Funkyterrance wrote:Neoteny wrote: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.Sady Doyle wrote: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.
Funkyterrance wrote: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?
Funkyterrance wrote: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.
john9blue wrote: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.
thegreekdog wrote:Neoteny wrote: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.
thegreekdog wrote: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?
kentington wrote:Neoteny wrote:Well, "we" are saying that we know better than women. For example, here:kentington wrote: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.
Sady Doyle wrote:#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?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:Lootifer wrote: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:kentington wrote: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.
Funkyterrance wrote:Neoteny wrote: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.