Total Posts:277|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is wrong with modern liberals/feminists?

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

This should be interesting :)
yang.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:11:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

The first thing that must be taken into consideration is your own position. You think that "feminism is social suicide" and that there is something "wrong with modern liberals/feminists". Not exactly a flattering position, and given the title of this newer thread, it's an insulting position as well. There's nothing "wrong with modern liberals/feminists" no matter how much you may disagree with their arguments.

As it is, the OP is an ad hominem, so what else are you going to expect here besides a conversation involving personal attacks?

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

I'm fairly certain you are not a feminist.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:29:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:15:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

I'm fairly certain you are not a feminist.

Just to add an explanation, in order to be a feminist, you must be able to conform to the following:

1) You must understand what equal rights are in regards to gender.
2) You must advocate for these equal rights.
3) You must believe feminism also is an advocacy for equal rights.

#2 and #3 are predicated upon assuming #1. In your video, Naomi conforms to all of this, so she's a feminist. Antigone and Karen do not conform to #3 even though they conform to #1 and #2, so they are not feminists. You don't conform to #1, so definitionally you're not a feminist.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:03:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:15:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

I'm fairly certain you are not a feminist.

" Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms. However, there are many different kinds of feminism. Feminists disagree about what sexism consists in, and what exactly ought to be done about it; they disagree about what it means to be a woman or a man and what social and political implications gender has or should have. Nonetheless, motivated by the quest for social justice, feminist inquiry provides a wide range of perspectives on social, cultural, economic, and political phenomena. "

http://plato.stanford.edu...
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:05:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?

People always resort to ad hominem and insults when they really don't have an argument or they are attempting to strengthen an argument that they feel is already weak on its own. I'm not saying that I agree with everything you say in other threads, but nonetheless this doesn't make my first statement any less true. It's like when Obama was running for president and everyone who didn't vote for him or agree with him on absolutely everything was considered to be "racist".

Feminists call everyone who disagrees with them a "misogynist" because it means that they don't actually have to feel accountable for defending their actual beliefs and ideology and the possible consequences of such things. It is, of course, stupid and completely unreasonable to say that a person hates or even slightly dislikes women just because they disagree with feminists on what is best, what is fair, and what is reasonable/logical, but feminists don't really give a sh*t about that when they can just throw the term misogynist around as though it didn't actually have any purpose or meaning but to shame others that disagree and therefor they never have to actually defend their (sometimes) screwball ways of thinking. (You disagree with me, so instead of defending my stance on the subject, I'll just call you something vile like racist, bigot, misogynist, etc. instead.) I, for instance, consider myself to be an anti-feminist but I, nonetheless, believe in women being equal and having rights. I just happen to think that feminist ideology is anything but equal, is almost completely one-sided, and approaches things in completely the wrong way (sometimes to the point where it is EXTREMELY harmful to society as a whole). It is important that people are able to separate a movement/ideology from actual people. Feminism DOES NOT equal women. Disagreeing with the general feminist approach and ideals DOES NOT mean that you cannot love and support women and their right to be treated fairly.

Also, any person who fights for and/or believes in women's rights is not necessarily a feminist. The term feminist came from and is inextricably connected to the movement called "feminism". Therefor, if you disagree with feminism then you cannot logically be called a feminist. I get so d@mn tired of disagreeing with feminists only to have them find out that I also believe in women's rights and equality only to have them start calling me a "fellow feminist" when I am actually an anti-feminist. I absolutely refuse to associate myself with feminism or describe myself as a feminist. I actually find such an idea to be completely repugnant. I don't necessarily hate feminists (although I do extremely dislike some feminists as individuals, not because they are feminists), but I absolutely REFUSE to use the title for myself.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:08:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:29:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to add an explanation, in order to be a feminist, you must be able to conform to the following:

1) You must understand what equal rights are in regards to gender.
2) You must advocate for these equal rights.
3) You must believe feminism also is an advocacy for equal rights.

#2 and #3 are predicated upon assuming #1... You don't conform to #1, so definitionally you're not a feminist.

Nah. That's just silly. First, you don't get to be the boss and decide what feminism is and isn't. Second, I believe in equal rights in many domains, I just don't philosophically limit myself to considering feminism in terms of equal rights.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:12:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:39:36 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

This should be interesting :)

Gosh I hope so.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:05:23 PM, neptune1bond wrote:

People always resort to ad hominem and insults when they really don't have an argument or they are attempting to strengthen an argument that they feel is already weak on its own. I'm not saying that I agree with everything you say in other threads, but nonetheless this doesn't make my first statement any less true. It's like when Obama was running for president and everyone who didn't vote for him or agree with him on absolutely everything was considered to be "racist".

Feminists call everyone who disagrees with them a "misogynist" because it means that they don't actually have to feel accountable for defending their actual beliefs and ideology and the possible consequences of such things. It is, of course, stupid and completely unreasonable to say that a person hates or even slightly dislikes women just because they disagree with feminists on what is best, what is fair, and what is reasonable/logical, but feminists don't really give a sh*t about that when they can just throw the term misogynist around as though it didn't actually have any purpose or meaning but to shame others that disagree and therefor they never have to actually defend their (sometimes) screwball ways of thinking. (You disagree with me, so instead of defending my stance on the subject, I'll just call you something vile like racist, bigot, misogynist, etc. instead.) I, for instance, consider myself to be an anti-feminist but I, nonetheless, believe in women being equal and having rights. I just happen to think that feminist ideology is anything but equal, is almost completely one-sided, and approaches things in completely the wrong way (sometimes to the point where it is EXTREMELY harmful to society as a whole). It is important that people are able to separate a movement/ideology from actual people. Feminism DOES NOT equal women. Disagreeing with the general feminist approach and ideals DOES NOT mean that you cannot love and support women and their right to be treated fairly.

Also, any person who fights for and/or believes in women's rights is not necessarily a feminist. The term feminist came from and is inextricably connected to the movement called "feminism". Therefor, if you disagree with feminism then you cannot logically be called a feminist. I get so d@mn tired of disagreeing with feminists only to have them find out that I also believe in women's rights and equality only to have them start calling me a "fellow feminist" when I am actually an anti-feminist. I absolutely refuse to associate myself with feminism or describe myself as a feminist. I actually find such an idea to be completely repugnant. I don't necessarily hate feminists (although I do extremely dislike some feminists as individuals, not because they are feminists), but I absolutely REFUSE to use the title for myself.

Btw, I think that it's important to note that I am frequently called a misogynist and feminist in a single conversation and by the same person. How's that for logic?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:45:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:08:31 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:29:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to add an explanation, in order to be a feminist, you must be able to conform to the following:

1) You must understand what equal rights are in regards to gender.
2) You must advocate for these equal rights.
3) You must believe feminism also is an advocacy for equal rights.

#2 and #3 are predicated upon assuming #1... You don't conform to #1, so definitionally you're not a feminist.

Nah. That's just silly. First, you don't get to be the boss and decide what feminism is and isn't. Second, I believe in equal rights in many domains, I just don't philosophically limit myself to considering feminism in terms of equal rights.

1) We've had this discussion before. The dictionary agrees with me, modern feminists agree with me, and the historical account agrees with me. If that makes me a "boss" then I'd think many, many people are "bosses"...but not you.
2) You can fabricate whatever you want to mean whatever you want it to mean...that doesn't mean that anyone else will know what you are talking about, nor does it mean that you know what you're talking about.
3) Feminism is definitionally equal rights in regards to gender. Anything else, and you're not talking about feminism. As it is, you don't seem to have a grasp of what "equal rights" actually means, so I sincerely doubt you have a grasp of what feminism means.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:52:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:29:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:15:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

I'm fairly certain you are not a feminist.

Just to add an explanation, in order to be a feminist, you must be able to conform to the following:

1) You must understand what equal rights are in regards to gender.
2) You must advocate for these equal rights.
3) You must believe feminism also is an advocacy for equal rights.The

#2 and #3 are predicated upon assuming #1. In your video, Naomi conforms to all of this, so she's a feminist. Antigone and Karen do not conform to #3 even though they conform to #1 and #2, so they are not feminists. You don't conform to #1, so definitionally you're not a feminist.

The Fool: That's like saying, to be a Christian, you must interpret the Bible this way. (No true Scotsman fallacy)

There's no, actual unanimity, which is simply Feminism. But rather, different groups of Ideologists. The only thing that they all have in common is, The self-proclamation that either they represent women and their voices, for them. Or that they are acting on behalf of women's best interest, for them.

It's like Jesus, except there is many of them, and it's merely For women..

And without any special powers"

Against The Ideologist

And in anger.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 5:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:52:03 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:29:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/23/2014 1:15:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

I'm fairly certain you are not a feminist.

Just to add an explanation, in order to be a feminist, you must be able to conform to the following:

1) You must understand what equal rights are in regards to gender.
2) You must advocate for these equal rights.
3) You must believe feminism also is an advocacy for equal rights.The

#2 and #3 are predicated upon assuming #1. In your video, Naomi conforms to all of this, so she's a feminist. Antigone and Karen do not conform to #3 even though they conform to #1 and #2, so they are not feminists. You don't conform to #1, so definitionally you're not a feminist.

The Fool: That's like saying, to be a Christian, you must interpret the Bible this way. (No true Scotsman fallacy)

There's no, actual unanimity, which is simply Feminism. But rather, different groups of Ideologists. The only thing that they all have in common is, The self-proclamation that either they represent women and their voices, for them. Or that they are acting on behalf of women's best interest, for them.

That's simply not true. Again, you are going against the very definition of the word.

Now, if you want to start a movement that advocates for women's interests without a focus on equal rights, you're more than free to do so...but it would be different from feminism.

It's like Jesus, except there is many of them, and it's merely For women..

It is like Jesus, and to be a Christian, you believe in Christ as God and Savior. That's it. Anything else and you're not Christian.

And without any special powers"

Against The Ideologist

And in anger.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:07:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?

I'm not a feminist, per se, but there are certain tenants of feminism which are hard to take issue with. I am also very liberal. What would you like to talk about?
Tsar of DDO
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:16:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:11:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

The first thing that must be taken into consideration is your own position. You think that "feminism is social suicide" and that there is something "wrong with modern liberals/feminists". Not exactly a flattering position

;(

and given the title of this newer thread, it's an insulting position as well.

;*(

There's nothing "wrong with modern liberals/feminists" no matter how much you may disagree with their arguments.

As it is, the OP is an ad hominem, so what else are you going to expect here besides a conversation involving personal attacks?

What else can I say? I've argued with them, and eventually, their arguments turn into pathology claims/general insults/blatant subject changing. This has happened every time.


Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:32:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:05:23 PM, neptune1bond wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?

People always resort to ad hominem and insults when they really don't have an argument or they are attempting to strengthen an argument that they feel is already weak on its own.

I think that a lot of these people are beyond this. I think that they actively seek ways to Ad Hom the opposition, as they think it wins the argument somehow. Perhaps it's the cheering and laughter they get when they make these comments, which inspires them to make more.

I'm not saying that I agree with everything you say in other threads, but nonetheless this doesn't make my first statement any less true. It's like when Obama was running for president and everyone who didn't vote for him or agree with him on absolutely everything was considered to be "racist".

Of course you don't have to agree with me on other things, in order to agree with me here! The Obama comparison is a very good one -- exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.


Feminists call everyone who disagrees with them a "misogynist" because it means that they don't actually have to feel accountable for defending their actual beliefs and ideology and the possible consequences of such things. It is, of course, stupid and completely unreasonable to say that a person hates or even slightly dislikes women just because they disagree with feminists on what is best, what is fair, and what is reasonable/logical, but feminists don't really give a sh*t about that when they can just throw the term misogynist around as though it didn't actually have any purpose or meaning but to shame others that disagree and therefor they never have to actually defend their (sometimes) screwball ways of thinking. (You disagree with me, so instead of defending my stance on the subject, I'll just call you something vile like racist, bigot, misogynist, etc. instead.)

Yes, only the better educated ones insult in better ways than simply 'misogynist'. On this site, I get a lot of 'well, that's just what you want. Other women want different things'.

I, for instance, consider myself to be an anti-feminist but I, nonetheless, believe in women being equal and having rights. I just happen to think that feminist ideology is anything but equal, is almost completely one-sided, and approaches things in completely the wrong way (sometimes to the point where it is EXTREMELY harmful to society as a whole). It is important that people are able to separate a movement/ideology from actual people. Feminism DOES NOT equal women. Disagreeing with the general feminist approach and ideals DOES NOT mean that you cannot love and support women and their right to be treated fairly.

I'd go as far as to say that equality and human rights are two different things, and that fighting for the latter is genuinely good, whereas the former can never be achieved.

Besides, as you've noted, if you look at equality in practice, it involves focuses on the issues of women, so it's even worse than fighting for true equality, imo.


Also, any person who fights for and/or believes in women's rights is not necessarily a feminist.

Yes, sir. I am proof of that :)

The term feminist came from and is inextricably connected to the movement called "feminism". Therefor, if you disagree with feminism then you cannot logically be called a feminist. I get so d@mn tired of disagreeing with feminists only to have them find out that I also believe in women's rights and equality only to have them start calling me a "fellow feminist" when I am actually an anti-feminist. I absolutely refuse to associate myself with feminism or describe myself as a feminist. I actually find such an idea to be completely repugnant. I don't necessarily hate feminists (although I do extremely dislike some feminists as individuals, not because they are feminists), but I absolutely REFUSE to use the title for myself.

I think the reason that you don't want to associate with feminists is because you understand that the definition of feminism, and feminism in practice, are two very different things.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:33:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:07:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?

I'm not a feminist, per se, but there are certain tenants of feminism which are hard to take issue with. I am also very liberal. What would you like to talk about?

Which tenants are hard to take issue with?

Are you an exponent of the phrase "why not?"-, in regards to any policy?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:36:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?

Why do you believe that two people who are different can not be equal?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:39:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:36:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?

Why do you believe that two people who are different can not be equal?

In this context, it is because they are different in ways which are impossible to make equal.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:40:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:33:52 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:07:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?

I'm not a feminist, per se, but there are certain tenants of feminism which are hard to take issue with. I am also very liberal. What would you like to talk about?

Which tenants are hard to take issue with?

That men and women should have equal rights and standing before the law.

Are you an exponent of the phrase "why not?"-, in regards to any policy?

haha, no. If I'm advocating for something, I'm going to have a much better reason for it than "why not."
Tsar of DDO
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:42:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:39:21 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:36:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?

Why do you believe that two people who are different can not be equal?

In this context, it is because they are different in ways which are impossible to make equal.

I disagree. There is no difference between them that warrants a mans salary to be higher than that of a woman, there is no difference that warrants preventing a woman from voting, and there is no difference that warrants a woman to be treated any differently in the eyes of the law.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:44:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:40:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:33:52 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:07:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?

I'm not a feminist, per se, but there are certain tenants of feminism which are hard to take issue with. I am also very liberal. What would you like to talk about?

Which tenants are hard to take issue with?

That men and women should have equal rights and standing before the law.

So, what kinds of equal rights should they be? Obviously, something like the right to clean drinking water should be nigh impossible to oppose. But what exactly are the equal rights that you would fight for?


Are you an exponent of the phrase "why not?"-, in regards to any policy?

haha, no. If I'm advocating for something, I'm going to have a much better reason for it than "why not."

Fine...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:49:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:42:34 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:39:21 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:36:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?

Why do you believe that two people who are different can not be equal?

In this context, it is because they are different in ways which are impossible to make equal.

I disagree. There is no difference between them that warrants a mans salary to be higher than that of a woman

Wage pay gap is a myth.

there is no difference that warrants preventing a woman from voting

I think that women and men should be well informed, in order to vote. I think that if a woman doesn't spend any time in her life talking about politics, then she shouldn't be able to vote.

Also, I think that women tend to vote on what they feel is acceptable, rather than what they logically conclude is correct. This might account for the vast majority of women/girls (at least in my country) who are liberals/feminists.

and there is no difference that warrants a woman to be treated any differently in the eyes of the law.

Women are provably more important in child-rearing than men, although it is absolutely ideal to have both genders present. In the event of divorce, it is better that a woman gets the child, so long as she proves that she is fit to parent.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:56:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:44:41 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:40:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:33:52 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:07:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:02:13 AM, Zarroette wrote:
EVERY politics conversation I've had with one of these people always ends with them trying to ascribe a pathology to me, or condescending me personally, or flatly changing the subject (as if we never had the conversation, and as if serious points were never raised). EVERY. SINGLE. CONVERSATION. It's something like 'wow, just wow', 'how could you believe that?', 'you are mentally f*cked', 'there is something seriously wrong with you, if you think that', 'be quiet, just be quiet' etc.

I try my best to ignore these slights and continue the conversation, but they reoccur to the point where I get angry, and then he/she blames me for getting angry. I don't know what to do. I really don't want to write people off like this, but I have never been able to have a conversation with a liberal/feminist without this resulting. And whilst I haven't always kept my cool, and I have even snapped first, I've never had a conversation where the liberal/feminist doesn't resort to Ad Hominem, subject changing or just insults. NEVER HAPPENED.

Maybe I've been very unlucky. Has anyone else experienced something like this?

I'm not a feminist, per se, but there are certain tenants of feminism which are hard to take issue with. I am also very liberal. What would you like to talk about?

Which tenants are hard to take issue with?

That men and women should have equal rights and standing before the law.

So, what kinds of equal rights should they be? Obviously, something like the right to clean drinking water should be nigh impossible to oppose. But what exactly are the equal rights that you would fight for?

Well, I don't think there's much left to fight for, at least in the first world. The right to vote, the right to access health care (such as the right to access contraception), the right to seek employment, the right to own and transfer property, the right to be free from religious persecution, and stuff like that.

Feminism gets a bad rap because the prototypical image of the modern feminist is a, and you'll forgive the vulgarity of this image, a "bra burning dyke who refuses to shave her legs and underarms." There are some people like that, and they're of course free to defy social convention -but feminism's accomplishments for social progression are many. For example, there was once a time in the world where women could not inherit property, own property or transfer property and only men could. Feminists (of the first wave) fought to change that, arguing that women, like men, should be able to own, inherit and transfer property.

Are you an exponent of the phrase "why not?"-, in regards to any policy?

haha, no. If I'm advocating for something, I'm going to have a much better reason for it than "why not."

Fine...
Tsar of DDO
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:56:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:49:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:42:34 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:39:21 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:36:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?

Why do you believe that two people who are different can not be equal?

In this context, it is because they are different in ways which are impossible to make equal.

I disagree. There is no difference between them that warrants a mans salary to be higher than that of a woman

Wage pay gap is a myth.

No it is not. All available data points to inequality in wages. That is the first point. Second, the discussion is not about whether or not it exists, it is about whether or not it should exist based on the differences between a woman and a man.


there is no difference that warrants preventing a woman from voting

I think that women and men should be well informed, in order to vote. I think that if a woman doesn't spend any time in her life talking about politics, then she shouldn't be able to vote.

This does not differ from men in the slightest. Nothing you stated here is gender specific. Not applicable.


Also, I think that women tend to vote on what they feel is acceptable, rather than what they logically conclude is correct. This might account for the vast majority of women/girls (at least in my country) who are liberals/feminists.

This is the case with he vast majority of voters, men and women alike. Even if it were not, this is not sufficient ground to deprive women of the right to vote.

and there is no difference that warrants a woman to be treated any differently in the eyes of the law.

Women are provably more important in child-rearing than men, although it is absolutely ideal to have both genders present. In the event of divorce, it is better that a woman gets the child, so long as she proves that she is fit to parent.

I disagree vehemently with this point. Child custody must be determined on a case-to-case basis at all times, and the only point allowed to be considered is the overall welfare of the child.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:06:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:56:54 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:49:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:42:34 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:39:21 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:36:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?

Why do you believe that two people who are different can not be equal?

In this context, it is because they are different in ways which are impossible to make equal.

I disagree. There is no difference between them that warrants a mans salary to be higher than that of a woman

Wage pay gap is a myth.

No it is not. All available data points to inequality in wages.

No. The raw data might say that (in regards to the U.S), but if you superimpose the variables which account for differences (e.g. hours worked, type of hours worked, qualifications), then it disappears.

That is the first point. Second, the discussion is not about whether or not it exists, it is about whether or not it should exist based on the differences between a woman and a man.

It should if the differences are relevant to the job.



there is no difference that warrants preventing a woman from voting

I think that women and men should be well informed, in order to vote. I think that if a woman doesn't spend any time in her life talking about politics, then she shouldn't be able to vote.

This does not differ from men in the slightest. Nothing you stated here is gender specific. Not applicable.

Women tend to worry themselves with fashion, gossip and generally vain things. Men are more likely to worry about politics. Of course, there will be people who don't fit the norm, and they should be given exception.



Also, I think that women tend to vote on what they feel is acceptable, rather than what they logically conclude is correct. This might account for the vast majority of women/girls (at least in my country) who are liberals/feminists.

This is the case with he vast majority of voters, men and women alike. Even if it were not, this is not sufficient ground to deprive women of the right to vote.

Sure. I guess misinformed, stupid people should have the right to destroy their own country.


and there is no difference that warrants a woman to be treated any differently in the eyes of the law.

Women are provably more important in child-rearing than men, although it is absolutely ideal to have both genders present. In the event of divorce, it is better that a woman gets the child, so long as she proves that she is fit to parent.

I disagree vehemently with this point. Child custody must be determined on a case-to-case basis at all times, and the only point allowed to be considered is the overall welfare of the child.

In the majority of cases, the overall welfare of the child is better when in the hands of a woman.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:17:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 7:06:55 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:56:54 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:49:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:42:34 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:39:21 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:36:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:09:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/23/2014 5:09:56 AM, rross wrote:
OK, well, I'm a liberal/feminist. Let's have a conversation and I'll try to explain to you what the problem is.

Why do feminists try to fight for absolute equality, when men and women are clearly different, and therefore can never be equal?

Why do you believe that two people who are different can not be equal?

In this context, it is because they are different in ways which are impossible to make equal.

I disagree. There is no difference between them that warrants a mans salary to be higher than that of a woman

Wage pay gap is a myth.

No it is not. All available data points to inequality in wages.

No. The raw data might say that (in regards to the U.S), but if you superimpose the variables which account for differences (e.g. hours worked, type of hours worked, qualifications), then it disappears.

Can you link a reliable source that incorporates all of the aforementioned data? Where does your information come from?

That is the first point. Second, the discussion is not about whether or not it exists, it is about whether or not it should exist based on the differences between a woman and a man.

It should if the differences are relevant to the job.

If an individual is unable to perform the job, then that individual is not hired for the job. It is not a case of equal rights, it is a case of performance. A paraplegic cannot perform construction work, so the paraplegic is not given construction work. That does not mean that the paraplegic has less rights than others. This is a non-sequitur argument.



there is no difference that warrants preventing a woman from voting

I think that women and men should be well informed, in order to vote. I think that if a woman doesn't spend any time in her life talking about politics, then she shouldn't be able to vote.

This does not differ from men in the slightest. Nothing you stated here is gender specific. Not applicable.

Women tend to worry themselves with fashion, gossip and generally vain things. Men are more likely to worry about politics. Of course, there will be people who don't fit the norm, and they should be given exception.

This is a stereotype and carries absolutely no weight in policy. It is the logical and evidencial equivalent of saying "Black people like watermelon more than white people, therefore black people must pay a watermelon tax".


Also, I think that women tend to vote on what they feel is acceptable, rather than what they logically conclude is correct. This might account for the vast majority of women/girls (at least in my country) who are liberals/feminists.

This is the case with he vast majority of voters, men and women alike. Even if it were not, this is not sufficient ground to deprive women of the right to vote.

Sure. I guess misinformed, stupid people should have the right to destroy their own country.

I understand and share the frustration here, but the solution does not lie in depriving those "stupid" and "misinformed" people of rights guaranteed them by their government. That path only causes more problems than it solves.


and there is no difference that warrants a woman to be treated any differently in the eyes of the law.

Women are provably more important in child-rearing than men, although it is absolutely ideal to have both genders present. In the event of divorce, it is better that a woman gets the child, so long as she proves that she is fit to parent.

I disagree vehemently with this point. Child custody must be determined on a case-to-case basis at all times, and the only point allowed to be considered is the overall welfare of the child.

In the majority of cases, the overall welfare of the child is better when in the hands of a woman.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!