, I consider myself a humanitarian. Not an egalitarian or feminist. There are many ways to reach the goal of reasonable societal equilibrium, and I believe hardcore feminists are overlooking this in their blind zeal. Either they are overlooking it or they are just warped people with unhealthy beliefs.


I believe you are less exposed to the world than you think you are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/ferguson-justice-department-report_n_6810766.html

Your opinion on blind zeal is valid but does nothing to support this equilibrium that you speak of. Feminism in name is bad for the promotion of the ideal because people won't learn it or take it seriously. Civil rights are good, that's an idea that suffered the rigors of doubt and is still underemployed (pun).



I study law. I know how messed up and scattered court decisions are. That is how they make it into the case books.

We are discussing feminism. I'm aware the world is messed up and how unfair the world is. I am not claiming I know the magic formula for reaching reasonable societal equality, nor am I claiming that I know how to maintain it when it is ever reached. I cannot even say how much give each side should have before we arrive back at inequality. I am not saying things that support equilibrium. I am saying that equilibrium is even harder to achieve through unrealistic ideas. Civil rights are nice but that is not the same as the unrealistic standard of equality that I mentioned. There is an overlap but they are not the same thing.

People are lazy and you can't expect most of the population to do research to inform themselves adequately. You have to spoon-feed them information in small bits that are easy to understand.

I may not have been exposed to the world as much as someone older than me but even I know the world is unfair, reality is harsh, and always adhering to pipe dream ideologies is bad.



That's fine, if I don't have to spoon feed you I will stop trying. But I'm surprised about your opinion, as a fellow pessimist. People are going to screw it up, let's give them the opportunity to screw it up closer to right.

Loud people represent each cause. It's up to the quiet people to get the loud people to make a little bit of sense.

Feminism is a movement from the seventies that really found legs in the following decades and almost caught up, Now, frustrated feminists can finally voice every opinion they have on the internet at any time, and somehow shockingly, this don't always synch up to the core feminist movement.

Also, Taylor Swift says and does stupid things. She is very popular, I hear people read her tweets.

Like racism, the new generation doesn't care because to them. it's already defeated, which is so good! New generation -100pts racism! But it's not gone, because old people who haven't lost sight of Benjamin Rush or Jim Crow are still making big decisions. Why does Benjamin Rush's false claim about race and lineage not defeat the movement? Because we haven't figured out how to solve it, but we've decided skin color isn't even the tip of the iceberg and genetically we are all indeterminately the same. I don't get Christianity, which I admit, but when it gets in the way of scientific analysis I'm lost.

Please tell me what you don't appreciate about feminism because again I'm lost. Make sure it's not in reference to feminsts, because good or bad, that won't change how the individual acts on the belief. This is pessimism we're talking about, which is why peer review is so important.

I think my version of pessimism is that I pay more attention to how awful things are. I don't want to be like this and it does not make me happy but bad things are hard to ignore. It also does not mean that I want bad things to happen.

I agree that it's probably better to allow people to screw up closer to right, but I just don't think feminism is close enough to that "right" for my tastes. They are also screwing up more than I think is acceptable, if that makes any sense. I am not making any sense. Sorry, haha.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

If women had no rights, they would not be able to voice such horrible and stupid things while hiding under the false title of 'feminist.'

True feminism has been lost. Today, it is just a corrupted husk that no longer stands for what it used to.

The main reason why it is so damaging, IMO, is that it seeks to accomplish something impossible. Equality is impossible to begin with. No matter how close you match the societal worth of males and females, they will never be exactly the same in all aspects. The average woman will not be as strong as an average man when you pull out statistics. The average man will not live as long as the average woman when you pull out statistics. The average man is more aggressive than the average woman when you pull out the statistics. These things seem small but cause ripples that cannot be stopped by mere ideology. Work that relies on some of these things will not treat men and women as exact equals because they are not equal in the properties that such work demands. Pretending that everything should be split 50/50 down the middle is blindly idealistic, impossible, and damaging. It teaches people that as long as they believe something, it can be made true, and that's stupid when used as a crutch for everything. It's unreasonable, unrealistic, and inefficient. They don't know how to say "sh** happens" and move on to expend energy on less frivolous matters. Unarguably, the ability to say "sh** happens" and move on is a valuable skill. It is damaging when used too much, just as it is damaging when "believe and it can happen" is used too much. There must be a constant balancing with reasonable give on each side. No matter how great of a person you are, bad things will occasionally happen to you. No matter how much you mean well, your decisions will cause bad things to happen sometimes. No matter what you do, there is an up and there is a down. That is the fundamental of what life is, that is reality, and no amount of spinning in circles in one's own mind will change that.

Additionally, the name itself is not good for promoting equality. Obviously, most people think of female empowerment when they think of feminism. They do not see a balancing of the scale but, rather, added weight being put on just one side of the scale. This draws people who don't understand what it is supposed to be, and it is far too damaged and twisted at this point to be salvageable. They will literally pick at tiny issues and make a mountain out a molehill while ignoring blatantly pressing issues that are actually of real concern. Their language regarding what equality should be does not include 'reasonable' anywhere in the vocabulary. It is imprecise and misleading.

As funny as it may sounds, since I am a pessimist who believes people are hopeless, stupid, and innately bad, I consider myself a humanitarian. Not an egalitarian or feminist. There are many ways to reach the goal of reasonable societal equilibrium, and I believe hardcore feminists are overlooking this in their blind zeal. Either they are overlooking it or they are just warped people with unhealthy beliefs.


I believe you are less exposed to the world than you think you are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/ferguson-justice-department-report_n_6810766.html

Your opinion on blind zeal is valid but does nothing to support this equilibrium that you speak of. Feminism in name is bad for the promotion of the ideal because people won't learn it or take it seriously. Civil rights are good, that's an idea that suffered the rigors of doubt and is still underemployed (pun).



I study law. I know how messed up and scattered court decisions are. That is how they make it into the case books.

We are discussing feminism. I'm aware the world is messed up and how unfair the world is. I am not claiming I know the magic formula for reaching reasonable societal equality, nor am I claiming that I know how to maintain it when it is ever reached. I cannot even say how much give each side should have before we arrive back at inequality. I am not saying things that support equilibrium. I am saying that equilibrium is even harder to achieve through unrealistic ideas. Civil rights are nice but that is not the same as the unrealistic standard of equality that I mentioned. There is an overlap but they are not the same thing.

People are lazy and you can't expect most of the population to do research to inform themselves adequately. You have to spoon-feed them information in small bits that are easy to understand.

I may not have been exposed to the world as much as someone older than me but even I know the world is unfair, reality is harsh, and always adhering to pipe dream ideologies is bad.



That's fine, if I don't have to spoon feed you I will stop trying. But I'm surprised about your opinion, as a fellow pessimist. People are going to screw it up, let's give them the opportunity to screw it up closer to right.

Loud people represent each cause. It's up to the quiet people to get the loud people to make a little bit of sense.

Feminism is a movement from the seventies that really found legs in the following decades and almost caught up, Now, frustrated feminists can finally voice every opinion they have on the internet at any time, and somehow shockingly, this don't always synch up to the core feminist movement.

Also, Taylor Swift says and does stupid things. She is very popular, I hear people read her tweets.

Like racism, the new generation doesn't care because to them. it's already defeated, which is so good! New generation -100pts racism! But it's not gone, because old people who haven't lost sight of Benjamin Rush or Jim Crow are still making big decisions. Why does Benjamin Rush's false claim about race and lineage not defeat the movement? Because we haven't figured out how to solve it, but we've decided skin color isn't even the tip of the iceberg and genetically we are all indeterminately the same. I don't get Christianity, which I admit, but when it gets in the way of scientific analysis I'm lost.

Please tell me what you don't appreciate about feminism because again I'm lost. Make sure it's not in reference to feminsts, because good or bad, that won't change how the individual acts on the belief. This is pessimism we're talking about, which is why peer review is so important.

I think my version of pessimism is that I pay more attention to how awful things are. I don't want to be like this and it does not make me happy but bad things are hard to ignore. It also does not mean that I want bad things to happen.

I agree that it's probably better to allow people to screw up closer to right, but I just don't think feminism is close enough to that "right" for my tastes. They are also screwing up more than I think is acceptable, if that makes any sense. I am not making any sense. Sorry, haha.


I totally agree, everything is bad and always will be. Will anything be fixed if one or two people agree on what feminism is? No, it will always be wrong, but surely we can agree that men's rights advocacy groups are misguided?

Cynicism is a great tool against pessimism, just as pessimism is a great tool against fantasy. Nobody can get "it" right, but I believe there can be reason to attempt "it." I think it's called pragmatism, and a healthy amount of pessimism and cynicism fits right in.
4721 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/10/15
I've only got to say one thing; I'm sure that on this forum we have people with open minds and actually choose to read/listen to what others have to say. But just because you read an article and in this forum we don't see rape culture, it doesn't mean it does not exist.

It's probably not as extreme as it sounds, but rape culture does exist. I don't know about classifying as a culture, but victim blaming, particularity females, is definitely a thing. I'm basing this on what I see in my life experience, not only on what I read online.
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/10/15

morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


morechunch wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

If women had no rights, they would not be able to voice such horrible and stupid things while hiding under the false title of 'feminist.'

True feminism has been lost. Today, it is just a corrupted husk that no longer stands for what it used to.

The main reason why it is so damaging, IMO, is that it seeks to accomplish something impossible. Equality is impossible to begin with. No matter how close you match the societal worth of males and females, they will never be exactly the same in all aspects. The average woman will not be as strong as an average man when you pull out statistics. The average man will not live as long as the average woman when you pull out statistics. The average man is more aggressive than the average woman when you pull out the statistics. These things seem small but cause ripples that cannot be stopped by mere ideology. Work that relies on some of these things will not treat men and women as exact equals because they are not equal in the properties that such work demands. Pretending that everything should be split 50/50 down the middle is blindly idealistic, impossible, and damaging. It teaches people that as long as they believe something, it can be made true, and that's stupid when used as a crutch for everything. It's unreasonable, unrealistic, and inefficient. They don't know how to say "sh** happens" and move on to expend energy on less frivolous matters. Unarguably, the ability to say "sh** happens" and move on is a valuable skill. It is damaging when used too much, just as it is damaging when "believe and it can happen" is used too much. There must be a constant balancing with reasonable give on each side. No matter how great of a person you are, bad things will occasionally happen to you. No matter how much you mean well, your decisions will cause bad things to happen sometimes. No matter what you do, there is an up and there is a down. That is the fundamental of what life is, that is reality, and no amount of spinning in circles in one's own mind will change that.

Additionally, the name itself is not good for promoting equality. Obviously, most people think of female empowerment when they think of feminism. They do not see a balancing of the scale but, rather, added weight being put on just one side of the scale. This draws people who don't understand what it is supposed to be, and it is far too damaged and twisted at this point to be salvageable. They will literally pick at tiny issues and make a mountain out a molehill while ignoring blatantly pressing issues that are actually of real concern. Their language regarding what equality should be does not include 'reasonable' anywhere in the vocabulary. It is imprecise and misleading.

As funny as it may sounds, since I am a pessimist who believes people are hopeless, stupid, and innately bad, I consider myself a humanitarian. Not an egalitarian or feminist. There are many ways to reach the goal of reasonable societal equilibrium, and I believe hardcore feminists are overlooking this in their blind zeal. Either they are overlooking it or they are just warped people with unhealthy beliefs.


I believe you are less exposed to the world than you think you are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/ferguson-justice-department-report_n_6810766.html

Your opinion on blind zeal is valid but does nothing to support this equilibrium that you speak of. Feminism in name is bad for the promotion of the ideal because people won't learn it or take it seriously. Civil rights are good, that's an idea that suffered the rigors of doubt and is still underemployed (pun).



I study law. I know how messed up and scattered court decisions are. That is how they make it into the case books.

We are discussing feminism. I'm aware the world is messed up and how unfair the world is. I am not claiming I know the magic formula for reaching reasonable societal equality, nor am I claiming that I know how to maintain it when it is ever reached. I cannot even say how much give each side should have before we arrive back at inequality. I am not saying things that support equilibrium. I am saying that equilibrium is even harder to achieve through unrealistic ideas. Civil rights are nice but that is not the same as the unrealistic standard of equality that I mentioned. There is an overlap but they are not the same thing.

People are lazy and you can't expect most of the population to do research to inform themselves adequately. You have to spoon-feed them information in small bits that are easy to understand.

I may not have been exposed to the world as much as someone older than me but even I know the world is unfair, reality is harsh, and always adhering to pipe dream ideologies is bad.



That's fine, if I don't have to spoon feed you I will stop trying. But I'm surprised about your opinion, as a fellow pessimist. People are going to screw it up, let's give them the opportunity to screw it up closer to right.

Loud people represent each cause. It's up to the quiet people to get the loud people to make a little bit of sense.

Feminism is a movement from the seventies that really found legs in the following decades and almost caught up, Now, frustrated feminists can finally voice every opinion they have on the internet at any time, and somehow shockingly, this don't always synch up to the core feminist movement.

Also, Taylor Swift says and does stupid things. She is very popular, I hear people read her tweets.

Like racism, the new generation doesn't care because to them. it's already defeated, which is so good! New generation -100pts racism! But it's not gone, because old people who haven't lost sight of Benjamin Rush or Jim Crow are still making big decisions. Why does Benjamin Rush's false claim about race and lineage not defeat the movement? Because we haven't figured out how to solve it, but we've decided skin color isn't even the tip of the iceberg and genetically we are all indeterminately the same. I don't get Christianity, which I admit, but when it gets in the way of scientific analysis I'm lost.

Please tell me what you don't appreciate about feminism because again I'm lost. Make sure it's not in reference to feminsts, because good or bad, that won't change how the individual acts on the belief. This is pessimism we're talking about, which is why peer review is so important.

I think my version of pessimism is that I pay more attention to how awful things are. I don't want to be like this and it does not make me happy but bad things are hard to ignore. It also does not mean that I want bad things to happen.

I agree that it's probably better to allow people to screw up closer to right, but I just don't think feminism is close enough to that "right" for my tastes. They are also screwing up more than I think is acceptable, if that makes any sense. I am not making any sense. Sorry, haha.


I totally agree, everything is bad and always will be. Will anything be fixed if one or two people agree on what feminism is? No, it will always be wrong, but surely we can agree that men's rights advocacy groups are misguided?

Cynicism is a great tool against pessimism, just as pessimism is a great tool against fantasy. Nobody can get "it" right, but I believe there can be reason to attempt "it." I think it's called pragmatism, and a healthy amount of pessimism and cynicism fits right in.


Agreed. Men's rights advocacy groups are stupid. Men have traditionally been in dominant places in most societies, including the one we have today, and the entire reason that women's rights advocacy groups ever existed is that women historically lacked the rights that men had. But, now that they have rights and no reasonable modern person raised in a developed country is as blatantly sexist as people in the last few thousand years, women are now very much recognized and valued for their contributions and good work, there is no particular use for either. Instead, both sides ought to come together to create a system together that works for both sides. Men's rights groups basically exist as mockeries of women's rights groups in our society. I think they're both stupid in the US and that they don't help to bring us closer to an acceptable sort of equality. They just grind against one another, damage one another, spark unnecessary conflict, and get nowhere. Like two recalcitrant kids fighting over a stale cookie when there is another full cookie jar within easy reach. There are still places where women's rights advocacy groups have a use in the world, but that place is nowhere in the US. Just my two cents. If they want to complain about how sexist a piece of obscure artwork is or how sexist one silly advertisement is, and dig a damn mine in every little thing to "find the hidden sexism," they probably have too much free time on their hands and surely have more beneficial things to do with their time and energy.

It actually requires a lot of brainpower and creativity to essentially stricken themselves with what can only be described as "paranoia" to "find the hidden sexism." I can only hope they figure out for themselves that they should divert their efforts elsewhere for a more fruitful harvest.

You articulated that in a good way. I'll have to remember your cynicism quote.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 3/15/15


If you can gain some perspective, that's good enough.

But you're forgetting that you and I are not the ones in charge. It will take a generation to change things at this pace, and if women's rights are the barometer, big storms are coming.

So instead of feminism, I propose gender-neutrality. The struggles of women and the struggles of men are inherently different, we can never forget that if we want equality.

So let's be neutral on gender without forgetting each gender's struggle, and without allowing any person to invoke the gender struggle for personal reasons.

Neutrality is always tough as hell.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.