What is feminism? PZ rape thread derail

[pErvinalia]

I haven't seen XC or RobertS banning you.

I wasn't talking about Rationalia as I'm a member because of its lax moderation policy.

But you said: "Try disagreeing with a feminist without either getting banned or called a misogynist, sexist or rape apologist.". A couple of the mods (or former mods) here are feminists.

Hi you!

[Coito ergo sum]

Judging feminism as a whole by the wars over who gets to be the big tadpole in the Internet atheist puddle seems likely to produce skewed results.

Yeah, but if we follow the "No True Scotsman" motif during online forum discussions then we can't ever talk about anything.

A+ et al are a subset (and possibly mutually exclusive in some cases) of feminism. It's possible to dismiss A+ et al and still support feminism more broadly.

And, of course, that is what I do, which is why I did not say to avoid all feminists -- I said to avoid Skepchicks, Apelusters and Freethoughtbloggers and others of their ilk.

[hadespussercats]

I haven't seen XC or RobertS banning you.

I wasn't talking about Rationalia as I'm a member because of its lax moderation policy.

But you said: "Try disagreeing with a feminist without either getting banned or called a misogynist, sexist or rape apologist.". A couple of the mods (or former mods) here are feminists.

Hi you!

[DaveDodo007]

I haven't seen XC or RobertS banning you.

I wasn't talking about Rationalia as I'm a member because of its lax moderation policy.

But you said: "Try disagreeing with a feminist without either getting banned or called a misogynist, sexist or rape apologist.". A couple of the mods (or former mods) here are feminists.

Pretty much everyone here is a feminist under the "feminism means women are equals of men" definition.

Yes, and we are trying to get to the bottom of why DaveDodo hates feminists so much. His position seems irrational.

I have given my reasons and you don't get to claim they are irrational by fiat. I don't hate feminism but I have a distaste for all ideologies.

[DaveDodo007]

Judging feminism as a whole by the wars over who gets to be the big tadpole in the Internet atheist puddle seems likely to produce skewed results.

Yeah, but if we follow the "No True Scotsman" motif during online forum discussions then we can't ever talk about anything.

That's silly Coito. It's easy to see that Apelust =/= Feminism, and not all feminist are apelusters.

Audley Strange skewered the Skepchicks as poor examples of feminism early on IIRC.

Sure, but that's just a matter of opinion. Those groups - -the Skepchicks, freethoughtblatherers, Apelusters, Jezebels, Greta Cristinas, Anita Sarkeesians, and so many of the prominent feminist groups and personages ARE of the Skepchick and Apelust ilk, and it is not at all apparent that they don't represent "true" feminism vs. the "false" feminism.

maybe the "women are equal" brand of loosey goosey feminism is the fake feminism. That's just a matter of opinion. The key point is not who is true and who is false, but rather to understand who one is referring to.

I have made it more than clear that everyone should have equal rights, there can be no rational argument to be against it. Feminism left that boat ages ago. Anyway Coito thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not jumping to conclusions like most other posters here.

[Robert_S]

I have a phobia about not being able to breathe, don't judge me.

You need therepy!

[laklak]

Maybe we knuckle-dragging menses should try tempering our misogynistic behavior. Perhaps by being more open and accepting of those memetic ideals that appeal to women, like kittehs.

I can haz blowjob?

"menses"?

I actually typed "menzes" but it auto corrected. Just fucking did it again, had to CTRL Z.

[charlou]

Stream of thoughts ...

...equality is not just about labeling and improving the lot of one section of society.

... women cannot be considered unequal without men also being considered so.

... while any group is unequal, we all are.

... while striving to identify what equality means, both sides seem to be diminishing certain roles and idealising others ...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Stream of thoughts ...

...equality is not just about labeling and improving the lot of one section of society.

... women cannot be considered unequal without men also being considered so.

... while any group is unequal, we all are.

... while striving to identify what equality means, both sides seem to be diminishing certain roles and idealising others ...

Pendulums that swing too far one way tend to swing too far back the other way eventually...

[pErvinalia]

I don't buy into all this wishy washy equality talk. It's like - 'if we all just got along'.... Well we don't all get along. What a patently stupid thing to say. It's the same with this feminism issue. Making motherhood statements about equality isn't going to solve anything. You need to actively point out to people where they are going wrong. This is just a necessary condition of our psychology and biases. So some men get their backs up when it is pointed out to them how advantaged they are in a patriarchal society? Good! If they don't have their biases confronted, then they (and society) won't ever change. Civil rights issues never got solved via motherhood statements. You have to get up in the face of the oppressing class and make them change.

[Seth]

Stream of thoughts ...

...equality is not just about labeling and improving the lot of one section of society.

Correct. Attempting to do so often results in inequality because of the notion that in order to improve the lot of one group it must be given preferential treatment over other groups as redress or compensation for past discrimination.

The fallacy of that practice is the presumption that those alive today either are suffering or are inflicting the discrimination that was actually perpetrated by others of their same relative grouping in the past. I call that the "Ancestral Guilt" fallacy.

In short, no person who does not him or herself discriminate against others for immoral reasons is responsible for the actions of others who do, or once did so. No person who has not been discriminated against has a claim against anyone else. No person who has discriminated has a just claim against anyone who did not oppress them in fact. No person owes more than a duty of peaceable tolerance and respect for the other person's peaceable and free exercise of their rights to anyone as a function of their mere existence.

Compensation is only owed to those who actually experience discriminatory and harmful behavior, and they are only owed compensation by those who actually perpetrated the harm.

... women cannot be considered unequal without men also being considered so.

Well, yes, but also rather obvious. Inequality by definition means one has more than another.

... while any group is unequal, we all are.

Some groups are and should be unequal and discrimination against them is justifiable moral and ethical.

... while striving to identify what equality means, both sides seem to be diminishing certain roles and idealising others ...

Agreed.

[DaveDodo007]

I don't buy into all this wishy washy equality talk. It's like - 'if we all just got along'.... Well we don't all get along. What a patently stupid thing to say. It's the same with this feminism issue. Making motherhood statements about equality isn't going to solve anything. You need to actively point out to people where they are going wrong. This is just a necessary condition of our psychology and biases. So some men get their backs up when it is pointed out to them how advantaged they are in a patriarchal society? Good! If they don't have their biases confronted, then they (and society) won't ever change. Civil rights issues never got solved via motherhood statements. You have to get up in the face of the oppressing class and make them change.

You obviously didn't read my rant as I pointed out that I support 'rights' groups because they were issue specific. If any member of a group can point out where they are being denied a right that other groups have then they should be supported till they have the right. You lose me when you use nebulous shapeshifting terms like 'patriarchal society' which can mean everything and nothing and therefore is of no use to anybody. Quite the patriarchy society we have that drafts men to get killed in wars, puts more men in prison, makes up the vast majority of work place deaths. Custody of the children and home mostly go to the mother, the majority of suicides and homeless are men. For a patriarchal society we sure are doing it wrong.

[Hermit]

Quite the patriarchy society we have that drafts men to get killed in wars, puts more men in prison, makes up the vast majority of work place deaths. Custody of the children and home mostly go to the mother, the majority of suicides and homeless are men. For a patriarchal society we sure are doing it wrong.

Well, insisting on lording it over the female gender has its downside. Patriarchy is a two-edged sword. Having said that, there is a fair bit of intergender collusion going on to keep patriarchialism afloat.

[pErvinalia]

I don't buy into all this wishy washy equality talk. It's like - 'if we all just got along'.... Well we don't all get along. What a patently stupid thing to say. It's the same with this feminism issue. Making motherhood statements about equality isn't going to solve anything. You need to actively point out to people where they are going wrong. This is just a necessary condition of our psychology and biases. So some men get their backs up when it is pointed out to them how advantaged they are in a patriarchal society? Good! If they don't have their biases confronted, then they (and society) won't ever change. Civil rights issues never got solved via motherhood statements. You have to get up in the face of the oppressing class and make them change.

You obviously didn't read my rant as I pointed out that I support 'rights' groups because they were issue specific. If any member of a group can point out where they are being denied a right that other groups have then they should be supported till they have the right. You lose me when you use nebulous shapeshifting terms like 'patriarchal society' which can mean everything and nothing and therefore is of no use to anybody. Quite the patriarchy society we have that drafts men to get killed in wars, puts more men in prison, makes up the vast majority of work place deaths. Custody of the children and home mostly go to the mother, the majority of suicides and homeless are men. For a patriarchal society we sure are doing it wrong.

A "patriarchal society" doesn't mean that men don't get a raw deal as well.

[Audley Strange]

I still find it hard to accept, as a given, the concept of "patriarchy" as discussed by some sociologists and feminists. I do accept that in almost every culture the value of men and women were considered different and that both were granted benefits and obligations based on a rigid view of gender, but it is promoted as some kind of all encompassing culture where even language and action are all underpinned by the mechanisms of patriarchy, specifically in order to oppress women. That they claim a specifically willed motivation makes me see their claim as one of conspiracy.

What really annoys me though is the blatant hypocrisy of demanding words be gender neutral because of such linguistic mental bias and then calling oneself a feminist(holy) and speaking about patriarchy(demonic). That mental bias I think shows exactly what the problem is and has always been and what they call patriarchy I would call religion and would further say that while the judeo-christian religion that underpins our culture was specifically based on Patriarchs (up to and including Jehovah) it takes a special kind of idiot to assume that such a system was only solely about enslaving and oppressing them.