BigBallinStalin wrote:One contention: This is probably not applicable to feminism, but in general it can be beneficial to allow people to state their opinions--however uninformed, so that one can have the opportunity to correct them, clarify them, allow the uninformed to correct them through a Socratic approach, or perhaps even learn from them.
However, it depends on the context. With different people, we have different discussions which vary in profit and relevant knowledge. Therefore, I can understand the frustration in critiquing the US export of democracy when there's that guy in the room who keeps screaming, "UHMERICA!!," while spilling his beer on everyone.
That is exactly the point. Tiger Beatdown is probably not the preeminent source of educating men about problems women face. It also does not claim to be, nor necessarily aim to be such (though it has certainly helped me). And your contention very much is applicable to feminism, plus I feel that contention is what Funky is trying to prove. But I don't think anybody here (maybe "think" is too weak a word since the only person to speak for in this situation is myself) is saying that is not the case. There are plenty of places where these discussions are happening (the atheist blogosphere is a community that is doing it now), and they should be happening. But just like dudes can retreat to 4chan or a company boardroom to get away from female interference, women need a place to simmer and cogitate and whatever too. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Well, except the boardroom quip.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:What's your position about feminism? And what's your main contention against me or any criticism against feminism?
My position about feminism is that it is awesome. My main contention against you requires that we go back to this post:BigBallinStalin wrote:kentington wrote:Gillipig wrote:I was thinking more like "Realist".
That just assures them that you are a total male chauvinist.
Honestly, I think feminism has gone too far and is now hurting its own cause. I agree women should have equal rights and be able to vote. I agree that they should have an equal chance at being hired. But I have seen feminist women verbally attack other women who didn't work but stayed home and raised kids. These outspoken ones may be a minority, but from any feminist I have met it seems to be a constant. Those that I have met also tend to hate men or hold them in a negative light. This creates a poor image for those of us who aren't "in" with them and makes us lean away from them.
Yeah, pretty much sums up feminism.
Agreeing with Kentington there gets you lumped into the same boat of people making generalizations about groups based on apparently limited knowledge of the group, which is pretty ironic considering the content with which agreement is being found. You got bonus points indicating your ignorance when you were talking about the "radical positions" of first- and second-wave feminism in a negative light. They both had extreme elements, but when you consider that "radical" in the context of wave one is literally the main foci of sufferage, property rights, education, etc, you come across as a little silly there. They weren't even growing their body hair out or anything grody like that. And when you consider the main goals of second-wave feminism, as opposed to the convenient minorities I'm sure you'll use to justify your sweeping opinions, I'm curious as to what was so radical. Those few women who wanted to kill all the men?
Yeah, I don't blame you for lumping me into that boat because I was too lazy to clarify my stance.
The underlined's a good point. My contention, and I wasn't clear enough, is that I don't see the usefulness of that radical approach in today's times and in such frequency as it was in the past. Granted, some events today could use a helping of that radical approach--but not as frequently as it was back then, and perhaps not at all, depending on what we mean by radical.
'Radical' in this instance can involve badgering people into agreeing with you or joining their movement, while neglecting their opportunity costs. It can also let passions rule over reason, deny others a more intelligible discourse, and promote well-intended policies which lead to poor outcomes.
I don't favor radicalism in this sense because it's similar to the radicalism of violent, Islamic fundamentalists, the perpetuation of terrorism, the US' reaction, and the subsequent reciprocity of violence/terrorism by both parties. All of this is underpinned by radical notions of social change which can lead to these undesirable outcomes. I'm not saying that in all cases radicalism creates terrorism for all political movements, but it is a breeding ground which can lower the perceived costs of violence. Of course, there's the question of better substitutes than radical positions, whether or not they produce on average better outcomes thus are worth the costs, and yada yada yada.
That's cool. There will always be a spectrum of feelings on proper approaches and opportunity costs and whatever.