Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

What is feminism?

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 11:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 11:45:55 PM, Sitara wrote:
I want the truth.

You won't likely get it. "What it is" is going to be a highly subjective claim.

A standard answer might be "a movement that focuses on women's rights". Some folks would claim it's turned into a true "equality movement", though I would generally disagree (and that opinion has gotten me in trouble with people i generally agree with on specifics, IMHO because there's definitely an emotional component to the subject).

But why are you asking? Are you honestly unfamiliar with it, or are you trying to get somewhere rhetorically?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 12:04:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 11:56:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:45:55 PM, Sitara wrote:
I want the truth.

You won't likely get it. "What it is" is going to be a highly subjective claim.

A standard answer might be "a movement that focuses on women's rights". Some folks would claim it's turned into a true "equality movement", though I would generally disagree (and that opinion has gotten me in trouble with people i generally agree with on specifics, IMHO because there's definitely an emotional component to the subject).

But why are you asking? Are you honestly unfamiliar with it, or are you trying to get somewhere rhetorically?
I want to understand this view so i can make a logical judgment, instead of spewing fallacies. I always have been the type to study different belief systems. As of now, I consider myself an egalitarian.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 12:23:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 12:04:46 AM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:56:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:45:55 PM, Sitara wrote:
I want the truth.

You won't likely get it. "What it is" is going to be a highly subjective claim.

A standard answer might be "a movement that focuses on women's rights". Some folks would claim it's turned into a true "equality movement", though I would generally disagree (and that opinion has gotten me in trouble with people i generally agree with on specifics, IMHO because there's definitely an emotional component to the subject).

But why are you asking? Are you honestly unfamiliar with it, or are you trying to get somewhere rhetorically?
I want to understand this view so i can make a logical judgment, instead of spewing fallacies. I always have been the type to study different belief systems. As of now, I consider myself an egalitarian.

Fair enough.

To understand the view, though, will likely take more research than just asking other people's opinions. While Wikipedia is, well, Wikipedia, I think it would be beneficial to your understanding to go through the articles on feminism, and on the "waves" of feminism.

Personally, while on any practical or policy item I likely agree with feminists, I find the basic concept bothersome. I don't like the idea of explicitly focusing on one side of the equation, even when that side is in more clear need of balancing--because I think it often leads to hypocrisy, as you get "used" to only looking at one side of the issue (since, particularly in a movement like this's early years, doing so makes sense).

Feminists these days often will say that they are not fighting for women's rights alone, but rather for a general equality. But for a movement that, at one point, had as a focus the de-gendering of language under the presumption that continuing in the gendered manner was inherently sexist to use an explicitly gendered term seems, to me, to be hypocritical, and the lack of any indication of fighting for problems on "the other side" seems to belie the claim.

In general, I think women, societally, often get the short end of the stick. The proponderance of the time, even. And so there is value in addressing that. I just personally think it needs to be done in a truly "equal" fashion.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 12:27:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 12:23:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/20/2013 12:04:46 AM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:56:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:45:55 PM, Sitara wrote:
I want the truth.

You won't likely get it. "What it is" is going to be a highly subjective claim.

A standard answer might be "a movement that focuses on women's rights". Some folks would claim it's turned into a true "equality movement", though I would generally disagree (and that opinion has gotten me in trouble with people i generally agree with on specifics, IMHO because there's definitely an emotional component to the subject).

But why are you asking? Are you honestly unfamiliar with it, or are you trying to get somewhere rhetorically?
I want to understand this view so i can make a logical judgment, instead of spewing fallacies. I always have been the type to study different belief systems. As of now, I consider myself an egalitarian.

Fair enough.

To understand the view, though, will likely take more research than just asking other people's opinions. While Wikipedia is, well, Wikipedia, I think it would be beneficial to your understanding to go through the articles on feminism, and on the "waves" of feminism.

Personally, while on any practical or policy item I likely agree with feminists, I find the basic concept bothersome. I don't like the idea of explicitly focusing on one side of the equation, even when that side is in more clear need of balancing--because I think it often leads to hypocrisy, as you get "used" to only looking at one side of the issue (since, particularly in a movement like this's early years, doing so makes sense).

Feminists these days often will say that they are not fighting for women's rights alone, but rather for a general equality. But for a movement that, at one point, had as a focus the de-gendering of language under the presumption that continuing in the gendered manner was inherently sexist to use an explicitly gendered term seems, to me, to be hypocritical, and the lack of any indication of fighting for problems on "the other side" seems to belie the claim.

In general, I think women, societally, often get the short end of the stick. The proponderance of the time, even. And so there is value in addressing that. I just personally think it needs to be done in a truly "equal" fashion.
All very valid points. I believe that men and women are equal in value before God.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 9:04:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends by what you mean by "what is".

If you look at feminism from the original ideology, it's just gender equality for women, so that they have the same legal and employment rights as males, not much more than that.

However nowadays, many so-called "feminists" who are actually women who practice misandry want women to be treated EXACTLY like men, and have the EXACT same rights as women. By exactly, I mean for example that these "feminists" want boys to have Barbie dolls advertised towards them, and girls to have G.I. Joe dolls advertised towards them, even though attempt after attempt, and psychology study, after psychology study have shown that boys (by a vast percent) will choose the G.I. Joe over the Barbie, and that girls (by a vast percent) will choose Barbie over G.I. Joe. These "feminists" also have sued fire stations for not allowing women in their ranks, and the reason why women aren't allowed is because due to the fact that they are naturally less strong, they are inherently much less capable of hauling the heavy fire equipment. When the fire department lost the suit and had to hire women, many women were in fact, unable to pass the physical test. Misandriests deny science.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 8:57:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 12:23:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/20/2013 12:04:46 AM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:56:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:45:55 PM, Sitara wrote:
I want the truth.

You won't likely get it. "What it is" is going to be a highly subjective claim.

A standard answer might be "a movement that focuses on women's rights". Some folks would claim it's turned into a true "equality movement", though I would generally disagree (and that opinion has gotten me in trouble with people i generally agree with on specifics, IMHO because there's definitely an emotional component to the subject).

But why are you asking? Are you honestly unfamiliar with it, or are you trying to get somewhere rhetorically?
I want to understand this view so i can make a logical judgment, instead of spewing fallacies. I always have been the type to study different belief systems. As of now, I consider myself an egalitarian.

Fair enough.

To understand the view, though, will likely take more research than just asking other people's opinions. While Wikipedia is, well, Wikipedia, I think it would be beneficial to your understanding to go through the articles on feminism, and on the "waves" of feminism.

Personally, while on any practical or policy item I likely agree with feminists, I find the basic concept bothersome. I don't like the idea of explicitly focusing on one side of the equation, even when that side is in more clear need of balancing--because I think it often leads to hypocrisy, as you get "used" to only looking at one side of the issue (since, particularly in a movement like this's early years, doing so makes sense).

Discursive division of labor =/= conflicting or even one-sided dialogue. Dialogue and discourse isn't some totality wherein treatment of a specific set of issues disallows any other set to take into effect.

Feminists these days often will say that they are not fighting for women's rights alone, but rather for a general equality. But for a movement that, at one point, had as a focus the de-gendering of language under the presumption that continuing in the gendered manner was inherently sexist to use an explicitly gendered term seems, to me, to be hypocritical, and the lack of any indication of fighting for problems on "the other side" seems to belie the claim.

What's hypocritical about de-gendering language?

In general, I think women, societally, often get the short end of the stick. The proponderance of the time, even. And so there is value in addressing that. I just personally think it needs to be done in a truly "equal" fashion.

Everyone agrees with the above. The only difference is you for some reason think that this "equal fashion" entails a complete unification of discursive problematics.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:06:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:57:22 AM, Noumena wrote:
Feminists these days often will say that they are not fighting for women's rights alone, but rather for a general equality. But for a movement that, at one point, had as a focus the de-gendering of language under the presumption that continuing in the gendered manner was inherently sexist to use an explicitly gendered term seems, to me, to be hypocritical, and the lack of any indication of fighting for problems on "the other side" seems to belie the claim.

What's hypocritical about de-gendering language?

In my understanding of his point it's that since the movement is titled 'feminism,' it'd be hypocritical to take a stance against using language which favors one gender over the other. ie, calling it feminism instead of 'gender equality' or something.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:17:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:57:22 AM, Noumena wrote:

Personally, while on any practical or policy item I likely agree with feminists, I find the basic concept bothersome. I don't like the idea of explicitly focusing on one side of the equation, even when that side is in more clear need of balancing--because I think it often leads to hypocrisy, as you get "used" to only looking at one side of the issue (since, particularly in a movement like this's early years, doing so makes sense).

Discursive division of labor =/= conflicting or even one-sided dialogue. Dialogue and discourse isn't some totality wherein treatment of a specific set of issues disallows any other set to take into effect.

I don't believe I said they were equal. I said I found the focus on one side of the equation bothersome because I think it often leads to ONLY looking at one side of the equation. I didn't say it necessarily did.

Feminists these days often will say that they are not fighting for women's rights alone, but rather for a general equality. But for a movement that, at one point, had as a focus the de-gendering of language under the presumption that continuing in the gendered manner was inherently sexist to use an explicitly gendered term seems, to me, to be hypocritical, and the lack of any indication of fighting for problems on "the other side" seems to belie the claim.

What's hypocritical about de-gendering language?

I believe I specifically explained why it was hypocritical. Did you not understand or not like the objection?

In general, I think women, societally, often get the short end of the stick. The proponderance of the time, even. And so there is value in addressing that. I just personally think it needs to be done in a truly "equal" fashion.

Everyone agrees with the above. The only difference is you for some reason think that this "equal fashion" entails a complete unification of discursive problematics.

Not everyone agrees with the above--but probably every reasonable person does. The "equal fashion" I'm talking about is one that takes into account the fact that there ARE situations where men get the proverbial "short end of the stick", too--something feminism, by and large, doesn't address.

You imply that discursive problematics don't have to be unified--I agree with it in terms of necessity, but I think that while its easy to pay lip service to actual equality, in general I don't think focusing on one side of the problem, alone, and allowing it to co-opt the entire concept of equality, is actually equality.

An example might be the difference between breast cancer awareness and prostate cancer awareness--both are killers, but feminists (by and large) are focused only on breast cancer (and in that focus, on women, which makes sense since breast cancer is technically something that can happen to men but certainly is by no means common)--ignoring prostate cancer. And no, I'm not saying that, just because prostate cancer has become a worse threat than breast cancer, breast cancer should be ignored--but while feminist groups come out in droves for October's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I don't see a similar rush from them in November's Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

And no, in general, I don't necessarily have a problem with focusing on one part of a problem, but where that breaks down is when there is a claim that feminism IS equality--when it clearly isn't. Claims like that tend to hurt, in my opinion, the overall equality movement, because they try to assert htat focusing only on one side is sufficient and, while as part of an overall picture there's nothing wrong with focusing on one side, when the overall picture becomes just focusing on one side, it's hard to see the "equality".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:23:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You will never get a straight-forward answer. Literally any time that you offer a definition, there will be feminists saying things like, "Oh, that's just some feminists, we're not all like that," whcih makes it incredibly difficult to define.

That being said, I'll give it a go.

It is an egalitarian movement aimed at changing the power-structure in society, because the patriarchal nature of it leads to a rape culture where men take advantage of women. In changing the nature of power-relations to be more equal between men and women, they believe that the rape culture will largely disappear.

Some mainstream points that have been in dispute have been over the existence of the rape culture and the methods that the feminists try to promote change.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:31:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:17:42 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:57:22 AM, Noumena wrote:

What's hypocritical about de-gendering language?

I believe I specifically explained why it was hypocritical. Did you not understand or not like the objection?

I don't think it means anything. See my below point.

Everyone agrees with the above. The only difference is you for some reason think that this "equal fashion" entails a complete unification of discursive problematics.

Not everyone agrees with the above--but probably every reasonable person does. The "equal fashion" I'm talking about is one that takes into account the fact that there ARE situations where men get the proverbial "short end of the stick", too--something feminism, by and large, doesn't address.

You imply that discursive problematics don't have to be unified--I agree with it in terms of necessity, but I think that while its easy to pay lip service to actual equality, in general I don't think focusing on one side of the problem, alone, and allowing it to co-opt the entire concept of equality, is actually equality.

An example might be the difference between breast cancer awareness and prostate cancer awareness--both are killers, but feminists (by and large) are focused only on breast cancer (and in that focus, on women, which makes sense since breast cancer is technically something that can happen to men but certainly is by no means common)--ignoring prostate cancer. And no, I'm not saying that, just because prostate cancer has become a worse threat than breast cancer, breast cancer should be ignored--but while feminist groups come out in droves for October's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I don't see a similar rush from them in November's Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

And no, in general, I don't necessarily have a problem with focusing on one part of a problem, but where that breaks down is when there is a claim that feminism IS equality--when it clearly isn't. Claims like that tend to hurt, in my opinion, the overall equality movement, because they try to assert htat focusing only on one side is sufficient and, while as part of an overall picture there's nothing wrong with focusing on one side, when the overall picture becomes just focusing on one side, it's hard to see the "equality".

I don't see where yer getting the idea that Feminism (with a capital F) presumes at the outset that it represents equality completely. Race, ethnicity, class, nationality, etc. are all (in a sense) competing discourses on the topic of equality and where those aspects of the Subject fit into an imagined hierarchy of importance (with various intersections i.e., Marxist feminism, ethnically autonomous feminism, third-world [such as Cuban or Venezuelan] Marxism, etc.). So even yer claim (if one lends validity to it in the first place) is stifled by the fact that virtually *every* critical (with the possible exception of postmodernism), emancipatory, or egalitarian discourse binds itself to this kind of thing. The points yer missing are that (a) such a thing comes along with the very idea of pluralistic discourse and (b) even if one were to break down an imagined superiority/inferiority binary that exists, it's relevance in the actual constitution of most feminist ideas is near null i.e., performative gender theories, gender/sex distinctions, etc. (which are *actually* prevalent throughout feminist literature) are left intact. The critique just doesn't obtain in reality.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:43:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:31:33 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:17:42 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:57:22 AM, Noumena wrote:

What's hypocritical about de-gendering language?

I believe I specifically explained why it was hypocritical. Did you not understand or not like the objection?

I don't think it means anything. See my below point.

And I think it does. A group is complaining about gendering that it is bad. Yet clearly, they don't think ALL gendering is bad--they are part of an explicitly gendered movement. So gendering is okay sometimes, that sometimes apparently being "when we do it".

Everyone agrees with the above. The only difference is you for some reason think that this "equal fashion" entails a complete unification of discursive problematics.

Not everyone agrees with the above--but probably every reasonable person does. The "equal fashion" I'm talking about is one that takes into account the fact that there ARE situations where men get the proverbial "short end of the stick", too--something feminism, by and large, doesn't address.

You imply that discursive problematics don't have to be unified--I agree with it in terms of necessity, but I think that while its easy to pay lip service to actual equality, in general I don't think focusing on one side of the problem, alone, and allowing it to co-opt the entire concept of equality, is actually equality.

An example might be the difference between breast cancer awareness and prostate cancer awareness--both are killers, but feminists (by and large) are focused only on breast cancer (and in that focus, on women, which makes sense since breast cancer is technically something that can happen to men but certainly is by no means common)--ignoring prostate cancer. And no, I'm not saying that, just because prostate cancer has become a worse threat than breast cancer, breast cancer should be ignored--but while feminist groups come out in droves for October's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I don't see a similar rush from them in November's Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

And no, in general, I don't necessarily have a problem with focusing on one part of a problem, but where that breaks down is when there is a claim that feminism IS equality--when it clearly isn't. Claims like that tend to hurt, in my opinion, the overall equality movement, because they try to assert htat focusing only on one side is sufficient and, while as part of an overall picture there's nothing wrong with focusing on one side, when the overall picture becomes just focusing on one side, it's hard to see the "equality".

I don't see where yer getting the idea that Feminism (with a capital F) presumes at the outset that it represents equality completely.

You don't see that? You don't see claims that feminism is equality?

http://www.feminismisequality.com...

From those who agree that feminism does not equate to equality, I often see the claim that being a feminist does not preclude one from being an equalist as well--yet there is certainly no strength to the equalist movement in comparison to the feminist movement. In terms of practicality, I believe that focusing on one part of the equation tends to lead to ONLY focusing on one part of the equation. In the presence of a robust overarching umbrella, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I believe feminism has stifled the overarching umbrella--as I said, the "equalism" movement certainly doesn't have anywhere near the strength of the feminism movement.

Race, ethnicity, class, nationality, etc. are all (in a sense) competing discourses on the topic of equality and where those aspects of the Subject fit into an imagined hierarchy of importance (with various intersections i.e., Marxist feminism, ethnically autonomous feminism, third-world [such as Cuban or Venezuelan] Marxism, etc.). So even yer claim (if one lends validity to it in the first place) is stifled by the fact that virtually *every* critical (with the possible exception of postmodernism), emancipatory, or egalitarian discourse binds itself to this kind of thing. The points yer missing are that (a) such a thing comes along with the very idea of pluralistic discourse and (b) even if one were to break down an imagined superiority/inferiority binary that exists, it's relevance in the actual constitution of most feminist ideas is near null i.e., performative gender theories, gender/sex distinctions, etc. (which are *actually* prevalent throughout feminist literature) are left intact. The critique just doesn't obtain in reality.

Actually I would argue that the critique DOES, specifically obtain in reality, for the reasons noted--that it's not inherently or necessarily problematic in the ways I point out, but that that is what has happened.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:46:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:43:49 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:31:33 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:17:42 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:57:22 AM, Noumena wrote:

What's hypocritical about de-gendering language?

I believe I specifically explained why it was hypocritical. Did you not understand or not like the objection?

I don't think it means anything. See my below point.

And I think it does. A group is complaining about gendering that it is bad. Yet clearly, they don't think ALL gendering is bad--they are part of an explicitly gendered movement. So gendering is okay sometimes, that sometimes apparently being "when we do it".

Have you ever looked into poststructuralism?


Everyone agrees with the above. The only difference is you for some reason think that this "equal fashion" entails a complete unification of discursive problematics.

Not everyone agrees with the above--but probably every reasonable person does. The "equal fashion" I'm talking about is one that takes into account the fact that there ARE situations where men get the proverbial "short end of the stick", too--something feminism, by and large, doesn't address.

You imply that discursive problematics don't have to be unified--I agree with it in terms of necessity, but I think that while its easy to pay lip service to actual equality, in general I don't think focusing on one side of the problem, alone, and allowing it to co-opt the entire concept of equality, is actually equality.

An example might be the difference between breast cancer awareness and prostate cancer awareness--both are killers, but feminists (by and large) are focused only on breast cancer (and in that focus, on women, which makes sense since breast cancer is technically something that can happen to men but certainly is by no means common)--ignoring prostate cancer. And no, I'm not saying that, just because prostate cancer has become a worse threat than breast cancer, breast cancer should be ignored--but while feminist groups come out in droves for October's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I don't see a similar rush from them in November's Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

And no, in general, I don't necessarily have a problem with focusing on one part of a problem, but where that breaks down is when there is a claim that feminism IS equality--when it clearly isn't. Claims like that tend to hurt, in my opinion, the overall equality movement, because they try to assert htat focusing only on one side is sufficient and, while as part of an overall picture there's nothing wrong with focusing on one side, when the overall picture becomes just focusing on one side, it's hard to see the "equality".

I don't see where yer getting the idea that Feminism (with a capital F) presumes at the outset that it represents equality completely.

You don't see that? You don't see claims that feminism is equality?

http://www.feminismisequality.com...

From those who agree that feminism does not equate to equality, I often see the claim that being a feminist does not preclude one from being an equalist as well--yet there is certainly no strength to the equalist movement in comparison to the feminist movement. In terms of practicality, I believe that focusing on one part of the equation tends to lead to ONLY focusing on one part of the equation. In the presence of a robust overarching umbrella, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I believe feminism has stifled the overarching umbrella--as I said, the "equalism" movement certainly doesn't have anywhere near the strength of the feminism movement.

You argue that focusing on "one side of the equation" (presuming that just refers to the presence of pluralistic discourses) leads to ignoring other sides. Given that totalizing philosophical projects died out last century, what's yer response? How does one sever this supposed connection?

Race, ethnicity, class, nationality, etc. are all (in a sense) competing discourses on the topic of equality and where those aspects of the Subject fit into an imagined hierarchy of importance (with various intersections i.e., Marxist feminism, ethnically autonomous feminism, third-world [such as Cuban or Venezuelan] Marxism, etc.). So even yer claim (if one lends validity to it in the first place) is stifled by the fact that virtually *every* critical (with the possible exception of postmodernism), emancipatory, or egalitarian discourse binds itself to this kind of thing. The points yer missing are that (a) such a thing comes along with the very idea of pluralistic discourse and (b) even if one were to break down an imagined superiority/inferiority binary that exists, it's relevance in the actual constitution of most feminist ideas is near null i.e., performative gender theories, gender/sex distinctions, etc. (which are *actually* prevalent throughout feminist literature) are left intact. The critique just doesn't obtain in reality.

Actually I would argue that the critique DOES, specifically obtain in reality, for the reasons noted--that it's not inherently or necessarily problematic in the ways I point out, but that that is what has happened.

That's not an argument and ignores most of the 'meat' of my response.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:58:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:46:42 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:43:49 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:31:33 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:17:42 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:57:22 AM, Noumena wrote:

What's hypocritical about de-gendering language?

I believe I specifically explained why it was hypocritical. Did you not understand or not like the objection?

I don't think it means anything. See my below point.

And I think it does. A group is complaining about gendering that it is bad. Yet clearly, they don't think ALL gendering is bad--they are part of an explicitly gendered movement. So gendering is okay sometimes, that sometimes apparently being "when we do it".

Have you ever looked into poststructuralism?

Yes.

Everyone agrees with the above. The only difference is you for some reason think that this "equal fashion" entails a complete unification of discursive problematics.

Not everyone agrees with the above--but probably every reasonable person does. The "equal fashion" I'm talking about is one that takes into account the fact that there ARE situations where men get the proverbial "short end of the stick", too--something feminism, by and large, doesn't address.

You imply that discursive problematics don't have to be unified--I agree with it in terms of necessity, but I think that while its easy to pay lip service to actual equality, in general I don't think focusing on one side of the problem, alone, and allowing it to co-opt the entire concept of equality, is actually equality.

An example might be the difference between breast cancer awareness and prostate cancer awareness--both are killers, but feminists (by and large) are focused only on breast cancer (and in that focus, on women, which makes sense since breast cancer is technically something that can happen to men but certainly is by no means common)--ignoring prostate cancer. And no, I'm not saying that, just because prostate cancer has become a worse threat than breast cancer, breast cancer should be ignored--but while feminist groups come out in droves for October's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I don't see a similar rush from them in November's Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

And no, in general, I don't necessarily have a problem with focusing on one part of a problem, but where that breaks down is when there is a claim that feminism IS equality--when it clearly isn't. Claims like that tend to hurt, in my opinion, the overall equality movement, because they try to assert htat focusing only on one side is sufficient and, while as part of an overall picture there's nothing wrong with focusing on one side, when the overall picture becomes just focusing on one side, it's hard to see the "equality".

I don't see where yer getting the idea that Feminism (with a capital F) presumes at the outset that it represents equality completely.

You don't see that? You don't see claims that feminism is equality?

http://www.feminismisequality.com...

From those who agree that feminism does not equate to equality, I often see the claim that being a feminist does not preclude one from being an equalist as well--yet there is certainly no strength to the equalist movement in comparison to the feminist movement. In terms of practicality, I believe that focusing on one part of the equation tends to lead to ONLY focusing on one part of the equation. In the presence of a robust overarching umbrella, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I believe feminism has stifled the overarching umbrella--as I said, the "equalism" movement certainly doesn't have anywhere near the strength of the feminism movement.

You argue that focusing on "one side of the equation" (presuming that just refers to the presence of pluralistic discourses) leads to ignoring other sides. Given that totalizing philosophical projects died out last century, what's yer response? How does one sever this supposed connection?

By recognizing that there is a difference between the part and the whole, and recognizing that the whole is important as well.

As I said, pluralistic discourse under the overarching umbrella of equality would be less likely, in my opinion, to result in the one-sidedness I see.

Race, ethnicity, class, nationality, etc. are all (in a sense) competing discourses on the topic of equality and where those aspects of the Subject fit into an imagined hierarchy of importance (with various intersections i.e., Marxist feminism, ethnically autonomous feminism, third-world [such as Cuban or Venezuelan] Marxism, etc.). So even yer claim (if one lends validity to it in the first place) is stifled by the fact that virtually *every* critical (with the possible exception of postmodernism), emancipatory, or egalitarian discourse binds itself to this kind of thing. The points yer missing are that (a) such a thing comes along with the very idea of pluralistic discourse and (b) even if one were to break down an imagined superiority/inferiority binary that exists, it's relevance in the actual constitution of most feminist ideas is near null i.e., performative gender theories, gender/sex distinctions, etc. (which are *actually* prevalent throughout feminist literature) are left intact. The critique just doesn't obtain in reality.

Actually I would argue that the critique DOES, specifically obtain in reality, for the reasons noted--that it's not inherently or necessarily problematic in the ways I point out, but that that is what has happened.

That's not an argument and ignores most of the 'meat' of my response.

I could point out that you've done the very same thing, multiple times--but that's just tu quoque. I have pointed out the practical problems I see. In response you talk about the concept of pluralistic discourse and claim that my critique "just doesn't obtain in reality".

While in academia, there is undoubtedly a fine focus on both sides of the issue, in terms of the overall movement's practical effects on various social issues, I think my objections are valid. I don't think it's valid to try to reframe this as a focus on academic literature, rather than on the movement as a whole.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 1:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You might want to consider that feminism isn't a single ideology.

Rights and laws are patterned off an "ideal citizen." For instance, if the "ideal citizen" is a man, then it really doesn't matter that women can't vote beyond the extent that men want them to vote. If the "ideal citizen" is a white male above the age of 18, then the rights of blacks don't matter past what "ideal citizens" think about it.

Liberal feminism - Wants the "ideal citizen" to equally represent male and female interests.

Radical feminism- Wants the "ideal citizen" to be conceptualized as as an "ideal male citizen" and "ideal female citizen."

Postmodern feminism- The 'ideal citizen' has no gender/is all genders at once.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 5:57:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 11:45:55 PM, Sitara wrote:
I want the truth.

You can't handle the truth!

Sitara, we live in a world that has beers, and those beers have to be drank by men with bellies. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Sitara? Manly Men have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Feminism, and you curse the Manly Man. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know. That Male Chauvinism, while tragic, probably saves lives. And the existence of Male Chauvinist Pigs, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want us drinking beer, you need us drinking beer. We use words like noombies, melons, jugs. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent drinking something. You use them as a punchline. We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a woman who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very drunkenness that we provide, and then questions the manner in which we provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a beer, and stand at a sportsbar. Either way, we don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater