"If you dislike feminism ... "

[Cormac]

Yes, people who dislike feminism do portray it in a negative light.

Yes, they do not appreciate the struggle many women have to go through on account of being female.

Yes, many of them are in fact misogynistic douchebags.

On the other hand some people calling themselves feminists don't know what it is they are talking about. To them the topic is a vehicle to vent a spleen borne of neurosis. Just look at The Hite Report or the majority of the A+ers, for example. They give the other activists campaigning for equity between the sexes a bad name.

Unfortunately though, when feminism (proper) falls back, and feminism (spleen venting neurosis) comes to the fore, the common definition of feminism changes. At this point, arguing that feminism is the former, not the latter approaches the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Well, you're always going to hear more from the spleen venting variety. The trick is to be able to calmly distinguish between the two, while still understanding where feminism comes from. I think a number of people struggle with this. Probably purposely so.

They do. It enables them to not have to look at things, or take responsibility for things, or answer uncomfortable questions.

That applies precisely to Apelust and the nutcases on the so-called Freethought Blogs, and most particularly to that blowhard demagogue Pee Zed Myers.

[fishie]

Yes, people who dislike feminism do portray it in a negative light.

Yes, they do not appreciate the struggle many women have to go through on account of being female.

Yes, many of them are in fact misogynistic douchebags.

On the other hand some people calling themselves feminists don't know what it is they are talking about. To them the topic is a vehicle to vent a spleen borne of neurosis. Just look at The Hite Report or the majority of the A+ers, for example. They give the other activists campaigning for equity between the sexes a bad name.

Unfortunately though, when feminism (proper) falls back, and feminism (spleen venting neurosis) comes to the fore, the common definition of feminism changes. At this point, arguing that feminism is the former, not the latter approaches the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Well, you're always going to hear more from the spleen venting variety. The trick is to be able to calmly distinguish between the two, while still understanding where feminism comes from. I think a number of people struggle with this. Probably purposely so.

They do. It enables them to not have to look at things, or take responsibility for things, or answer uncomfortable questions.

That applies precisely to Apelust and the nutcases on the so-called Freethought Blogs, and most particularly to that blowhard demagogue Pee Zed Myers.[/quote

Aw whatcha go and do that for? Ya put all the nasty and stoopid in one post and now my eyes are stinging.

[Robert_S]

I think you may just be right there. Just maybe. Different elements with the feminist movement may not appeal to everyone. But the wider issue is too important to get bogged down in the stupid old school mysoginist feminazi argument which is designed to discredit all feminists. And some of the greatest feminists I know are men.

But then on the other hand, the old school patriarchals and the outright misogynist people are really boring when you get down to it. If I'm going to have an argument, I'd much rather have it with someone who does a little less knuckle dragging.

[fishie]

I think you may just be right there. Just maybe. Different elements with the feminist movement may not appeal to everyone. But the wider issue is too important to get bogged down in the stupid old school mysoginist feminazi argument which is designed to discredit all feminists. And some of the greatest feminists I know are men.

But then on the other hand, the old school patriarchals and the outright misogynist people are really boring when you get down to it. If I'm going to have an argument, I'd much rather have it with someone who does a little less knuckle dragging.

They can be boring yes, and ones head becomes sore from the banging. You think I would have learnt by now:D

[Robert_S]

I think you may just be right there. Just maybe. Different elements with the feminist movement may not appeal to everyone. But the wider issue is too important to get bogged down in the stupid old school mysoginist feminazi argument which is designed to discredit all feminists. And some of the greatest feminists I know are men.

But then on the other hand, the old school patriarchals and the outright misogynist people are really boring when you get down to it. If I'm going to have an argument, I'd much rather have it with someone who does a little less knuckle dragging.

They can be boring yes, and ones head becomes sore from the banging. You think I would have learnt by now:D

That principle also explains why atheist groups engage in so much infighting.

[Pappa]

But the wider issue is too important to get bogged down in the stupid old school mysoginist feminazi argument which is designed to discredit all feminists.

I don't agree with this. Firstly, the wider issue is generally accepted by anyone with any kind of liberal leanings. It's enshrined in law in almost all western democracies to an extent that at least in theory there are no longer any boundaries for women. The only things left to change are social customs and social boundaries. To an extent the social boundaries are non-existent, or exist only if you think they do. Anyone can succeed, no matter what their sex. Though there are still a lot of sexist elements to our societies.

Secondly, I think it is beneficial to criticise and ridicule the "feminazis", as long as it's clear feminism as a whole isn't being attacked. These people are giving the movement a bad name and harming the progress that would be being made if they weren't harping on about patriarchal rape enablers, etc..

[Cormac]

They do. It enables them to not have to look at things, or take responsibility for things, or answer uncomfortable questions.

That applies precisely to Apelust and the nutcases on the so-called Freethought Blogs, and most particularly to that blowhard demagogue Pee Zed Myers.

Aw whatcha go and do that for? Ya put all the nasty and stoopid in one post and now my eyes are stinging.

I've no idea what you mean.

[Cormac]

But the wider issue is too important to get bogged down in the stupid old school mysoginist feminazi argument which is designed to discredit all feminists.

I don't agree with this. Firstly, the wider issue is generally accepted by anyone with any kind of liberal leanings. It's enshrined in law in almost all western democracies to an extent that at least in theory there are no longer any boundaries for women. The only things left to change are social customs and social boundaries. To an extent the social boundaries are non-existent, or exist only if you think they do. Anyone can succeed, no matter what their sex. Though there are still a lot of sexist elements to our societies.

Secondly, I think it is beneficial to criticise and ridicule the "feminazis", as long as it's clear feminism as a whole isn't being attacked. These people are giving the movement a bad name and harming the progress that would be being made if they weren't harping on about patriarchal rape enablers, etc..

[MiM]

There was an interesting opinion piece in the local newspaper today (in Swedish), where the writer noted that a previous writer, who had set out to write a constructive article about problems of men, actually quite eloquently sorted men into "swines" and "loosers". I am sure that the first writer had not meant any harm, but that kind of makes the point.

There is also a stream over here, wanting to widen the definition of "feminism" to include all work for (gender) equality. So that if I fight for better rights for men in divorce fights over kids, that would also be feminism. I've tried to argue with (some of) these, that taking a term created from one gender and equating that to equality is actually an act of inequality in itself, to no avail, I am afraid.

[Robert_S]

But the wider issue is too important to get bogged down in the stupid old school mysoginist feminazi argument which is designed to discredit all feminists.

I don't agree with this. Firstly, the wider issue is generally accepted by anyone with any kind of liberal leanings. It's enshrined in law in almost all western democracies to an extent that at least in theory there are no longer any boundaries for women. The only things left to change are social customs and social boundaries. To an extent the social boundaries are non-existent, or exist only if you think they do. Anyone can succeed, no matter what their sex. Though there are still a lot of sexist elements to our societies.

Oh, there are a thousand little ways to remind someone of what you want to remind them of. Please try not to think of a pair of titties painted purple.

Most of the "bullying" that I've seen A+ accused of is merely people being made aware of things via the written word.

[quote[Secondly, I think it is beneficial to criticise and ridicule the "feminazis", as long as it's clear feminism as a whole isn't being attacked. These people are giving the movement a bad name and harming the progress that would be being made if they weren't harping on about patriarchal rape enablers, etc..[/quote]

If we're going to ridicule then we should do so carefully and precisely, being aware of the broader context and likely misinterpretations.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, and without the arguably questionable glee while doing so.

[Cormac]

But the wider issue is too important to get bogged down in the stupid old school mysoginist feminazi argument which is designed to discredit all feminists.

I don't agree with this. Firstly, the wider issue is generally accepted by anyone with any kind of liberal leanings. It's enshrined in law in almost all western democracies to an extent that at least in theory there are no longer any boundaries for women. The only things left to change are social customs and social boundaries. To an extent the social boundaries are non-existent, or exist only if you think they do. Anyone can succeed, no matter what their sex. Though there are still a lot of sexist elements to our societies.

Oh, there are a thousand little ways to remind someone of what you want to remind them of. Please try not to think of a pair of titties painted purple.

Most of the "bullying" that I've seen A+ accused of is merely people being made aware of things via the written word.

[quote[Secondly, I think it is beneficial to criticise and ridicule the "feminazis", as long as it's clear feminism as a whole isn't being attacked. These people are giving the movement a bad name and harming the progress that would be being made if they weren't harping on about patriarchal rape enablers, etc..

If we're going to ridicule then we should do so carefully and precisely, being aware of the broader context and likely misinterpretations.[/quote]


Do you mean how some people (i.e. Apelusters) will take ordinary reasonable statements, and deliberately twist, distort, and exaggerate them until they bear no resemblance to the original statement and context.

[Robert_S]

Do you mean how some people (i.e. Apelusters) will take ordinary reasonable statements, and deliberately twist, distort, and exaggerate them until they bear no resemblance to the original statement and context.

I mean that when it happens, try to keep your eyes on the wider goals and principles.

If you are down with 90% of the broader feminist movement but 90% of your discussion of it is about that last 10% that could actually qualify (although I'm loath to use the term) "feminazis" and you use that word; does that help or hurt the cause of a genuine reactionary who's all pissed off at the feminazis because he can't require his secretary to wear a short skirt?

[Cormac]

Do you mean how some people (i.e. Apelusters) will take ordinary reasonable statements, and deliberately twist, distort, and exaggerate them until they bear no resemblance to the original statement and context.

I mean that when it happens, try to keep your eyes on the wider goals and principles.

If you are down with 90% of the broader feminist movement but 90% of your discussion of it is about that last 10% that could actually qualify (although I'm loath to use the term) "feminazis" and you use that word; does that help or hurt the cause of a genuine reactionary who's all pissed off at the feminazis because he can't require his secretary to wear a short skirt?

That kind of situation (the fellow and the secretary) is rare enough these days, and in any case, such scenarios are already convered by legislation.

And, in my view, I think we'd be better off focusing on a humanistic and secular society.

[laklak]

Ridicule, sarcasm and other forms of the piss-take are legitimate weapons against all types of idiots, be they Feminazis, KKK, blowhard Texas Republicans, Che T-shirt wearing art students or fundys. Singling out feminists as a protected class is no better than keeping them in the kitchen. If you're going to play on the big swingset you have to be prepared for a few bumps and bruises.