Why are you a Feminist?

[Neoteny]

Completely unremarkably, people also said this about MLK. And they said it about suffragettes. And whatever. But hey, let's put our pragmatist dongs on here.

I don't care to take a tally of dudes who says things like "men are more competent than women" and compare the number to those who are completely weirded out by mansplaining, but I'm willing to bet it's roughly 50/50. Or worse. From a practical standpoint, would it be counterproductive to be more or less defensive when faced with that ratio? We don't even need any ivory or towers to do the math here. In my experience, if we are challenging people and forcing them to fall back on comments about tone rather than the content of our message, then we are doing something right. These doin-it-wrong feminists are seeing a swelling in support, much like the recent atheists who were also hurting their cause while broadening their base and standing up for what they thought was right. Not that there is any equivalence there (and atheists have their own sexism problems).

What's really weird is that a lot of these shrewish feminists are completely ok with dongs. Indeed, many have successful personal relationships with dong-holders. It might seem strange that these women find men who treat them as equals and recognize that society tends to treat the genders unevenly. Most of these guys recognize that they possess a certain amount of privilege, and that the number one thing to do when discussing sexism is to shut the f*ck up for a second and listen. The second thing is to shut the f*ck up a little more. Maybe not even offer an opinion. It's hard to do, and I've failed to do it in this thread, but I tried. I really did. But the minute, the very second, we think we know what it's like to live in a world that privileges traits we do not possess, when we think we know better for women, or blacks, or whomever than they do, is the time we need to step back and ask ourselves if we really do. Do we really? The answer is actually "no." So it's time to shut the f*ck up some more. Feminism, like any movement, carries a diversity of opinion (what's the fallacy when you attribute to an entire population the traits of a few?), some who are more aggressive, some who aren't. Some who actually hate men, some who don't. There are so many voices trying to find the right way in any movement, and who are we to sit here with our dongs in our hands and nod solemnly at the observation that feminists are going too far? Maybe they've got this.

Maybe they've got this.

For what it's worth, I've totally stolen the "shut the f*ck up" bit from Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown. She's hilarious.

How the HELL can you presume to describe yourself as a feminist, Freddie? Like, how the f*ck do you listen to two women talking about an experience, of feminism, and confirming with each other that they’ve both had similar experiences, and write a post about how they are not being considerate enough to men, and still sign off as a fucking feminist man at the end of the day? You’re not. You are not a feminist. You have, actually, nothing to contribute to feminist discourse. Because, still, the experiences of women are less important to you than how eager those women are to accomodate your personal fucking boner. You want to be a feminist, Freddie? Listen closely, because I’m about to tell you how:

SHUT. THE f*ck. UP.

I mean it. SHUT THE f*ck UP, Freddie. Shut the f*ck up and let the big girls talk. Because we know way more about this than you. And every time you want to pitch in with an observation? Shut the f*ck up a little bit harder. And maybe, after a few years or decades or whatever, you might have absorbed enough from listening to people with actual feminist insight (possibly related to their actually being women) to contribute productively to the conversation. But, in the meantime, actual feminists are going to get a lot more done, simply by virtue of not having to listen to the ungodly noise that comes out of your mouth. Truly, Freddie: You should shut the f*ck up. Shutting the f*ck up is, in fact, the biggest contribution you can make to the feminist cause.

So if I'm understanding correctly, you need be a woman to truly understand feminism?

Nope.

I'm guessing a woman probably has a better initial grasp of the subject but to imply that a man is incapable of empathizing is a bit too elusive.
As a male I can accept the fact that any given women and any given man put in a specific role will fulfill that role based on their personal skills and abilities and nothing more. Sex doesn't enter into it. The problem is that when I conclude that a particular woman is less fit for a role than a particular man I am in danger of being labelled(unfairly) a sexist. I may be a sexist, there's no way for me to really know for sure but I can at least fathom what a true feminist might be and could quite possibly achieve this status in due time.

It must be so difficult living with such danger. Should you really worry about being labeled a sexist despite making such a decision based on individuals rather than making sweeping generalizations about females and males? Has anyone labeled you a sexist for making such a decision?

As far as "accommodating of someone's boner", I take this to say that the man in question can't consider a discussion about women without considering the matter of sex and is therefore disadvantaged? This is somewhat unfair since the very same thing happens when conversing with a man, only it's same-sex insecurities/interference. So the obvious conclusion is that everyone should just STFU about everything? That doesn't sound very progressive or productive to me.
In a way I feel that the whole STFU stance is in itself anti-feminist as it implies a basic difference in thought processes i.e. as a man you can't fully understand.

You've completely missed the point. Indeed, Sady specifically says that a dude can be a contributing feminist. But until he is one, he might want to shut the f*ck up for a little while.

so you think men and women are totally equal?

i thought you were a biologist?

Human-rights wise? Yeah. Weird thing for a biologist, I know.

mansplaining

That being said, I don't think the government needs to mandate special treatment or even pass a proposed law calling for equal pay in a disguised attempt to score points with women.

Many feminists would agree with this. I'm not sure anyone has brought the government up until you did. Most feminists right now are concerned with how women are perceived outside of the political sphere, since they do legally have the same rights. It's more a matter of changing perspectives. For example, the nonsense in the NSFW thread, that women are less competent, women in the media, representation in congress, etc. The legislation we have is useless if we have some dipshit like Gillipig doing the hiring. Some are concerned with legislation having to do with other minorities, like homosexuals for example.

All that being said (and quoted), I'm indifferent. If Congress wants to pass a law that calls for equal pay, that's fine by me. Go ahead. I'm pretty confident it will be an ineffective law, at best. If feminists want to rail against the lack of women in Congress or the White House, go ahead. Find some quality candidates to run in the next election. I'll vote for the best candidate, not the best female candidate. And people who vote for a candidate because he's a man are being not only chauvinist, but stupid. If I told you Ms. Candidate would do a better job than Mr. Candidate and you vote for Mr. Candidate, you're stupid. If I told you that Ms. Employee had a better resume than Mr. Employee and you hired Mr. Employee, you're stupid.

I don't understand why you guys are talking about individuals here. Why are you all so terrified of the feminists? Have you all had "retaliatory" or "blackmailing" sexual harassment charges filed against you or something?

Well, "we" are saying that we know better than women. For example, here:

Honestly, I think feminism has gone too far and is now hurting its own cause.

Completely unremarkably, people also said this about MLK. And they said it about suffragettes. And whatever. But hey, let's put our pragmatist dongs on here.

Yes, I would say people have said this same thing about any organization. The Tea Party, the democrats, the republicans, North Koreans, KKK, Black Panthers, and many more.

So, that makes my statement wrong somehow?

In that sentence I am not saying I know better than all women. I am saying that movement is becoming less effective, in my opinion.

As far as the other situations, that I listed in my post, those were experiences that I have witnessed or my wife has been a first party in. I also stated that it may be the minority, but that it is the only representation that I have seen.

That's fine. You're welcome to make broad generalizations of the movement based on a couple of people you've met that one time. I certainly don't expect that you be completely offended by the idea that maybe your idea of the movement is skewed, and that you will be challenged on it. I know I'm a smartass, and I don't intend to push anyone away from a feminist perspective. I just like being a smartass. You yourself mentioned that this might be wrong. You are not really sure. You even did a "scare ramble" to show that you haven't really followed up on this. Despite that, you found it necessary to tell everyone that the feminist movement, based on your limited perspective, is doing it wrong. If you are ok with that, then that's all on you. If you want to broaden that scope a bit to see if the feminist movement is actually doing it wrong, I can maybe provide some links. And not just to Sady Doyle, who is hilariously abrasive. However, I will link to Sady again, to make a point about calling feminists man-haters.

They do exist, to some degree, I'm sure. But it's also a tactic that has been used since the first wave of feminism (read: BBS) to denigrate and discourage the movement. Men often have trouble with being challenged on this front, and for strong reasons. It's an emotional topic, and a difficult one to separate. But using sentiment as an argument against feminism sort of has the same effect as watching Viceroy tell us that horse evolution is a hoax. It raises certain red flags. Without further ado, here's Sady again.

#3: Man Hater! MAN HATERRRRRRRR!

While I found this post to be very insightful, and I enjoyed reading it, I still couldn’t help but be slightly offended by her blatant hatred for men and their apparent combined view of women as inferior, unless of course the man is gay, in which case he is conveniently on her side because he has been the victim of the thoughtless use of words.

Yes, Palin is retarded, and I’m sorry if someone is offended by my saying that, but when I refer to a medical diagnosis, I say”mentally handicapped” or “downs syndrome” because I am aware that the word retarded is frequently used in our society with a negative connotation toward people who do stupid things, but rather than attack the people who are going along with the rest of society, it makes more sense to me to just take the path of least resistance…

This goes on for several hundred words, you guys. Do you have the energy for that? I don’t have the energy for that. But let’s just skip to the heart of it, which is:

While the author had a lot to say about people being offensive, she seems to think that it does not matter if she offends men.

You know, I really DON’T care, sometimes! Except for all the times when I kind of do. It depends on the man, I guess? For example: this guy. I don’t really care that I have offended him! Surprising, right? In fact, this is what I am working toward, my beautiful utopian cuddle-party future: a place where we can all feel free to insult and offend each other based on who we are, and not what we are. A place in which I have the complete freedom to call upon each and every one of my fellow citizens to take a lick on some Chipotle-BBQ-flavored extra-crunchy My Asshole, should they happen to annoy me for completely fair and non-prejudicial reasons, and they have the freedom to respond in kind. Is that not a dream worth working for? I ask you: is it not?

Hes just being all swarmy and ivory-towerish. I wouldnt worry.

@ Neo: We arent saying we know better than woman, we are merely stating our opinion on a subjective topic. Discounting our opinion just because we have a dong between our legs is far more sexist than men trying to assert opinions on feminism.

ps: by our i mean all the people you are criticizing; I havent actually voiced an opinion. Im a pragmatist much like BBS in this case.

Well, "we" are saying that we know better than women. For example, here:

Honestly, I think feminism has gone too far and is now hurting its own cause.

Completely unremarkably, people also said this about MLK. And they said it about suffragettes. And whatever. But hey, let's put our pragmatist dongs on here.

"'Honestly, I think US drone strikes have gone too far and are now hurting the US' own cause."

Obviously, this opinion means that I know better than all women--not the female US foreign policymakers and analysts, not the male ones, just women... because--according to Neotenian logic--that's what happens whenever someone criticizes a movement/strategy.


That doesn't make sense, Neoteny.

Oh, BBS, what am I going to do with you? First of all, as the electors of those policymakers and analysts, we, at least nominally, do actually have a say in that. Maybe I should give you a more accurate analogy. Suppose a regular forum poster here, let's say a Buan_Jottom, were to post in a thread that, relative to understanding of economics, successful publications, and overall economic awesomeness, John Keynes had the penis of greatest length, girth, and mass, of all economists of any time ever. Suddenly Neoteny comes along and nods sagely at this, pointing out that the previous post sums up economics pretty well. How would you respond to such a situation? Have you ever talked to someone with very little knowledge about a subject you care strongly about. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying you can't talk about feminism or sexism, just that you probably shouldn't.

Mother Mary, that's like, four people and john9blue that seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that their opinions might be unnecessary and undesired.

Ain't nobody got time for that. I'll try tomorrow.

It's that it's another of these subjects that has become icky in it's far too easy to "overstep", resulting in prickling of all sorts. I take the stance of "back off, buddy" to imply that the subject requires special treatment, which doesn't sit well with the notion of equality. What's wrong with talking shop about these kinds of issues just like everything else?
I just can't say I ever find a conversation emotional enough to tell someone their opinion is not desired. I just find this to be a separatist attitude.

It is separatist in that I think the people who don't understand feminism, or, indeed, even sexism may want to set aside some thinkin' time before putting their feet in their mouths. I guess you aren't used to being challenged on your ignorance? It's ok, there are people willing to educate, but be sure to set aside some time to shut the f*ck up. You don't actually have to post your misconceptions. You can Google them and find a response.

[kentington]

It's more a matter of changing perspectives. For example, the nonsense in the NSFW thread, that women are less competent, women in the media, representation in congress, etc. The legislation we have is useless if we have some dipshit like Gillipig doing the hiring. Some are concerned with legislation having to do with other minorities, like homosexuals for example.

I agree with you here. The media is killing a lot of the good progress that feminists made. I hate the NSFW thread and I dread dealing with reports in that area. (If someone decides that after seeing me post this it would be funny to report a lot of images for fun, then realize there is discipline for trolling and spurious reports)
Another big problem is environment. When we are raised our initial views are our parents. If you have people claiming they are not male chauvinistic, just realistic, teaching their kids the same thing, then the problem continues. You have to wait for the child to grow up and realize that is not true.

I don't understand why you guys are talking about individuals here. Why are you all so terrified of the feminists? Have you all had "retaliatory" or "blackmailing" sexual harassment charges filed against you or something?

We are individuals and have individual experiences.

Well, "we" are saying that we know better than women. For example, here:

Honestly, I think feminism has gone too far and is now hurting its own cause.

Completely unremarkably, people also said this about MLK. And they said it about suffragettes. And whatever. But hey, let's put our pragmatist dongs on here.

Yes, I would say people have said this same thing about any organization. The Tea Party, the democrats, the republicans, North Koreans, KKK, Black Panthers, and many more.

So, that makes my statement wrong somehow?

In that sentence I am not saying I know better than all women. I am saying that movement is becoming less effective, in my opinion.

As far as the other situations, that I listed in my post, those were experiences that I have witnessed or my wife has been a first party in. I also stated that it may be the minority, but that it is the only representation that I have seen.

That's fine. You're welcome to make broad generalizations of the movement based on a couple of people you've met that one time. I certainly don't expect that you be completely offended by the idea that maybe your idea of the movement is skewed, and that you will be challenged on it. I know I'm a smartass, and I don't intend to push anyone away from a feminist perspective. I just like being a smartass. You yourself mentioned that this might be wrong. You are not really sure. You even did a "scare ramble" to show that you haven't really followed up on this. Despite that, you found it necessary to tell everyone that the feminist movement, based on your limited perspective, is doing it wrong. If you are ok with that, then that's all on you. If you want to broaden that scope a bit to see if the feminist movement is actually doing it wrong, I can maybe provide some links. And not just to Sady Doyle, who is hilariously abrasive. However, I will link to Sady again, to make a point about calling feminists man-haters.

They do exist, to some degree, I'm sure. But it's also a tactic that has been used since the first wave of feminism (read: BBS) to denigrate and discourage the movement. Men often have trouble with being challenged on this front, and for strong reasons. It's an emotional topic, and a difficult one to separate. But using sentiment as an argument against feminism sort of has the same effect as watching Viceroy tell us that horse evolution is a hoax. It raises certain red flags. Without further ado, here's Sady again.

#3: Man Hater! MAN HATERRRRRRRR!

While I found this post to be very insightful, and I enjoyed reading it, I still couldn’t help but be slightly offended by her blatant hatred for men and their apparent combined view of women as inferior, unless of course the man is gay, in which case he is conveniently on her side because he has been the victim of the thoughtless use of words.

Yes, Palin is retarded, and I’m sorry if someone is offended by my saying that, but when I refer to a medical diagnosis, I say”mentally handicapped” or “downs syndrome” because I am aware that the word retarded is frequently used in our society with a negative connotation toward people who do stupid things, but rather than attack the people who are going along with the rest of society, it makes more sense to me to just take the path of least resistance…

This goes on for several hundred words, you guys. Do you have the energy for that? I don’t have the energy for that. But let’s just skip to the heart of it, which is:

While the author had a lot to say about people being offensive, she seems to think that it does not matter if she offends men.

You know, I really DON’T care, sometimes! Except for all the times when I kind of do. It depends on the man, I guess? For example: this guy. I don’t really care that I have offended him! Surprising, right? In fact, this is what I am working toward, my beautiful utopian cuddle-party future: a place where we can all feel free to insult and offend each other based on who we are, and not what we are. A place in which I have the complete freedom to call upon each and every one of my fellow citizens to take a lick on some Chipotle-BBQ-flavored extra-crunchy My Asshole, should they happen to annoy me for completely fair and non-prejudicial reasons, and they have the freedom to respond in kind. Is that not a dream worth working for? I ask you: is it not?

Yes, I figured you enjoyed smart-assery. It doesn't bother me that you challenged my position, so much as you say my view is unnecessary and undesired. I would prefer that you just show me where I am wrong. I think I am pretty reasonable, I may be wrong though. I was posting my personal experience and that does count. Even if it is a minority, every organization has it crazies. I am fine with telling people that the feminist movement is doing it wrong and I am okay with being wrong myself. That is what discussions are for. You guys have railed at Scotty for being vague about his views. I try to be clear about my view point, so you know where I stand and can give me examples of how I am wrong. To simply say STFU, is ridiculous. If you posted some links I would look at them and they may even override the personal experiences.

It is separatist in that I think the people who don't understand feminism, or, indeed, even sexism may want to set aside some thinkin' time before putting their feet in their mouths. I guess you aren't used to being challenged on your ignorance? It's ok, there are people willing to educate, but be sure to set aside some time to shut the f*ck up. You don't actually have to post your misconceptions. You can Google them and find a response.

If we don't post our misconceptions, then they never get challenged and your view point doesn't change much. I hate Google for looking up controversial topics. There is a lot of crazy crap and I would rather dialogue about it. Again, the STFU mentality just closes off the chance that someones views may change. That pushes people away from the movement.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hes just being all swarmy and ivory-towerish. I wouldnt worry.

@ Neo: We arent saying we know better than woman, we are merely stating our opinion on a subjective topic. Discounting our opinion just because we have a dong between our legs is far more sexist than men trying to assert opinions on feminism.

ps: by our i mean all the people you are criticizing; I havent actually voiced an opinion. Im a pragmatist much like BBS in this case.

Well, "we" are saying that we know better than women. For example, here:

Honestly, I think feminism has gone too far and is now hurting its own cause.

Completely unremarkably, people also said this about MLK. And they said it about suffragettes. And whatever. But hey, let's put our pragmatist dongs on here.

"'Honestly, I think US drone strikes have gone too far and are now hurting the US' own cause."

Obviously, this opinion means that I know better than all women--not the female US foreign policymakers and analysts, not the male ones, just women... because--according to Neotenian logic--that's what happens whenever someone criticizes a movement/strategy.


That doesn't make sense, Neoteny.

Oh, BBS, what am I going to do with you? First of all, as the electors of those policymakers and analysts, we, at least nominally, do actually have a say in that. Maybe I should give you a more accurate analogy. Suppose a regular forum poster here, let's say a Buan_Jottom, were to post in a thread that, relative to understanding of economics, successful publications, and overall economic awesomeness, John Keynes had the penis of greatest length, girth, and mass, of all economists of any time ever. Suddenly Neoteny comes along and nods sagely at this, pointing out that the previous post sums up economics pretty well. How would you respond to such a situation? Have you ever talked to someone with very little knowledge about a subject you care strongly about. Please keep in mind that I'm not saying you can't talk about feminism or sexism, just that you probably shouldn't.

If person A criticizes a movement, you think that person A knows better than all the women within that movement. This is silly; perhaps you think there are no male feminists? Anyway, it's the underlying logic with your position. You remind me of the staunch welfare government advocate who insists that the free market guy wants poor people to die because he doesn't support the government provision of welfare.

But let's advance. Here's my general position on feminism:

JB is marketing Feminism 4.0 or 3.0---I forget which wave it is. The earlier waves received a lot of flak because they ultimately advocated for inequality and sometimes radical positions, which were simply ridiculous. With Feminism 3.0, it's unnecessary to even support such a movement because of its history. If you're against Feminism 3.0, it's not the case that you're against women or equal rights--of course, the advocates for Feminism 3.0 would likely say otherwise; perhaps that tactic is part of the marketing plan too.

Feminism is a niche market. They're free to do whatever, as long as they're not hurting others. I'm simply not impressed, and regarding analytical frameworks, they don't have anything valuable to offer to me, but at least they've been driving themselves away from radicalism.

[Funkyterrance]

You've completely missed the point. Indeed, Sady specifically says that a dude can be a contributing feminist. But until he is one, he might want to shut the f*ck up for a little while.

I'd have to meet these guys that Sady considers contributing "feminists" to believe it. How do we know they aren't just total spineless doormats?

I don't understand why you guys are talking about individuals here. Why are you all so terrified of the feminists?

They just sound really mean and unreasonable so far.

It is separatist in that I think the people who don't understand feminism, or, indeed, even sexism may want to set aside some thinkin' time before putting their feet in their mouths. I guess you aren't used to being challenged on your ignorance? It's ok, there are people willing to educate, but be sure to set aside some time to shut the f*ck up. You don't actually have to post your misconceptions. You can Google them and find a response.

Well, for the time being I'm just going by the quote you put from a proposed feminist and that's enough to digest for now. What better way to learn about feminists than from the mouth of one itself? Articles found through google could be written by feminists and non-feminists alike. Besides, I don't feel comfortable learning that way anyway.
Btw, I love how you're getting all agro over people discussing on a discussion board. Are you a "legitimate" feminist? If so, I can see how Kent might have gotten the impression he did from the "feminists" he met in rl.

[thegreekdog]

All that being said (and quoted), I'm indifferent. If Congress wants to pass a law that calls for equal pay, that's fine by me. Go ahead. I'm pretty confident it will be an ineffective law, at best. If feminists want to rail against the lack of women in Congress or the White House, go ahead. Find some quality candidates to run in the next election. I'll vote for the best candidate, not the best female candidate. And people who vote for a candidate because he's a man are being not only chauvinist, but stupid. If I told you Ms. Candidate would do a better job than Mr. Candidate and you vote for Mr. Candidate, you're stupid. If I told you that Ms. Employee had a better resume than Mr. Employee and you hired Mr. Employee, you're stupid.

I don't understand why you guys are talking about individuals here. Why are you all so terrified of the feminists? Have you all had "retaliatory" or "blackmailing" sexual harassment charges filed against you or something?

I don't understand what your post has to do with my post, but okay. I'm not terrified of feminists, although I suppose I don't know all the iterations so perhaps I can't say that with any authority.

[john9blue]

You've completely missed the point. Indeed, Sady specifically says that a dude can be a contributing feminist. But until he is one, he might want to shut the f*ck up for a little while.

so basically, unless we agree with her opinion, we should shut the f*ck up.

can't say i expected anything more logical from her.

[Funkyterrance]

I've been thinking about this during free minutes today and here's some thoughts which I'm sure Sandy and Neoteny will love to hear.
I've worked with some pretty ignorant and close-minded work crews in my day as I spent many summer vacations as a landscaper and other manual labor jobs. I Believe that these crews of guys really embody the raw humanity that is your "average person". They were sexist, racist, classist and whatever other "ists" you can think of. I was a relatively shy person back then as well had some superficial traits which made me an instant target. I managed to suck up all the initial bombings, slurs, whatever you want to call them and eventually was accepted and I daresay respected. I wasn't accepted because I made a stand for myself or because I insisted everyone listen to my personal plight and stfu or because I made myself prickly enough to alienate myself completely from the group. I just acted like a normal, well adjusted person and sucked it up until the rest of the group realized I was just a normal, well adjusted person just like the rest of them.

[chang50]

I've been thinking about this during free minutes today and here's some thoughts which I'm sure Sandy and Neoteny will love to hear.
I've worked with some pretty ignorant and close-minded work crews in my day as I spent many summer vacations as a landscaper and other manual labor jobs. I Believe that these crews of guys really embody the raw humanity that is your "average person". They were sexist, racist, classist and whatever other "ists" you can think of. I was a relatively shy person back then as well had some superficial traits which made me an instant target. I managed to suck up all the initial bombings, slurs, whatever you want to call them and eventually was accepted and I daresay respected. I wasn't accepted because I made a stand for myself or because I insisted everyone listen to my personal plight and stfu or because I made myself prickly enough to alienate myself completely from the group. I just acted like a normal, well adjusted person and sucked it up until the rest of the group realized I was just a normal, well adjusted person just like the rest of them.

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with,and you may well be correct on this,then I am glad to be abnormal and maladjusted.

[Juan_Bottom]

[Funkyterrance]

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with,and you may well be correct on this,then I am glad to be abnormal and maladjusted.

You have a real knack for twisting words eh? You totally strew what I said on the floor and pieced it back together to make it look like something else.
I never said I was like them other than the fact that I was normal and well-adjusted. Basically this means that you are able to function in your daily life without a huge chip on your shoulder. I never said I was like them in other ways as much as you would like for that to be what I wrote.
So I've got to ask, where do I subscribe to the newsletter for chang50, the most high-minded person to walk the face of the earth?

[chang50]

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with,and you may well be correct on this,then I am glad to be abnormal and maladjusted.

You have a real knack for twisting words eh? You totally strew what I said on the floor and pieced it back together to make it look like something else.
I never said I was like them other than the fact that I was normal and well-adjusted. Basically this means that you are able to function in your daily life without a huge chip on your shoulder. I never said I was like them in other ways as much as you would like for that to be what I wrote.
So I've got to ask, where do I subscribe to the newsletter for chang50, the most high-minded person to walk the face of the earth?

Where did I say or even imply you were like them?You described them in derogatory terms(close-minded and ignorant)and I said I was glad not to be like them if that is normal and well adjusted.Seems YOU have twisted MY words..

[Funkyterrance]

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with,and you may well be correct on this,then I am glad to be abnormal and maladjusted.

You have a real knack for twisting words eh? You totally strew what I said on the floor and pieced it back together to make it look like something else.
I never said I was like them other than the fact that I was normal and well-adjusted. Basically this means that you are able to function in your daily life without a huge chip on your shoulder. I never said I was like them in other ways as much as you would like for that to be what I wrote.
So I've got to ask, where do I subscribe to the newsletter for chang50, the most high-minded person to walk the face of the earth?

Where did I say or even imply you were like them?You described them in derogatory terms(close-minded and ignorant)and I said I was glad not to be like them if that is normal and well adjusted.Seems YOU have twisted MY words..

Dude, read your own frigging words:

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with...

Since you started this statement with the attributes of normal and well adjusted, there's nothing left but the "ists" which I mentioned. If it's just a mistake you made in your grammar or something that's one thing but you can't blame me for taking it as you not only comparing yourself but insinuating that I took on the "ists" which I referred to.

[chang50]

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with,and you may well be correct on this,then I am glad to be abnormal and maladjusted.

You have a real knack for twisting words eh? You totally strew what I said on the floor and pieced it back together to make it look like something else.
I never said I was like them other than the fact that I was normal and well-adjusted. Basically this means that you are able to function in your daily life without a huge chip on your shoulder. I never said I was like them in other ways as much as you would like for that to be what I wrote.
So I've got to ask, where do I subscribe to the newsletter for chang50, the most high-minded person to walk the face of the earth?

Where did I say or even imply you were like them?You described them in derogatory terms(close-minded and ignorant)and I said I was glad not to be like them if that is normal and well adjusted.Seems YOU have twisted MY words..

Dude, read your own frigging words:

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with...

Since you started this statement with the attributes of normal and well adjusted, there's nothing left but the "ists" which I mentioned. If it's just a mistake you made in your grammar or something that's one thing but you can't blame me for taking it as you not only comparing yourself but insinuating that I took on the "ists" which I referred to.

I've read and reread my words and I'm truly baffled by your response,but never mind you win,you can have the last word......

[Funkyterrance]

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with,and you may well be correct on this,then I am glad to be abnormal and maladjusted.

You have a real knack for twisting words eh? You totally strew what I said on the floor and pieced it back together to make it look like something else.
I never said I was like them other than the fact that I was normal and well-adjusted. Basically this means that you are able to function in your daily life without a huge chip on your shoulder. I never said I was like them in other ways as much as you would like for that to be what I wrote.
So I've got to ask, where do I subscribe to the newsletter for chang50, the most high-minded person to walk the face of the earth?

Where did I say or even imply you were like them?You described them in derogatory terms(close-minded and ignorant)and I said I was glad not to be like them if that is normal and well adjusted.Seems YOU have twisted MY words..

Dude, read your own frigging words:

If its normal and well adjusted to be like the people you worked with...

Since you started this statement with the attributes of normal and well adjusted, there's nothing left but the "ists" which I mentioned. If it's just a mistake you made in your grammar or something that's one thing but you can't blame me for taking it as you not only comparing yourself but insinuating that I took on the "ists" which I referred to.

I've read and reread my words and I'm truly baffled by your response,but never mind you win,you can have the last word......

Ask someone else to read it then, seriously. I'm not trying to have the last word, honestly. If it was a misunderstanding then fine I don't really care.

[Haggis_McMutton]

*skims thread*

I have to say, the visceral hatred that is brought up by discussing feminism is very interesting to me. (not saying there's too much hatred going on in this thread, thinking more in the lines of reddit's SRS and such).

It makes religious discussion seem absolutely civil by comparison. Weird.

[Funkyterrance]

*skims thread*

I have to say, the visceral hatred that is brought up by discussing feminism is very interesting to me. (not saying there's too much hatred going on in this thread, thinking more in the lines of reddit's SRS and such).

It makes religious discussion seem absolutely civil by comparison. Weird.

HISSSSS!!!

[Haggis_McMutton]

Eh, ok, I'll take a position. (though I'll admit I don't have anything too interesting to say)

So I looked at the blog Neo posted. I think this comment sums it up pretty well.

So, in other words, you aren’t capable of defending your ideas, and so you freak out when someone calls you out on some of them. That’s cool– like I said, your dime. But make no mistake, the fact that you are so incapable of actually engaging rationally– that you post with such obvious insecurity, emotionalism, and spite, rather than anything resembling a coherent argument– that, ultimately, undermines what you will accomplish for feminism.

Now– from my angle, what you could do is actually engage your self-critical process and become a better advocate for your ideas. Or you can censor, and flip out, and continue to police your space against any kind of constructive criticism. Meanwhile, I will engage in the ethical project of my life, which is the project of liberation, a project which I do not and will not ever ask for anyone’s permission to undertake.

Let this comment stand as is, please, if you value free expression.

[EDIT: THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED TO CLARIFY THAT FREDDIE CARES ABOUT FREDDIE'S BONERS. FREE FREDDIE'S BONERS! THEY ARE SAD WHEN WOMEN DON'T SUCK ON THEM REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE THINKS! FREDDIE'S BONERS: THE MOST OPPRESSED BONERS OF OUR TIME.]

If you can't answer to criticism other than with such childish insults (the whole blog post was one big childish insult with some sob story added in), then I can't take you seriously. Sorry.

And telling me to STFU? Yeah, if I met a person like that Sady I'll STFU. I mean I'd like to learn more about feminism, a subject I admittedly know little about, and I think I'm pretty in favor of equal rights, but if that's the level of discourse you produce then I'll gladly STFU, focus my attention on one of the myriad more important issues out there today and let you lovely wave 11 feminists to your mutual shouting in your echo chamber. Kinda weird that a movement would shun people by telling them that unless they have spent 10 years studying the intricacies of the movement then they need to STFU cause they're useless. Doesn't seem like a brilliant growth strategy there.

btw. out of curiosity, any ideas what the "more common and violent mechanisms for enforcing women’s oppression" that she mentions have affected her childhood so harshly are? seriously asking, no idea what she's talking about.

[DoomYoshi]

Right now, in Ontario, we have a feminist crisis. I read in headlines: "Are Men Dead" based on results of the increase in female earnings. However, Ontario has gone from a private:public sector ratio of jobs from 3:1 when my father was my age to 2:1 today. Now, this is a start of a whole "government is unsustainable" argument, but I am just going to assume that argument.

Point 2: most of this alleged economic equality between men and women is created entirely in the public sector. Not only because public sector workers are more likely to have higher-paid union jobs, and are more likely to hire women, but also that women work disproportionately in the public sector.

So, if this current state of public sector jobs is unsustainable (considering that Ontario has both a deficit and a debt, I will claim that it is) then this alleged equality is unsustainable.

Women's equality is an illusion predicated on a delusion.

That is why I am a feminist.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'd love it if there could be an actual debate on this shit, so I'll try again.



Anyone disagree with what she says?

For the record, I think the way she frames certain issues is somewhat unfair, but a lot of what she says seems pretty correct.

[Neoteny]

Christ. This is a bit overwhelming.

[DoomYoshi]

No, I don't agree with what she says. Sexy women are a commodity and no amount of complaining can change that.

I didn't actually watch the video, but as long as I desire sexy women, they will be a commodity.

[Haggis_McMutton]

No, I don't agree with what she says. Sexy women are a commodity and no amount of complaining can change that.

I didn't actually watch the video, but as long as I desire sexy women, they will be a commodity.

so you do agree with what she says.

@ Neo. C'mon, playing the contrarian is fun.

[DoomYoshi]

No, I don't agree with what she says. Sexy women are a commodity and no amount of complaining can change that.

I didn't actually watch the video, but as long as I desire sexy women, they will be a commodity.

so you do agree with what she says.

@ Neo. C'mon, playing the contrarian is fun.

I guess so

[Funkyterrance]

Christ. This is a bit overwhelming.

I still don't get the "STFU" bit. It is supposed to be cute?
As Haggis mentioned, it's not a very effective way to enrich others. It's about the least effective imho. I mean, don't you need to enrich others in order for a cause to move forward? Otherwise you will just be met with opposition since historical mindsets will prevail without new information to change them. Unless of course you want to go for the brute force route which would most likely be equally ineffectual.
I still feel like "STFU" implies feminism as a special case and you can't agree to these terms without having to admit that feminism requires more tactfulness than any other subject for some reason. I don't react that way to any other sensitive subject so why would I on this one? Unless you're the meekest sort of person, just sitting back and STFUing is not conducive to learning.

[Neoteny]

It is much less an issue of fun than it is an issue of time, Haggis.

I don't understand why you guys are talking about individuals here. Why are you all so terrified of the feminists? Have you all had "retaliatory" or "blackmailing" sexual harassment charges filed against you or something?

We are individuals and have individual experiences.

Sure, as do the variety of feminists that make up the movement that is doing it wrong.

Yes, I figured you enjoyed smart-assery. It doesn't bother me that you challenged my position, so much as you say my view is unnecessary and undesired. I would prefer that you just show me where I am wrong. I think I am pretty reasonable, I may be wrong though. I was posting my personal experience and that does count. Even if it is a minority, every organization has it crazies. I am fine with telling people that the feminist movement is doing it wrong and I am okay with being wrong myself. That is what discussions are for. You guys have railed at Scotty for being vague about his views. I try to be clear about my view point, so you know where I stand and can give me examples of how I am wrong. To simply say STFU, is ridiculous. If you posted some links I would look at them and they may even override the personal experiences.

Why does it bother you that you some will consider your opinions unnecessary and desired? This actually happens all the time. You are obviously an intelligent individual with probably lots of important things to contribute to a variety of topics. You already have a leg up on, say, john9blue, whose views on most, if not all, topics is unnecessary and undesired. I can't say I know your credentials, but if you popped in on a discussion of quantum physics, your input might not be necessary or desired. Or, if it is there, it may not be in circles discussing chiaroscuro technique. Particularly if you want to talk about how Vermeer was doing it wrong. To be fair, this website is not a comparable circle, but I wasn't really trying to get into... all of this. My original goal was just to note how many dudes were in here, and how happy they were to pontificate on feminism, and offer that as a one line criticism to get them to maybe consider shutting the f*ck up.

If we don't post our misconceptions, then they never get challenged and your view point doesn't change much. I hate Google for looking up controversial topics. There is a lot of crazy crap and I would rather dialogue about it. Again, the STFU mentality just closes off the chance that someones views may change. That pushes people away from the movement.

When Sady says "shut the f*ck up", she's not actually going for closing off the conversation. She's responding forcefully, and with some comedy, to the overwhelming privilege that men feel they should be allowed to be in everything, including, apparently, a place designated as a safe space for women to talk about feminism, and other things, without having to put up with the same shit they have to everywhere else. This is an issue that Americans in particular have, thinking that the right to free speech trumps everyone else's right to not have to listen to you, but it's an international problem as well. If a woman wants a man's opinion on feminism, she can go to reddit, or a news website, or outside her door. If she wants to laugh a bit and work on serious shit with other women without having to explain to a dude for the umpteenth time how "man-hating" is a phrase (and has been for decades) used to ridicule and intellectually demote the feminist movement as a whole despite the fact that it certainly does apply to some feminists, she can go to Tiger Beatdown. Again, Sady doesn't want all men to shut up about feminism. She appreciates plenty of men with feminist perspectives. She wants people like Freddy to consider his perspectives a bit more, especially because he is calling himself a feminist. There might be some "You don't agree with me" going on there, as it will go for any discussion with more than one side, but the majority of her point is to explain why the blog is a safe place, and it's exactly because of guys like Freddy. And I almost feel for the guy. I've read his blog posts on the topic, and he tries to be polite and makes an argument that is a sound one (guys can be feminists), though completely unnecessary (because everyone knows that already) and seems to completely miss the point as to why he isn't allowed to post on Tiger Beatdown. Which is another reason why he can't post on TB. It's a vicious circle.

So, Sady is trying to be funny (she mentions it's her livelihood) and make some points. What's not to like?

If person A criticizes a movement, you think that person A knows better than all the women within that movement. This is silly; perhaps you think there are no male feminists? Anyway, it's the underlying logic with your position. You remind me of the staunch welfare government advocate who insists that the free market guy wants poor people to die because he doesn't support the government provision of welfare.

Nope. That's what Freddy thinks Sady wants. Here's what Sady wants:

When Sady says "shut the f*ck up", she's not actually going for closing off the conversation. She's responding forcefully, and with some comedy, to the overwhelming privilege that men feel they should be allowed to be in everything, including, apparently, a place designated as a safe space for women to talk about feminism, and other things, without having to put up with the same shit they have to everywhere else. This is an issue that Americans in particular have, thinking that the right to free speech trumps everyone else's right to not have to listen to you, but it's an international problem as well. If a woman wants a man's opinion on feminism, she can go to reddit, or a news website, or outside her door. If she wants to laugh a bit and work on serious shit with other women without having to explain to a dude for the umpteenth time how "man-hating" is a phrase (and has been for decades) used to ridicule and intellectually demote the feminist movement as a whole despite the fact that it certainly does apply to some feminists, she can go to Tiger Beatdown. Again, Sady doesn't want all men to shut up about feminism. She appreciates plenty of men with feminist perspectives. She wants people like Freddy to consider his perspectives a bit more, especially because he is calling himself a feminist. There might be some "You don't agree with me" going on there, as it will go for any discussion with more than one side, but the majority of her point is to explain why the blog is a safe place, and it's exactly because of guys like Freddy. And I almost feel for the guy. I've read his blog posts on the topic, and he tries to be polite and makes an argument that is a sound one (guys can be feminists), though completely unnecessary (because everyone knows that already) and seems to completely miss the point as to why he isn't allowed to post on Tiger Beatdown. Which is another reason why he can't post on TB. It's a vicious circle.

So, Sady is trying to be funny (she mentions it's her livelihood) and make some points. What's not to like?

But let's advance. Here's my general position on feminism:

JB is marketing Feminism 4.0 or 3.0---I forget which wave it is. The earlier waves received a lot of flak because they ultimately advocated for inequality and sometimes radical positions, which were simply ridiculous. With Feminism 3.0, it's unnecessary to even support such a movement because of its history. If you're against Feminism 3.0, it's not the case that you're against women or equal rights--of course, the advocates for Feminism 3.0 would likely say otherwise; perhaps that tactic is part of the marketing plan too.

Feminism is a niche market. They're free to do whatever, as long as they're not hurting others. I'm simply not impressed, and regarding analytical frameworks, they don't have anything valuable to offer to me, but at least they've been driving themselves away from radicalism.

Thanks? Another dude monologuing about what he thinks feminism is and should be. Which is cool, I guess, but not the sort of thing I normally give two shits about, other than noting that it's occurring with snide one-liners.

All that being said (and quoted), I'm indifferent. If Congress wants to pass a law that calls for equal pay, that's fine by me. Go ahead. I'm pretty confident it will be an ineffective law, at best. If feminists want to rail against the lack of women in Congress or the White House, go ahead. Find some quality candidates to run in the next election. I'll vote for the best candidate, not the best female candidate. And people who vote for a candidate because he's a man are being not only chauvinist, but stupid. If I told you Ms. Candidate would do a better job than Mr. Candidate and you vote for Mr. Candidate, you're stupid. If I told you that Ms. Employee had a better resume than Mr. Employee and you hired Mr. Employee, you're stupid.

I don't understand why you guys are talking about individuals here. Why are you all so terrified of the feminists? Have you all had "retaliatory" or "blackmailing" sexual harassment charges filed against you or something?

I don't understand what your post has to do with my post, but okay. I'm not terrified of feminists, although I suppose I don't know all the iterations so perhaps I can't say that with any authority.

It probably doesn't have much to do with your post at all since I was trying to figure out why you were responding to me with things that didn't have anything to do with my original posts.

I'd have to meet these guys that Sady considers contributing "feminists" to believe it. How do we know they aren't just total spineless doormats?

Because they have large swinging dicks, obv.

I don't understand why you guys are talking about individuals here. Why are you all so terrified of the feminists?

They just sound really mean and unreasonable so far.

:[

Btw, I love how you're getting all agro over people discussing on a discussion board. Are you a "legitimate" feminist? If so, I can see how Kent might have gotten the impression he did from the "feminists" he met in rl.

Are you new here?

I've been thinking about this during free minutes today and here's some thoughts which I'm sure Sandy and Neoteny will love to hear.
I've worked with some pretty ignorant and close-minded work crews in my day as I spent many summer vacations as a landscaper and other manual labor jobs. I Believe that these crews of guys really embody the raw humanity that is your "average person". They were sexist, racist, classist and whatever other "ists" you can think of. I was a relatively shy person back then as well had some superficial traits which made me an instant target. I managed to suck up all the initial bombings, slurs, whatever you want to call them and eventually was accepted and I daresay respected. I wasn't accepted because I made a stand for myself or because I insisted everyone listen to my personal plight and stfu or because I made myself prickly enough to alienate myself completely from the group. I just acted like a normal, well adjusted person and sucked it up until the rest of the group realized I was just a normal, well adjusted person just like the rest of them.

Her name is Sady, btw. And I'm sorry you are so afraid of her. She's just a normal person with ideas about feminism and humor. And while the doormat approach works for some people, it's a little naive to think it works for all situations. Some feminists prefer your approach. Other prefer to be as abrasive as those guys. Others prefer talking for hours about it on an internet forum. All of these powers and more combine like Voltron to create a movement labeled as feminism (which is being done wrong, remember), which, someday, might be able to render silly discussions like this one moot.

Christ. This is a bit overwhelming.

I still don't get the "STFU" bit. It is supposed to be cute?
As Haggis mentioned, it's not a very effective way to enrich others. It's about the least effective imho. I mean, don't you need to enrich others in order for a cause to move forward? Otherwise you will just be met with opposition since historical mindsets will prevail without new information to change them. Unless of course you want to go for the brute force route which would most likely be equally ineffectual.
I still feel like "STFU" implies feminism as a special case and you can't agree to these terms without having to admit that feminism requires more tactfulness than any other subject for some reason. I don't react that way to any other sensitive subject so why would I on this one? Unless you're the meekest sort of person, just sitting back and STFUing is not conducive to learning.

When Sady says "shut the f*ck up", she's not actually going for closing off the conversation. She's responding forcefully, and with some comedy, to the overwhelming privilege that men feel they should be allowed to be in everything, including, apparently, a place designated as a safe space for women to talk about feminism, and other things, without having to put up with the same shit they have to everywhere else. This is an issue that Americans in particular have, thinking that the right to free speech trumps everyone else's right to not have to listen to you, but it's an international problem as well. If a woman wants a man's opinion on feminism, she can go to reddit, or a news website, or outside her door. If she wants to laugh a bit and work on serious shit with other women without having to explain to a dude for the umpteenth time how "man-hating" is a phrase (and has been for decades) used to ridicule and intellectually demote the feminist movement as a whole despite the fact that it certainly does apply to some feminists, she can go to Tiger Beatdown. Again, Sady doesn't want all men to shut up about feminism. She appreciates plenty of men with feminist perspectives. She wants people like Freddy to consider his perspectives a bit more, especially because he is calling himself a feminist. There might be some "You don't agree with me" going on there, as it will go for any discussion with more than one side, but the majority of her point is to explain why the blog is a safe place, and it's exactly because of guys like Freddy. And I almost feel for the guy. I've read his blog posts on the topic, and he tries to be polite and makes an argument that is a sound one (guys can be feminists), though completely unnecessary (because everyone knows that already) and seems to completely miss the point as to why he isn't allowed to post on Tiger Beatdown. Which is another reason why he can't post on TB. It's a vicious circle.

So, Sady is trying to be funny (she mentions it's her livelihood) and make some points. What's not to like?

Combined with the variety of other tactics any movement will try to employ, it's a pretty good strategy, actually.

Eh, ok, I'll take a position. (though I'll admit I don't have anything too interesting to say)

So I looked at the blog Neo posted. I think this comment sums it up pretty well.

So, in other words, you aren’t capable of defending your ideas, and so you freak out when someone calls you out on some of them. That’s cool– like I said, your dime. But make no mistake, the fact that you are so incapable of actually engaging rationally– that you post with such obvious insecurity, emotionalism, and spite, rather than anything resembling a coherent argument– that, ultimately, undermines what you will accomplish for feminism.

Now– from my angle, what you could do is actually engage your self-critical process and become a better advocate for your ideas. Or you can censor, and flip out, and continue to police your space against any kind of constructive criticism. Meanwhile, I will engage in the ethical project of my life, which is the project of liberation, a project which I do not and will not ever ask for anyone’s permission to undertake.

Let this comment stand as is, please, if you value free expression.

[EDIT: THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED TO CLARIFY THAT FREDDIE CARES ABOUT FREDDIE'S BONERS. FREE FREDDIE'S BONERS! THEY ARE SAD WHEN WOMEN DON'T SUCK ON THEM REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE THINKS! FREDDIE'S BONERS: THE MOST OPPRESSED BONERS OF OUR TIME.]

If you can't answer to criticism other than with such childish insults (the whole blog post was one big childish insult with some sob story added in), then I can't take you seriously. Sorry.

And telling me to STFU? Yeah, if I met a person like that Sady I'll STFU. I mean I'd like to learn more about feminism, a subject I admittedly know little about, and I think I'm pretty in favor of equal rights, but if that's the level of discourse you produce then I'll gladly STFU, focus my attention on one of the myriad more important issues out there today and let you lovely wave 11 feminists to your mutual shouting in your echo chamber. Kinda weird that a movement would shun people by telling them that unless they have spent 10 years studying the intricacies of the movement then they need to STFU cause they're useless. Doesn't seem like a brilliant growth strategy there.

btw. out of curiosity, any ideas what the "more common and violent mechanisms for enforcing women’s oppression" that she mentions have affected her childhood so harshly are? seriously asking, no idea what she's talking about.

When Sady says "shut the f*ck up", she's not actually going for closing off the conversation. She's responding forcefully, and with some comedy, to the overwhelming privilege that men feel they should be allowed to be in everything, including, apparently, a place designated as a safe space for women to talk about feminism, and other things, without having to put up with the same shit they have to everywhere else. This is an issue that Americans in particular have, thinking that the right to free speech trumps everyone else's right to not have to listen to you, but it's an international problem as well. If a woman wants a man's opinion on feminism, she can go to reddit, or a news website, or outside her door. If she wants to laugh a bit and work on serious shit with other women without having to explain to a dude for the umpteenth time how "man-hating" is a phrase (and has been for decades) used to ridicule and intellectually demote the feminist movement as a whole despite the fact that it certainly does apply to some feminists, she can go to Tiger Beatdown. Again, Sady doesn't want all men to shut up about feminism. She appreciates plenty of men with feminist perspectives. She wants people like Freddy to consider his perspectives a bit more, especially because he is calling himself a feminist. There might be some "You don't agree with me" going on there, as it will go for any discussion with more than one side, but the majority of her point is to explain why the blog is a safe place, and it's exactly because of guys like Freddy. And I almost feel for the guy. I've read his blog posts on the topic, and he tries to be polite and makes an argument that is a sound one (guys can be feminists), though completely unnecessary (because everyone knows that already) and seems to completely miss the point as to why he isn't allowed to post on Tiger Beatdown. Which is another reason why he can't post on TB. It's a vicious circle.

So, Sady is trying to be funny (she mentions it's her livelihood) and make some points. What's not to like?

I'd love it if there could be an actual debate on this shit, so I'll try again.



Anyone disagree with what she says?

For the record, I think the way she frames certain issues is somewhat unfair, but a lot of what she says seems pretty correct.

Ain't nobody got time for that.