What's Your Opinion On Feminism?

[Orbit]

Gee Orbit, thanks for not giving any of us a chance.  What about the mischaracterizations that you made?  If you don't like mischaracterizations then not making them is a good way to discourage them.  Personally I think Thurisaz's comments were about the way you treated people here.  It's something to consider.

 

I'm still waiting for you to withdraw your accusations against me.  You know full well that I never said you are bad.  I never said all feminists are bad.  You have the power to acknowledge that you were barking up the wrong tree.

I disagree with you MM. Nothing I said mischaracterized what people said about feminism or about me. My views have been mischaracterized, however. Your logic was pretty clear MM: these feminists were mean to me so feminism is bad. Sure, I've boiled it down to its essence, but that is it, isn't it?

 

Are you telling me that if I made another thread about feminism, my previous experience wouldn't be repeated? Really?

[florduh]

Apparently some who identify as the best informed feminists would deny that these women even exist and their observations are based on total fantasy. Go ahead, take a look at the rest of the world:   http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

[mymistake]

 

Gee Orbit, thanks for not giving any of us a chance.  What about the mischaracterizations that you made?  If you don't like mischaracterizations then not making them is a good way to discourage them.  Personally I think Thurisaz's comments were about the way you treated people here.  It's something to consider.

 

I'm still waiting for you to withdraw your accusations against me.  You know full well that I never said you are bad.  I never said all feminists are bad.  You have the power to acknowledge that you were barking up the wrong tree.

I disagree with you MM. Nothing I said mischaracterized what people said about feminism or about me. Your logic was pretty clear MM: these feminists were mean to me so feminism is bad. Sure, I've boiled it down to its essence, but that is it, isn't it?

 

 

Nope.  You have distorted and twisted so that you have painted me as some kind of monster.

 

By the way if you check up thread I defined all the "certain people" I was talking about and you were none of them.  I mentioned my aunt, and so on.

 

Words have meaning and it is disingenuous of you to do this.  Wouldn't you fail a freshman student who tried that?

 

I looked up your thread on privilege because I didn't remember it the way you describe it.  Most of the responses you got were thoughtful and respectful.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66336-privilege/#.VO9gGkLT55g

 

 

 

 

Edit:  I looked it up in post 43 and 45.  I cited specific examples are none of them were you so where did you the idea that I said you were a bad person?  Artistic license is not okay when making accusations against others.

[Orbit]

 

 

Gee Orbit, thanks for not giving any of us a chance.  What about the mischaracterizations that you made?  If you don't like mischaracterizations then not making them is a good way to discourage them.  Personally I think Thurisaz's comments were about the way you treated people here.  It's something to consider.

 

I'm still waiting for you to withdraw your accusations against me.  You know full well that I never said you are bad.  I never said all feminists are bad.  You have the power to acknowledge that you were barking up the wrong tree.

I disagree with you MM. Nothing I said mischaracterized what people said about feminism or about me. Your logic was pretty clear MM: these feminists were mean to me so feminism is bad. Sure, I've boiled it down to its essence, but that is it, isn't it?

 

 

Nope.  You have distorted and twisted so that you have painted me as some kind of monster.

 

By the way if you check up thread I defined all the "certain people" I was talking about and you were none of them.  I mentioned my aunt, and so on.

 

Words have meaning and it is disingenuous of you to do this.  Wouldn't you fail a freshman student who tried that?

 

I looked up your thread on privilege because I didn't remember it the way you describe it.  Most of the responses you got were thoughtful and respectful.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66336-privilege/#.VO9gGkLT55g

 

I wasn't talking about that thread. I didn't participate in that thread, I just started it because someone wanted a reference. I was referring to the Ask A Feminist thread. I'm not being disingenuous. Most of both threads attack feminism. The responses aren't "tell me more" or "tell me how", the responses are "that can't be true because....[insert personal bias or half-truth here]" There is a difference. And now florduh posts a link to some anti-feminists. Yes, anti-feminists exist and I am aware of them. It's just one attack after another, none of them really motivated by anyone's desire to actually find something out.

[Leo]

I did call feminism propaganda, and looking back I see I was wrong. There is propaganda purporting itself to be feminism. Is it out of touch with what academic feminism is? Sounds like from what you say, perhaps it is. If someone releases a user manual onto the common market for a system, and everyone abides by it, and yet it's so appallingly incorrect about the product the original engineers designed, if that product is going to stay at market, someone's going to have to resolve that. History in that context isn't going to matter, not when systems are getting overclocked, or shipped out like WalMart did back in the mid 2000s with half the memory required to run Windows Vista, the history of Windows or the manufacturer isn't going to matter on the street where people can't print off their kid's homework assignment and connect to their work network. From a sound design perspective, history matters only as an explanation of how things came to be and why they were that way. Great for the drawing board and resolving backroom situations, but on the street, the parent trying to print doesn't want to hear about why vendors have seen fit to cooperate with establishments like WalMart. On the street, a mother whose son is falsely accused of rape, kicked off a college campus and now has no future, isn't going to be helpd by history of why the constitution can be overthrown in this situation. You know exactly what I'm talking about because you were troubleshooting long before 'troubleshoot' became a household word. I have, and always will, look at things from the perspective of the person on the street. Makes for better programming, makes for better life in general, hell I'd even like to imagine it made me a better parent, although the jury's still out on that one I'm sure. Not a drop of Bourjois

 

in my veins, I'm pretty damn prole.

 

As to why you would bother? Apparently you already have, so I'll go find the thread, see your counterarguments to the statistical data from the Department of Labor, or arguments in favor of overriding the constitution in favor of certain moral panic claims we now are dealing with, or whatever else you may have put up there, probably things I haven't even seen and will read.

 

I'll admit my own bias is towards the rationally objective, because that is how I've observed real problems getting solved for people. The one in six Americans going without food? (probably some on this site), and there's a rational, objective way to manage that situation at a community level. Some guy doesn't have a wheelchair ramp to get into a building for a diversity conference he was going to? Well, me and a couple guys - happened to be males in that instance, -- went to the industrial arts department, borrowed a sheet of plywood and a couple two-by-fours for bracing, set it up and he and a couple of his friends also in chairs could make it into the conference. Ironically, I caught some flack for that one, too damn prole for my own good in school and church environments I guess. The history of wheelchair ramps meant nothing to a couple guys sitting out there in the cold. At least we fools who put the ramp in for them had the luxury of the ability to move. As did the diversity admin who got on me over that one. Anyway I'll check out your thread, and read any books you have listed on there after I'm done with a couple Ayn Rand books I've finally got access to.

 

P.S. It could be Florduh is completely wrong, and you have what it takes to show him. I've been there done that as a blind guy on a regular basis.

[mymistake]

 

I wasn't talking about that thread. I didn't participate in that thread, I just started it because someone wanted a reference. I was referring to the Ask A Feminist thread. I'm not being disingenuous. Most of both threads attack feminism. The responses aren't "tell me more" or "tell me how", the responses are "that can't be true because....[insert personal bias or half-truth here]" There is a difference. And now florduh posts a link to some anti-feminists. Yes, anti-feminists exist and I am aware of them. It's just one attack after another, none of them really motivated by anyone's desire to actually find something out.

 

 

You are being disingenuous.  You've painted me as thinking you and all feminists are bad when this is not the case.  You have painted people as being anti-academic when this wasn't the case.  You have decided that you already know all of our motives.  You cite one thread that went badly as evidence that you can never talk to us even though we are trying to talk to you now.

 

Disagreeing with opinion pieces are not attacks on feminism.

 

Questioning the ideology is not anti-feminism.

 

Feminism is not perfect and not above questioning.

 

You don't have to punish people who have a different opinion.

 

People are not ideology.

 

Comments about ideology are not attacks on people.

[Orbit]

 

I wasn't talking about that thread. I didn't participate in that thread, I just started it because someone wanted a reference. I was referring to the Ask A Feminist thread. I'm not being disingenuous. Most of both threads attack feminism. The responses aren't "tell me more" or "tell me how", the responses are "that can't be true because....[insert personal bias or half-truth here]" There is a difference. And now florduh posts a link to some anti-feminists. Yes, anti-feminists exist and I am aware of them. It's just one attack after another, none of them really motivated by anyone's desire to actually find something out.

 

You are being disingenuous.  You've painted me as thinking you and all feminists are bad when this is not the case.

 

Where have you said anything about feminism was good? Did I miss it? 

 

You have painted people as being anti-academic when this wasn't the case.

Hmm florduh said "Academics rarely know anything about real life" and "Academic feminists don't know anything about feminism" How is that not anti-academic? It's plain insulting.

 

 

Questioning the ideology is not anti-feminism.

And now you are mischaracterizing. I never said any of these things. But note that knee-jerk attacks are not the same as genuine inquiry,

 

Feminism is not perfect and not above questioning.

More mischaracterizing. Where did I say this?

 

You don't have to punish people who have a different opinion.

 

People are not ideology.

 

Comments about ideology are not attacks on people.

No, but comments where I am "told" what my feminism is are insulting. Saying that academics (which I am) know nothing about real life or feminism are insults.

[Castiel233]

Orbit, you write:

 

Way to go straw man.

 

Because I'm so mean to you, post-crush.

 

When you say feminists are bad, you're saying I'm bad, by extension.

 

you're just too thick to get my meaning".

 

I don't think you are helping you own case by insulting posters, who from what I have read don't deserve it

 

You add

 

"I said what I wanted to say, I'm done."......and then continue to post

 

The OP asks "whats your opinion on feminism"......people have given their opinions and you then  appear to insult them............

[Orbit]

Orbit, you write:

 

Way to go straw man.

"Because I'm so mean to you, post-crush.

When you say feminists are bad, you're saying I'm bad, by extension.

you're just too thick to get my meaning".

 

I don't think you are helping you own case by insulting posters, who from what I have read don't deserve it

 

You add

 

"I said what I wanted to say, I'm done."......and then continue to post

 

The OP asks "whats your opinion on feminism"......people have given their opinions and you then  appear to insult them............

One who is insulted tends to insult back.

[florduh]

Saying that academics (which I am) know nothing about real life or feminism are insults. 

 

I'm sure you are well versed on the subject of feminism in theory, but you evidently choose to ignore or are unaware of its implementation in the real world. Those who have given feminism a bad name over the last few decades must not be True Feminists and what they say and do somehow doesn't count. I draw this conclusion from what you say about the subject and how you respond to anything that isn't in the textbook. It's an honest conclusion, but you're free to interpret it as an insult if that serves your purpose better.

[Castiel233]

Edit

[Orbit]

 

Saying that academics (which I am) know nothing about real life or feminism are insults.

I'm sure you are well versed on the subject of feminism in theory, but you evidently choose to ignore or are unaware of its implementation in the real world. Those who have given feminism a bad name over the last few decades must not be True Feminists and what they say and do somehow doesn't count. I draw this conclusion from what you say about the subject and how you respond to anything that isn't in the textbook. It's an honest conclusion, but you're free to interpret it as an insult if that serves your purpose better.

 

Gee, I did a dissertation on how feminism is implemented in the real world. I did it in the real world. It was not a dissertation based on what is found in books, but a dissertation based on field research. But of course, don't let me stop you from constructing me as a straw feminist that you can burn down. Your assumptions are insulting.

 

And I would like to point out that the ONLY thing I have said, the SUM TOTAL of what I have said about feminism in this thread is that it is being mischaracterized as a movement. I have made no statement about what feminism is or does. Think about that for a minute. All it takes to generate personal attacks is to say feminism is being mischaracterized.

[mymistake]

Let me quote my post 49 and 50

 

Well just off the cuff it began a couple of centuries ago.  I've seen the black and white pics of women demonstrating.  In the early days they wanted to vote and eventually they got it through an amendment.  (I don't remember which one without looking it up.)  After that they began lobbying to have the more sexist laws removed from the books - including barbaric things like a husband being allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as it was thiner than his thumb.  Then they lobbied to have marital rape and domestic violence criminalized.  I suppose they had to fight to make it into the workforce in the early 20th century because when WWII kicked off there were already a significant number of women working.  But the pay and available fields were highly restricted based on gender.  The war was an event when women were allowed to move into roles that up to that point had been reserved for men.  When the war ended Feminists fought to stay in those roles and not go back to the previous restrictions.  Then Feminism lobbied for equal pay.  Wasn't it around the 60's when they were able to get minimum wage equalized for gender and women started breaking the glass ceilings.  They made inroads into leadership positions and began to be elected in higher numbers.  These days you never hear the phrase "the first woman to" as a current event.  Domestic violence began to be viewed as not normal by society as a whole.  And then there was a shift when men started going to jail for beating their wives.  Feminism started to influence movies and television as well.  Having a hero date rape a woman slowly became unacceptable.  Characters in the story gradually stopped being there simply as romantic interests and started to become part of the plot.  Female protagonists eventually became normalized such as Kim Possible.  Compare the female characters of Frozen to those of Sleeping Beauty.  Today there is still a bias for many in the business world will assume a candidate is smarter simply because he his male and so on.

 

 

How is that for a summary without looking anything up?  But what does any of that have to do with our current discussion?  When males are met with hostility for no apparent reason this does not motivate them to help.

 

*of course Pelosi was one of the last ones to be a "first woman to".  That was a recent current event and the big one is still waiting to happen.  But most of these "first women" have already happened.  There are very few places left in the US where a woman can't go.  I was trying to contrast this with how often we heard the phrase back in the 70's.  Of course if we go back to the moon it would be normal for a woman to be on the crew.  There hasn't been a woman Chief Justice, Senate Majority Leader or (I think) a four star general yet.  But those things won't be too far off and when they happen it will seem just as natural as when Pelosi made history. 

 

 

 

Questioning the ideology is not anti-feminism.

And now you are mischaracterizing. I never said any of these things. But note that knee-jerk attacks are not the same as genuine inquiry,

 

 

Notice how I am mischaracterizing NOBODY?  I made a statement about the nature of anti-feminism.  It attacks nobody.  In my opinion a reasonable person would agree with my statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism is not perfect and not above questioning.

More mischaracterizing. Where did I say this?

 

Again, it is a mischaracterization of nobody because I quoted nobody.  I made a statement about the nature of Feminism.  How to respond to my statement is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to punish people who have a different opinion.
 
People are not ideology.
 
Comments about ideology are not attacks on people.

No, but comments where I am "told" what my feminism is are insulting. Saying that academics (which I am) know nothing about real life or feminism are insults.

 

 

So you alone have the right to express opinions about Feminism?  You find it insulting when others talk about it.

 

 

 

I see that other matter is still not resolved.  If you think I said you are a bad person then how can I talk to you about anything at all?  How is communication even possible?

[Orbit]

Let me quote my post 49 and 50

 

Well just off the cuff it began a couple of centuries ago.  I've seen the black and white pics of women demonstrating.  In the early days they wanted to vote and eventually they got it through an amendment.  (I don't remember which one without looking it up.)  After that they began lobbying to have the more sexist laws removed from the books - including barbaric things like a husband being allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as it was thiner than his thumb.  Then they lobbied to have marital rape and domestic violence criminalized.  I suppose they had to fight to make it into the workforce in the early 20th century because when WWII kicked off there were already a significant number of women working.  But the pay and available fields were highly restricted based on gender.  The war was an event when women were allowed to move into roles that up to that point had been reserved for men.  When the war ended Feminists fought to stay in those roles and not go back to the previous restrictions.  Then Feminism lobbied for equal pay.  Wasn't it around the 60's when they were able to get minimum wage equalized for gender and women started breaking the glass ceilings.  They made inroads into leadership positions and began to be elected in higher numbers.  These days you never hear the phrase "the first woman to" as a current event.  Domestic violence began to be viewed as not normal by society as a whole.  And then there was a shift when men started going to jail for beating their wives.  Feminism started to influence movies and television as well.  Having a hero date rape a woman slowly became unacceptable.  Characters in the story gradually stopped being there simply as romantic interests and started to become part of the plot.  Female protagonists eventually became normalized such as Kim Possible.  Compare the female characters of Frozen to those of Sleeping Beauty.  Today there is still a bias for many in the business world will assume a candidate is smarter simply because he his male and so on.

 

 

How is that for a summary without looking anything up?  But what does any of that have to do with our current discussion?  When males are met with hostility for no apparent reason this does not motivate them to help.

 

*of course Pelosi was one of the last ones to be a "first woman to".  That was a recent current event and the big one is still waiting to happen.  But most of these "first women" have already happened.  There are very few places left in the US where a woman can't go.  I was trying to contrast this with how often we heard the phrase back in the 70's.  Of course if we go back to the moon it would be normal for a woman to be on the crew.  There hasn't been a woman Chief Justice, Senate Majority Leader or (I think) a four star general yet.  But those things won't be too far off and when they happen it will seem just as natural as when Pelosi made history. 

 

 

 

 

Questioning the ideology is not anti-feminism.

And now you are mischaracterizing. I never said any of these things. But note that knee-jerk attacks are not the same as genuine inquiry,

 

 

Notice how I am mischaracterizing NOBODY?  I made a statement about the nature of anti-feminism.  It attacks nobody.  In my opinion a reasonable person would agree with my statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism is not perfect and not above questioning.

More mischaracterizing. Where did I say this?

 

 

Again, it is a mischaracterization of nobody because I quoted nobody.  I made a statement about the nature of Feminism.  How to respond to my statement is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to punish people who have a different opinion.

 

People are not ideology.

 

Comments about ideology are not attacks on people.

No, but comments where I am "told" what my feminism is are insulting. Saying that academics (which I am) know nothing about real life or feminism are insults.

 

 

So you alone have the right to express opinions about Feminism?  You find it insulting when others talk about it.

 

 

 

I see that other matter is still not resolved.  If you think I said you are a bad person then how can I talk to you about anything at all?  How is communication even possible?

 

All of this is quite mystifying. No, you didn't quote anything, but you wrote those things in a post addressed to me, so uh, yeah doesn't that mean you are accusing me of making those statements? And again with the insults: I never said no one else could express an opinion. I never said I was the only person with an opinion. What I didn't say but is true is that I DO have more facts than you. THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT I HAVE SAID IN THIS THREAD IS THAT FEMINISM IS BEING MISCHARACTERIZED. But facts don't matter. This endless bickering and finding new ways to insult me is what matters, obviously. I ask you, if one feminist says feminism is being mischaracterized generates a slew of personal insults, why would that feminist say anything else?

[Leo]

Any epistemological truthclaims about feminism can't be undone by us asking quesionts, even if they're not asked in the proper form. If the labor statistics RE: the wage gap, once aggregated with other factors, are totally wrong and the feminists are correct, you are still correct, and anyone asking yu to tell us how can still potentially get the right information. The same would be true for constitutional rights about less than half the population, should they come up as defendants in a case proposed by a member of the more than half. Same would be true of such things as the Tender Years' Doctrine, the writings of Anbdrea Dworken, or even Gloria Steinem saying the CIA helped her fund her feminist efforts, and writing that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. All of this can be logically proven to be wrong, if it is wrong, no matter who or how.

 

I do remember that Privilege topic, because it's a very complicated issue, not very reducible to either blame or the "check your privilege" sound bite, or long lists of sins of the privileged. I'm part of a demographic with a 70% unemployment rate, where many look at us and don't even think we're capable of work, let alone family and other normal human activities. And yet, I'm miles more privileged, at least in my mind, than my cousin who courageously handles chronic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue, all things we proles believed her about while the establishment pooh-poohed and claimed was all in her head. In my own mind, I'm miles more privileged than that person, and would do anything to help her, while she claims to see things totally differently.

 

Any egalitarian movement where there's not a go-to explanation for everything, where blame by one group against another, and similar tribalism doesn't exist, and where there are objective goals and actionable items humans can do to accomplish these, that movement will catch a lot of attention. This is what feminism was, and to a certain extent disability rights still is. There's a huge difference between deciding the motive of an onlooker, and modifying a website or other environment so that it's accessible to all its users with varying mental and physical abilities. The former is totally subjective, and the latter should be completely objective. Sadly, it's often not, and suffers some of the same problems discussed here. I said the former was subjective, because I cannot rationally decid your motivations, nor can you mine, especially since neither of us are totalitarians.

[mymistake]

 But facts don't matter. This endless bickering matters, obviously.

 

 

The endless bickering is caused by your ideology.

[florduh]

And I would like to point out that the ONLY thing I have said, the SUM TOTAL of what I have said about feminism in this thread is that it is being mischaracterized as a movement. I have made no statement about what feminism is or does.

 

So you say people are mischaracterizing feminism, but you are not offering any characterizations in contrast. Any movement or organization is necessarily characterized by what it is and what it does. Are you asserting that the examples of current feminist activity and propaganda that characterize feminism are simply made up to make feminism look bad?

[Orbit]

 

And I would like to point out that the ONLY thing I have said, the SUM TOTAL of what I have said about feminism in this thread is that it is being mischaracterized as a movement. I have made no statement about what feminism is or does.

So you say people are mischaracterizing feminism, but you are not offering any characterizations in contrast. Any movement or organization is necessarily characterized by what it is and what it does. Are you asserting that the examples of current feminist activity and propaganda that characterize feminism are simply made up to make feminism look bad?

 

Sigh. Why would I post anything to the contrary? I already tried this in a previous thread and described the results. Why don't you guys just congratulate yourselves that you've got it all figured out, because you obviously can't find any information that doesn't feed your confirmation bias, and seem to love the fallacy of dramatic instance. What do you need me for? Nothing. You believe. You are true believers that feminism is the problem. Nothing will change that. Me? I'm just an academic who doesn't know anything about the real world and feminism outside of books. I'm just a man-hater, as Thurisaz suggests. Why are you even talking to me? I'm useless.

[florduh]

feed your confirmation bias

 

More irony.

 

Everyone knows by now this is hopeless. Stay and play if you like, but I'm leaving.

[mymistake]

 

 

Everyone knows by now this is hopeless. Stay and play if you like, but I'm leaving.

 

 

 

QFT

[NoOne]

:( :(

When I started this topic, it was just because I wanted to see the different views on an issue I've been struggling to personally understand myself. I was hoping to get into the complexity of it a little more and have a rational, mature discussion with other people, including the feminists, anti-feminists, and hey, even MRAs. I was going to include our discussion in a journalist essay I'm going write soon. But all I see is that this is a hot and touchy subject for a lot of people. The last 3 pages of this thread as been fighting. Had I known that there were issues with feminism in this site before, I wouldn't have posted. So I apologize for my part in that.

Is there a way to delete this entire thing, so everyone can just move on?

 

And Leo, you're blind?!?

[Castiel233]

Personally I would leave the post up , as people have spent time writing it...........

 

Sometimes rows do kick off on forums........this one will not be the last I guess

 

*shrugs*

[Leo]

I think any of us with a perspective have to defend it more than once, Orbit. My father, a die-hard party following conservative really didn't want to take my advice at all about abstaining from buying WalMart electronics, especially computers which are cheaper, even though I presented rational arguments to the contrary. Arguments that did not involve his ideology. They involved memory, components, stuff you're familiar with from your sysadmin days, and you probably also dealt with people trying to cut corners, and users being inadvertently misinformed. I, being the engineer, or "expert" (I use that term loosely) in that situation, had the duty to inform. It didn't matter the pro-WalMart ideology, the claims being rational and sound, ultimately stood the test of provability. At least in 2007 when they were made. The situation is better now, but it was as I stated then.

 

It doesn't do my credibility any good to claim: "You're mischaracterizing me," or "what you're hearing about WalMart is not right." But it did force me to behave credibly, because I had to present the reasoning in a credible manner without getting personal. I don't personally like WalMart, I vote against any initiatives for them to move their big ugly boxes any more into town, I find their methods and manner quite destructive. But that's not gonna do any good to a conservative who looks at WalMart as an iconic symbol of American capitalism, because keeping my eye on the ball, my objective is to make sure he gets a computer system that works, not one that's an endless source of frustration with shoddy components. But, I'm just a prole on the street.

 

I think honestly anyone wanting to dispel or correct what's going on would take head-on these challenging situations people outside the sanctuary of Academia, the Church or the State, are dealing with. Tell us how these efforts against common working people are not feminism, just as the moderate muslims have successfully communicated how the terrorists are not true representations of Islam. I commend those, because they are taking it head-on, no apologizing for the actions of radicals, and thereby correcting misperceptions. I know a few of mine have been rectified as a result of some of what I've seen on Youtube. It is possible. Other groups are doing it. But not by ignoring the problem, by facing it.

[Leo]

DefyingGravity, perhaps this thread will supply more than ample resource for a journalistic piece. I think you will see some fighting, a lot of appeals to others to respond, and I think you'll find your share of at least somewhat Socratic engagement.

The problem with this topic is everybody is just supposed to say "yes". If Feminism were god, which apparently to some it is nearly as sacrosanct or as villifiable, depending on the perspective: you'd have the reflexive "yes" crowd, and the reactive "no crowd. And, the "tell me, what is god?" crowd.

I've often asked for someone to show me the patriarchy. That is not unreasonable. Many people's constitutional rights are being thwarted, access to children taken away and all kinds of things, all in the name of overthrowing this "patriarchy." We know racial discrimination exists, and we even know sexual discrimination exists. We have seen what happens when you remove these variables in situations, and a more diverse and greater number of people are free to engage. We even, although not talked about much, know about discrimination based on disability, and understand technical solutions to some practical hurdles people face in getting into employment or even into a store, if you're in a wheelchair. Those are variables, they're objectively measured.

So is a child's ability to visit with his father, or a man's constitutional rights up for review, under presumption of guilt rather than presumption of innocence. All of which are clearly visible, measurable, and have been sought for and attained by various groups. It is not unreasonable to ask to see this devil, this patriarchy, for which approximately 49 percent of the population is individually held responsible. After all, if I claimed to you today that there was a "seeing"-archy, and wanted your constitutional rights revoked, even for things you never intentionally did, you would logically ask me to show you this "seeing"-archy. It sounds crazy because you've never heard of a blind person pulling a stunt like that, and there's no mass industrial support for such a stunt.

 

I think you could create an Onion-style piece on all this mess if you wanted it. And not do a damn thing in support of real misogynists or haters of any kind.

Sadly, what we haven't had are real counter-arguments from the feminists, either telling us why these things should be, or how those who support it are to Feminism what Isis is to Islam.

 

I'll make this public promise on this site. Not likely to happen, but if such a group of blind people were to create a vision of a "seeing-archy", where your constitutional rights, or employment situation, could be up for grabs because you may have inadvertently said or done something, or because a blind person has accused you of having done something legitimately wrong, I have what it takes as a rational and compassionate human being to set forth to disprove their claims and rationally argue how they wouldn't be respresenting all of us. Without dismissing your experience.

 

Just remember, ideas worth having are ideas worth challenging. What in the hell good is a sacred cow idea? Once you cow everyone into submission saying "yes" by default, you don't have any real, actual, bona fide support for that idea. That's why a lot of us aren't Christians anymore, and this is exactly what I heard from a guy who escaped Cuba.

[sparklingphoenix]

Defying Gravity,

 

It seems really hard to have a civil discussion about feminism on the internet... I consider myself a feminist because I support equal rights for myself and all other people. I appreciate what women in history have done so that I can vote, participate in society, and have more equal rights and freedom as a human being. I'll give you my opinion on the matter, hopefully without inciting any more arguments. I'd like to have a rational talk about this topic, but it's not easy to do.

 

Feminism is about equality. Period. Hating men doesn't help your cause as a woman, it only polarizes the genders. I'm all for having men and women, and all races working together to level the playing field for all people. The fact is, when you are not an oppressed person, it's very hard to even be aware of someone else's oppression. In that light, I don't believe in "reverse" racism. Racism is just racism, and "reverse" racism today is nothing like the type of racism inflicted on African Americans and many other racial groups in the past. In the US white people don't suffer racism on a daily basis, and men do not receive the judgement, harassment, and unequal pay that many women face all their lives. This is just the fact of American culture, and the fact of a male dominated society that is slowly becoming more equal for women. I don't know how anyone can deny these simple facts. American women have it better than many other places in the world, but that doesn't mean there aren't any remaining problems. 

 

Yes some white people experience racism sometimes, but constantly? No. White people still are the majority in America, white people and men are more represented in movies and tv, and we still mainly follow white beauty standards. I can't say how many times I would love to see a new action movie come out with a female lead (who doesn't have some stupid 2D love interest), but lately The Hunger Games is the best I can get.

 

Do some men get beaten up by women? Yes. However it is statistically proven that male violence is more prevalent. We need to find the truth and deal with all aspects. Some people are in more need of protection than others because they are already disadvantaged from the start. This is why we need feminism. Affirmative action may not feel fair to white people, but the reality is that white people have an advantage by finding other jobs through connections and not being judged based on what they look like. Of course men's rights are important, but the whole point of feminism began because the majority of men oppressed women. That is the reality and history of our culture! All I want is to keep up the momentum and change oppressive cultural mentalities that have held certain people back for years. Women need men to help them level the playing field. We need to work together. It starts by making people more aware about the real daily struggles of others. 

 

Here is an article that uses sexism to frame problems with racism. http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html