Feminists and the Nordic Council want to BAN "anti-feminism".....yes....BAN!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

theflyingpeanut:
Are you seriously linking to The Spearhead? Maybe next you'll find something written on Stormfront to link to in a thread about race-relations.

I'm sure there have been slightly biased sources posted on other topics before.
Ironically in the linked article it's the feminists that are acting like nazis.

boots:

I'd engage with the question personally, but apparently if you don't like my answers I'll get called a lesbian on the grounds that I "hate men".

You can't get called a lesbian here because there are no women on the internet. Sheesh.

OT: There is certainly reason to be against any interest group pushing legislation specifically against their opponents. Any adult who's been in charge of children can certainly attest that assymetry of the law can be a terrifying thing when your hands are tied legally and your opponents' are not. And that's with children; imagine being in that situation with adults where they can say whatever they want and you're restrained.

Ach, sorry for the double post. My Internet went loopy on me.

Hardcore_gamer:

Lilani:
Just as he isn't admitting to the giant holes in his plan to save the poor and refused to admit his "proof" that his insane economic scheme was only valid proof if the economy in question is functioning within a totalitarian dictatorship.

I am actually thinking about making another experiment in Victoria 2 and making another thread about it. Except that this time I would be trying to play as a communist regime to show how poor the plannned economy is compared to a more free market.

See, in order to "compare" it to a free market, you need a base of what a free market works like. Your previous "experiment" was not a free market by any definition or stretch of the imagination. There was zero social mobility, the working class was a perpetual shithole, and the only reason they didn't strike, riot, or topple your government is because I'm pretty sure the game was not programmed with the capacity to allow those things to happen. Seriously. I have explained this to you so many times, and I am literally running out of ways to say it. You. Are. Wrong. Your experiment was not successful, unless you consider the vast majority of your population starving and being homeless to not be a problem, economically or otherwise.

In your next response, I want to hear an explanation as to why you refuse to address the conditions they were living in and why you still think the experiment was a success. If you do not do that, then I will ask the question again, and we will keep doing that until you stop or answer me. You refused to answer this in your thread however many months ago, and now that I've got you talking about it again I want to see if you run away again. So please, tell me. Why was your experiment successful in spite of your society being a totalitarian, Dickensian nightmare? Because you can't even call it a democracy, either. There's no way the people voted to have the taxes that high, and there's no way they would have continued to elect officials who would keep them raised.

I am not saying this because I'm some emissary of the Dark Council of Liberals come to eat your children and make you pay taxes. I'm saying this because your experiment literally did not work. You set out to prove the system worked, and you failed to prove it would work under any conditions that would exist in reality.

FreedomofInformation:

I'm sure there have been slightly biased sources posted on other topics before.
Ironically in the linked article it's the feminists that are acting like nazis.

We only have the word of bigots to go on, though. It's not safe to assume the truth of anything written by that magazine, unless it's backed up by other sources-- which it isn't. Alone, Spearhead has close-to-nil credibility, and as such, so do its claims about what these women have done.

Much as if I had seen an article about the Red Cross or Romanians in the Daily Mail, my default approach is going to be to assume there's more lying/ exaggeration in that article than truth.

It's funny. One day, when the feminists really do go nuts and try to enslave all the men, and Spearhead is the only publication that hears about it in advance, nobody will believe them. It'll be a "The Racist Who Cried Wolf" scenario.

Copper Zen:
It appears that the Title you gave this Thread is off-base and misleading. The exaggeration is disruptive. Such mis-titling is against the CoC. As Gethsemani's translation now demonstrates that The Spearhead's link (being the only English one apparently currently available to anyone) was erroneous I must insist that you change the title to something less incendiary. And refrain from further violating the Code of Conduct by creating threads with misleading titles, please.

I like you already.

On the topic at hand, I find it difficult to take the side of the OP, even if things like freedom of speech may be under threat. Simply put, I've seen enough bashing of feminism for it to leave a bad taste in my mouth. As the late Katatori_Kun was often quick to point out, you can't just call out an entire group for the behaviors of a small portion of that group. The WBC doesn't represent all of Christianity, Neo-Nazis don't represent all of political conservatism, and the people pushing this legislation, whether it actually contains the doomsday prediction the OP yells about or not, don't represent all of feminism. Don't whine about feminism. Whine about misandry and censorship. Otherwise you send the message that you don't care about the distinctions between ideologies and just want to yell at a label.

Godavari:

On the topic at hand, I find it difficult to take the side of the OP, even if things like freedom of speech may be under threat. Simply put, I've seen enough bashing of feminism for it to leave a bad taste in my mouth. As the late Katatori_Kun was often quick to point out, you can't just call out an entire group for the behaviors of a small portion of that group. The WBC doesn't represent all of Christianity, Neo-Nazis don't represent all of political conservatism, and the people pushing this legislation, whether it actually contains the doomsday prediction the OP yells about or not, don't represent all of feminism. Don't whine about feminism. Whine about misandry and censorship. Otherwise you send the message that you don't care about the distinctions between ideologies and just want to yell at a label.

But the problem is that what people who make the same point as you call feminism is called "common sense" in most developed countries. That's what makes it so nonsensical, most people don't identify themselves as abolitionists because they're anti-slavery. That's just considered being "normal". Just like being pro-equal rights is. You will find few people who actively identify themselves as feminists just because they're pro equal rights. That's what makes feminism in regions where the agenda has already been implemented "different". The vocal ones are usually those who push a totally different agenda or push the same agenda but based on false premises to keep the agenda relevant.

FreedomofInformation:

theflyingpeanut:
Are you seriously linking to The Spearhead? Maybe next you'll find something written on Stormfront to link to in a thread about race-relations.

I'm sure there have been slightly biased sources posted on other topics before.
Ironically in the linked article it's the feminists that are acting like nazis.

Read the part I translated on page 2, it pretty much dispels most of what Spearhead and Hardcore_gamer said. If that's not enough you can read the actual suggestion in English in the linked pdf (available in the OP).

If you want, I could also translate more passages from the pdf in order to show you that Spearhead and Hardcore_gamer has the wrong idea about what the actual suggestion really is.

CogDiss:
...
So merely disagreeing with feminism is hatespeech?

These people seem to think so.

An example that, once limitations on political speech such as hatespeech are accepted, there's no end to the thought policing the state will seek to engage in.

boots:
...
...it says that they're only recommending a ban on threats and harassment.

It does?

boots:
...

8) The press should make sure not to legitimize anti-feministic proponents when quoting or interviewing.

This is also bullshit and an overt threat to freedom of speech.
...

It seems this poster disagree, and rightly so, since at the bottom of the English summary of the PDF, page 36, point 8, it's suggested that the media should be forced to police commentary fields, in order to quell anti-feminist or xenophobic "sentiments". I.e. interfering with the editorial freedom of the press, for the purpose of thought policing.

Page 36, point 8 - The media have a special responsibility:

There are both positive and negative examples
of how the media has facilitated for a public
debate with antifeminist actors. The media
must ensure that it has the competence to
meet extreme actors without legitimising
them or their opinions. Editors of online com-
ments' fields have a special responsibility to
ensure that their users are not made targets
of threats and harassment, and that xenop-
hobic and antifeminist sentiments are not fu-
elled or legitimised

generals3:

But the problem is that what people who make the same point as you call feminism is called "common sense" in most developed countries. That's what makes it so nonsensical, most people don't identify themselves as abolitionists because they're anti-slavery. That's just considered being "normal". Just like being pro-equal rights is. You will find few people who actively identify themselves as feminists just because they're pro equal rights. That's what makes feminism in regions where the agenda has already been implemented "different". The vocal ones are usually those who push a totally different agenda or push the same agenda but based on false premises to keep the agenda relevant.

You know despite it being so-called "common sense" why is it never that common?

I'm sorry, but to say that Femnism is no longer distinct in the western world isn't needed is willfully blind. You still have politicions and figures in the states who can argue that women should have the vote taken away from them and be content to be housewives and not only have an audience (Ann Coulter) but also have enough political clout to influence policy (Phyllis Schafea, head of the clan of the same name whose son created Conservapedia and started the Bible restranslation project to remove the "liberal bias" from the bible It's been documented her presence and her mailing lists have gotten polticions in her state congress elected or removed from office). These aren't fringe elements, these are women shockingly enough who have not insignificant audiences of people who believe in every word they say and will vote to that effect.

Your "normal" is nothing of the sort.

Shaoken:

You know despite it being so-called "common sense" why is it never that common?

I'm sorry, but to say that Femnism is no longer distinct in the western world isn't needed is willfully blind. You still have politicions and figures in the states who can argue that women should have the vote taken away from them and be content to be housewives and not only have an audience (Ann Coulter) but also have enough political clout to influence policy (Phyllis Schafea, head of the clan of the same name whose son created Conservapedia and started the Bible restranslation project to remove the "liberal bias" from the bible It's been documented her presence and her mailing lists have gotten polticions in her state congress elected or removed from office). These are fringe elements, these are women shockingly enough who have not insignificant audiences of people who believe in every word they say and will vote to that effect.

Your "normal" is nothing of the sort.

You contradicted yourself. You yourself said these are fringe elements, doesn't that imply that the "normal" thing is thus not being like those extremists? Thinking you will EVER be able to remove all these fringe elements is na´ve. Just like you will also have people who are in favor of Nazism, Slavery, etc. Doesn't mean that being against those things isn't considered common sense and "the normal thing" and thus make naming those being against it with some special word nonsensical. And considering the vocal feminist movement has been widely hijacked i think it makes a lot of sense to be anti-feminism without actually being anti equal rights.

Imagine some extremist abolitionist groups would pop up who totally redefined slavery (you know, like some conservatives or communists do when they say taxation is slavery or that the proletariat is a slave of the rich) or just use past slavery as an excuse to spread anti-white propaganda. Surely you wouldn't mind people saying they're "anti-abolitionist". And exactly because being a true abolitionist has become the norm instead of the exception.

EDIT: for further clarity let me reiterate my point.
Why do people usually give their movement a special name? It's to stand out of the crowd. Now what if what the movement stands for is something that the crowd already adheres to? Wouldn't that nonsensical or plain attention whoring? I mean what if the people who disagree with those ideals are already being given their special name to ensure they are kept separate from what the crowd adheres to? (in this case the word mysoginist or sexist are widely used to describe people against equal rights and discrimination based on gender)
What would be the point to give yourself a special name at that point?

TheLycanKing144:
I think many of them are really just lesbians honestly, and they really just hate men.

The reality of this world is that you can both hate something and want it at the same time.

Plenty of men, for instance, are heterosexual misogynists. They want women to look good, fuck, make babies, oversee childcare and household duties, but without respecting or liking them in any other way. And so the reverse is sometimes true of some women too.

Another aspect is a sort of selectivity. Plenty of chauvanists have a generalised distaste towards a group, but can like individuals by making exceptions. The rationalisation goes "Group X is bad, but my friend of group X isn't like group X". Thus the prejudice against a group can be maintained by discounting examples contrary to the prejudice, and why for instance you can hear racists erroneously argue "I'm not a racist because one of my friends is black". Thus a misogynist or misandrist can have a good relationship with a member of the opposite sex whilst simultaneously holding a negative view of the opposite sex as a whole.

Finally, there can be an error conflating "political" objections with group prejudice. One might for instance rail against a system, regime, or societal policies without attaching blame to many of the people involved in it. One might criticise or hate what Germans did under Naziism without necessarily hating Germans. And so some feminists might hate their perception of patriarchal society without actually hating or blaming men individually or as a group, although it might sound otherwise.

generals3:

Shaoken:

You know despite it being so-called "common sense" why is it never that common?

I'm sorry, but to say that Femnism is no longer distinct in the western world isn't needed is willfully blind. You still have politicions and figures in the states who can argue that women should have the vote taken away from them and be content to be housewives and not only have an audience (Ann Coulter) but also have enough political clout to influence policy (Phyllis Schafea, head of the clan of the same name whose son created Conservapedia and started the Bible restranslation project to remove the "liberal bias" from the bible It's been documented her presence and her mailing lists have gotten polticions in her state congress elected or removed from office). These are fringe elements, these are women shockingly enough who have not insignificant audiences of people who believe in every word they say and will vote to that effect.

Your "normal" is nothing of the sort.

You contradicted yourself. You yourself said these are fringe elements, doesn't that imply that the "normal" thing is thus not being like those extremists?

I made a typo. What I meant to say (and what I've edited in) is that these aren't fringe elements. Both have too large an audience to be dismissed as fringe. When one of them has tangible effect on the democratic process in her state they're not the fringe, they're practically the mainstream.

And considering the vocal feminist movement has been widely hijacked i think it makes a lot of sense to be anti-feminism without actually being anti equal rights.

I disagree. You're making the mistake of discounting just how wide and varied Femnimism is and painting it all with one brush. It'd be like painting all Republicans as utter lunatics because of the Tea Party or all Liberals as communists just because there was a group that belonged to both.

I guess that's my bone of contention with you; you think Feminism as a concept is not needed in the first world because it's original principles are tied into equal-rights, I disagree.

Shaoken:

I disagree. You're making the mistake of discounting just how wide and varied Femnimism is and painting it all with one brush. It'd be like painting all Republicans as utter lunatics because of the Tea Party or all Liberals as communists just because there was a group that belonged to both.

I guess that's my bone of contention with you; you think Feminism as a concept is not needed in the first world because it's original principles are tied into equal-rights, I disagree.

Politics is not really the same. Social movements exist to stand out of the crowd and lead to crowd to a new point. Hence why they become irrelevant once that is achieved. Political parties have to stand out all the time regardless of what happens. As such their name remains relevant. The point is that the old "feminism" has become irrelevant and as such it can be safely assumed that the feminist activists have separated themselves from the initial dogma and can be painted as such.

And i would also like to add that in a system where certain individual regions in a country have a lot of power fringe powers can have a strong effect on politics. After all the US is a very diverse country with certain states harboring an abnormal amount of fringe elements which would make it not so fringe inside that particular state but still a fringe group on a national level. And while this would make feminism relevant in these particular states having feminists pushing a national agenda would be absurd. It's just like how you can still have true feminists in Saudi Arabia (because there the agenda is needed) but it would be absurd to have them in France or Belgium because that agenda is already part of the norm and it is thus nonsensical to make a social movement to represent what is already considered normal.

And let's also not forget how making a special social movement pushing an agenda which is already part of the norm is extremely deceptive. It implies that said agenda ISN'T part of the norm and thus twists reality. And that's why a lot of neo-feminists love to inflate numbers regarding the wage gap for instance. To make it look like their agenda truly stands out of the norm.

generals3:

The point is that the old "feminism" has become irrelevant and as such it can be safely assumed that the feminist activists have separated themselves from the initial dogma and can be painted as such.

Who get to make that call? Who gets to say that feminism has achieved its' goal and thus is irrelevant? The feminists? Their detractors? Don't you think I'd stop calling myself a feminist and working for equality if I felt it had been achieved and all was well with the gender roles in contemporary society?

You are essentially making a non-argument, because it relies on your subjective opinion that feminism is irrelevant. If feminists see gender equality related problems, they obviously don't consider themselves irrelevant. You can never argue that a large social or political group is irrelevant, but you can argue whatever their goals are worthy of being pursued and whatever the means they use to pursue them are the right ones.

generals3:

And let's also not forget how making a special social movement pushing an agenda which is already part of the norm is extremely deceptive. It implies that said agenda ISN'T part of the norm and thus twists reality. And that's why a lot of neo-feminists love to inflate numbers regarding the wage gap for instance. To make it look like their agenda truly stands out of the norm.

I could argue that there are plenty of ways in which true gender equality isn't part of the norm yet. No matter if it is the gender-related difference in how much parental leave you get, the brutal under-representation of women in media (and the savage trashing women get when they dare take up space in media, like Lena Dunham and Girls) and positions of political and economical power. What about the under-representation of men in healthcare (excepting Doctors) or the strict gender roles that both genders still are expected to adhere to?

I am not sure whatever it is comical or sad that someone who lives in the USA argues that "equality is the norm" barely a week after North Dakota passed a bill to make abortion illegal under all circumstances. Something which one of the two major political parties has been trying to do on a federal level ever since abortion was legalized in the USA.

Gethsemani:
Snip

Whether you feel it is relevant or not is quite irrelevant to my judgement. If someone feels it's relevant to militate against slavery he can, doesn't make his activism any less irrelevant. On top of that you have again proven yourself to be a neo-feminist (which by the way just means "new/different" feminist). Whether genders are underrepresented or not is irrelevant to the initial goal of feminism which was about equal rights and opportunities. So unless you make the assumption these differences exist due to discrimination the point is moot. And making that assumption is one of those typical tactics that anger all those who complain against feminism. "innocent until proven guilty" is how our systems work and going by following the assumption "discrimination until proven otherwise" you're working against one of our most beloved principles.

So regardless of how i analyze what you describe as a problem you have clearly taken distance from the initial feminist movement. And while this is your right, it is because of situations like this the word feminism is being wrongly used by post-feminists. Because when aiming criticism at your movement for instance i would also instantly be putting the older movement in the same sack.

And abortion is also irrelevant. Since a man cannot get pregnant and thus not benefit from the right to abort so you can't have inequality. It is a different issue all together.

So in conclusion:

Old feminism: about rights and opportunities
Neo-feminism: Feminist movements who have decided to go beyond that or simply twist that agenda.

Now off course i could also make distinctions between different neo-feminist movements but for that i'm too lazy. (and since most people complain about how the old feminist agenda is being put in the same pot as the neo-feminist agenda i don't see the need either)

generals3:

And abortion is also irrelevant. Since a man cannot get pregnant and thus not benefit from the right to abort so you can't have inequality.

That doesn't make any sense, in so many ways.

What is your thought process here?

Knight Templar:

generals3:

And abortion is also irrelevant. Since a man cannot get pregnant and thus not benefit from the right to abort so you can't have inequality.

That doesn't make any sense, in so many ways.

What is your thought process here?

Equal rights means giving everyone the same rights. A man cannot become pregnant therefor de facto cannot benefit from any rights on the aspect of abortion. As such one can never reach equal rights between men and women when it comes to abortion (which thus makes equality irrelevant to the issue of abortion). But i guess that if it would make people happy legislators could say "we ban abortions for everyone". Tada abortions are banned while preserving equal rights.

generals3:
But the problem is that what people who make the same point as you call feminism is called "common sense" in most developed countries. That's what makes it so nonsensical, most people don't identify themselves as abolitionists because they're anti-slavery. That's just considered being "normal". Just like being pro-equal rights is. You will find few people who actively identify themselves as feminists just because they're pro equal rights. That's what makes feminism in regions where the agenda has already been implemented "different". The vocal ones are usually those who push a totally different agenda or push the same agenda but based on false premises to keep the agenda relevant.

I don't actually believe for a second that equality-based feminism has "already been implemented" in any significant way. I'm not familiar with Europe, but given the OP clearly there are still problems they're working out, and the US is definitely not on board the equality train either. Even if we had achieved equality, that wouldn't mean that equality-based feminism would disappear. That's like saying unions should disappear because the minimum wage already exists.

A stupid piece of legislation that will never go through.

Hate speech online must be persecuted similarly to hate speech in other public spheres.

The existence of hate crimes is stupid to begin with (the motivation for a crime should have no bearing on the punishment). The word "persecution" gives a nice little window into the militant mind of whoever wrote this.

We recommend that the Nordic governments establish a low threshold services for reporting antifeminist and extremist threats and harassment.

Because while the police are good enough for every other individual in the country, it's not for feminists.

We recommend that Nordic governments charge a state body, a private or voluntary organisation with the task of continually mapping the extent and development of anti-feminism online and in other fora.

Because apparently being opposed to a certain political group makes you a domestic terrorist now.

After the terrorist attacks on 22/7, several research institutions have initiated or intensified programmes for gathering knowledge about right-wing extremism and xenophobia. Research is also being conducted on threats and violence motivated by Islamism. However, there is currently no research programme investigating antifeminism, or studying antifeminism alongside with extremism. We recommend that the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Nordic governmentsinitiate such a research programme.

I honestly find this a little sickening. The fact they would invoke what happened to those poor children in an effort to get their political opposites seen as madmen or terrorists is disgusting.

work towards expanding the norms of masculinity, counteract gender stereotypes and promote nuanced, positive and equal masculinities.

If they mean what I think they mean by this then that's nice and refreshing.
They have a lot of work to do to make up for that last paragraph though.

The next paragraph starts of decent enough. Talking about how there should be more done to address the marginalisation of boys and men. But then we read that's only because.

This feeling of marginalisation and isolation may lead to vulnerability to the rhetoric and the sense of belonging that
extremist organisations and groups offer.

So we only care because there's a risk they might join our political opposites otherwise? How compassionate.

We recommend that strategies to combat antifeminism are addressed by the gender equality and anti-discrimination ombudsmen of the Nordic countries.

Why? Why does this political group have a right to exist yet their anti-thesis should be condemned and destroyed?

The next paragraph says how the media should discriminate against those who are anti-feminist.

The next paragraph calls for political censorship.

And yeah, so basically it's a bunch of extreme suggestions, provided by a bunch of fundamentalists. Maintaining that their political opposites are fundamentalists and extremists.
At best it's the pot calling the kettle black.
At worst it's a smear job.

Imperator_DK:
An example that, once limitations on political speech such as hatespeech are accepted, there's no end to the thought policing the state will seek to engage in.

Enjoying that slippery slope are ya? Must be like a theme park ride. Wheeeeee!

boots:
...
...it says that they're only recommending a ban on threats and harassment.

It does?

boots:
...

8) The press should make sure not to legitimize anti-feministic proponents when quoting or interviewing.

This is also bullshit and an overt threat to freedom of speech.
...

It seems this poster disagree.

Actually, there is no disagreement there. The OP hysterically and untruthfully insists that "Feminists and the Nordic Council want to BAN antifeminism!" The only thing in the report that comes even close to an intention to "ban" is the talk of threats and harassment. Advising members of the press that they should not legitimize a certain viewpoint in no way comes close to "banning antifeminism", and looking at it again it doesn't even recommend actively preventing the press from legitimizing antifeminism, it simply says that they shouldn't.

So unless they make a second report that suggests actively preventing the press from having antifeminist outlooks ... yeah, I'm going to have to retract my earlier statement and say that the suggestion doesn't violate free speech. It's still a dumb suggestion though.

Oh, and I do wish that people on The Escapist could stop flailing their arms around and screeching "ban!" and "censorship!" just to get attention.

generals3:

Knight Templar:

generals3:

And abortion is also irrelevant. Since a man cannot get pregnant and thus not benefit from the right to abort so you can't have inequality.

That doesn't make any sense, in so many ways.

What is your thought process here?

Equal rights means giving everyone the same rights. A man cannot become pregnant therefor de facto cannot benefit from any rights on the aspect of abortion. As such one can never reach equal rights between men and women when it comes to abortion (which thus makes equality irrelevant to the issue of abortion). But i guess that if it would make people happy legislators could say "we ban abortions for everyone". Tada abortions are banned while preserving equal rights.

But the issue isn't that of a right to an abortion per se, it's that of a persons right to control their own body.

But even without that fact this is still an absurd concept, because something negatively impacts only one gender directly it isn't something that causes inequality? If something causes harm directed toward a single gender that's a reason for why it is generating inequality, not a way to offhandedly dismiss it.

generals3:

Whether you feel it is relevant or not is quite irrelevant to my judgement. If someone feels it's relevant to militate against slavery he can, doesn't make his activism any less irrelevant.

Only you have not shown how feminism is irrelevant. You have only done some rhetorically fallacious "feminism is no longer what it started out as" and used that as the stepping stone to claim that feminism is no longer needed. It is a no true scotsman, since you go about labeling feminists that don't agree with your definition of feminist as something else (neo-feminist).

generals3:

On top of that you have again proven yourself to be a neo-feminist (which by the way just means "new/different" feminist). Whether genders are underrepresented or not is irrelevant to the initial goal of feminism which was about equal rights and opportunities.

I think the term you are looking for is third wave feminist, because that's pretty much what I am. It could also be argued that being underrepresented means you don't have equal opportunities, or would you suggest that the reason we almost exclusively see white men in positions of great power is because white men are somehow inherently better suited for being in power? You know, as opposed to having institutionalized a "buddy"-system in which white men from certain groups help other white men from the same group.

Either way, as has been pointed out to you before in this thread: Neo-feminism is not an accepted term and if you want to discuss feminism you could at least do so using the terminology that already exists. Because feminism as a movement has already defined these things you are making up labels for.

generals3:

So unless you make the assumption these differences exist due to discrimination the point is moot. And making that assumption is one of those typical tactics that anger all those who complain against feminism. "innocent until proven guilty" is how our systems work and going by following the assumption "discrimination until proven otherwise" you're working against one of our most beloved principles.

I am making the assumption that the reason why people who aren't caucasian men have a hard time getting into positions of power is because of discrimination on a societal level. It is probably unintentional but, once again, unless you are ready to chalk it up to "white men are superior" then there's quite obviously a problem with the under-representation of other groups in positions of power.

That statement can make you, or anyone else who "complains against feminism", as angry as you like. If you can't stand having your position disputed you shouldn't be discussing it in the first place.

generals3:

So regardless of how i analyze what you describe as a problem you have clearly taken distance from the initial feminist movement. And while this is your right, it is because of situations like this the word feminism is being wrongly used by post-feminists. Because when aiming criticism at your movement for instance i would also instantly be putting the older movement in the same sack.

Or I haven't. You are the one who's asserting that feminism has reached it's goal and is outdated. Instead of spouting rhetorical fancies about it, why don't you give me some hard, solid proof that such is the case. You are the one making the wild claim here, so instead of talking fancy about it I suggest you actually prove it.

Until then, I'll continue to suggest that the pay gap, the glass ceiling and all those other things I mentioned earlier (and quite a few more) are clear indicator that we do not have equal opportunities between the genders yet.

generals3:

And abortion is also irrelevant. Since a man cannot get pregnant and thus not benefit from the right to abort so you can't have inequality. It is a different issue all together.

The right to have full say over your own body is pretty obviously a question of equality. That men (because the majority of legislators trying to ban abortion are men) are trying to infringe on women's rights to decide what happens with their bodies is pretty obviously a case of grossly unequal gender roles, since these men think they have that right to begin with.

generals3:

So in conclusion:

Old feminism: about rights and opportunities
Neo-feminism: Feminist movements who have decided to go beyond that or simply twist that agenda.

Or we could just stick wit the terminology set up by the feminist movement itself instead of your made up, arbitrary distinctions. I think I'd prefer that.

Gethsemani:
Until then, I'll continue to suggest that the pay gap, the glass ceiling and all those other things I mentioned earlier (and quite a few more) are clear indicator that we do not have equal opportunities between the genders yet.

Do you see these examples of equality of "opportunity" or equality of "outcome"?

DevilWithaHalo:

Gethsemani:
Until then, I'll continue to suggest that the pay gap, the glass ceiling and all those other things I mentioned earlier (and quite a few more) are clear indicator that we do not have equal opportunities between the genders yet.

Do you see these examples of equality of "opportunity" or equality of "outcome"?

I'd argue they are a matter of equality of opportunity, or rather that women are not given the same opportunity to earn promotions and raises as men are. It could also be a case of women getting the opportunity but being held to different standards, which means they can't progress in the same way men do.

Whatever it is because of conscious or unintended sexism or because of social expectations (expecting men to work more while women take care of the family etc.), the net outcome is still that women and men are given different opportunities which are largely based on their gender. In a similar vein I'd argue it is an inequality in opportunity that men are not given the same possibilities to go on parental leave as women are, for example.

Knight Templar:

But the issue isn't that of a right to an abortion per se, it's that of a persons right to control their own body.

But even without that fact this is still an absurd concept, because something negatively impacts only one gender directly it isn't something that causes inequality? If something causes harm directed toward a single gender that's a reason for why it is generating inequality, not a way to offhandedly dismiss it.

That's equality of results more than equality of rights. One could for instance argue that by removing the welfare state and taxes the state isn't promoting inequality while others would point to class mobility as an example that while the policy itself isn't unequal the results are. The problem however with this is that you can go all ways. One could argue that by giving women the right to abort gives them a monopoly on procreation which gives them thus an unequal amount of power. (mind you i don't argue that but if equality of outcome is the issue this is a very valid point to make)

generals3:

That's equality of results more than equality of rights.

It's both, not that such a distinction here would even matter.

Gethsemani:

Only you have not shown how feminism is irrelevant. You have only done some rhetorically fallacious "feminism is no longer what it started out as" and used that as the stepping stone to claim that feminism is no longer needed. It is a no true scotsman, since you go about labeling feminists that don't agree with your definition of feminist as something else (neo-feminist).

It is totally not fallacious. You have stated below you belong to the third wave of feminists. If it were the same as the second wave than it wouldn't be called third wave. As such you have admitted there to be a difference and thus proven my concern feminism has changed to be correct. And it is not a matter of agreeing with me, like i just said you yourself have admitted the movement has changed. As such me renaming it neo-feminism in order to contrast it with the older femenist movements is very well justified.

I think the term you are looking for is third wave feminist, because that's pretty much what I am. It could also be argued that being underrepresented means you don't have equal opportunities, or would you suggest that the reason we almost exclusively see white men in positions of great power is because white men are somehow inherently better suited for being in power? You know, as opposed to having institutionalized a "buddy"-system in which white men from certain groups help other white men from the same group.

Either way, as has been pointed out to you before in this thread: Neo-feminism is not an accepted term and if you want to discuss feminism you could at least do so using the terminology that already exists. Because feminism as a movement has already defined these things you are making up labels for.

I really don't care if it's not an accepted term. People whined about the fact first and second wave feminists (if you prefer) were put in the same sack as third wave feminists when antifeminists complain about these new feminists. Therefor i decided to be a nice guy and use a word which clarifies which feminism i'm referring to. But if you feel that not being put in the same pot as the old guard feminists is bad than i can go back and just be anti all feminist movements. Though i wonder why you would want that?

And "neo" is not a label. It's a prefix which means "new/different" which simply describes exactly what i'm talking about "the new feminist movements". If I said femi-nazis for instance than yes i would be labeling.

I am making the assumption that the reason why people who aren't caucasian men have a hard time getting into positions of power is because of discrimination on a societal level. It is probably unintentional but, once again, unless you are ready to chalk it up to "white men are superior" then there's quite obviously a problem with the under-representation of other groups in positions of power.

That statement can make you, or anyone else who "complains against feminism", as angry as you like. If you can't stand having your position disputed you shouldn't be discussing it in the first place.

Right so it's either believing white men are racist sexist or being some kind of white macho supremacist? You do realize this kind of claims is what discredits feminists? What about the fact that there are more white men who pursue said positions? Or have followed proper education which helped? Because you'll find a lot of statistics pointing towards minorities being overall less educated and so forth. I would suggest you look deeper than just the surface.

Or I haven't. You are the one who's asserting that feminism has reached it's goal and is outdated. Instead of spouting rhetorical fancies about it, why don't you give me some hard, solid proof that such is the case. You are the one making the wild claim here, so instead of talking fancy about it I suggest you actually prove it.

Until then, I'll continue to suggest that the pay gap, the glass ceiling and all those other things I mentioned earlier (and quite a few more) are clear indicator that we do not have equal opportunities between the genders yet.

You want hard proof? Most powerful political person in europe: a woman! CEO of pepsi? Oh i'll be damned it's a woman. And i could go on. There are plenty of examples of women on the top tier to prove there isn't some kind of huge discrimination. If there were none worries would be justified, but since there are plenty the number difference may be explained through various other explanations. (which doesn't seem to even cross your mind)

Take the wage gap in Belgium. Neo-feminists decided it was at more than 20%, this seems problematic, right? Until some people decided to actually analyze that number and realized those numbers were intellectually dishonest. It was based on the average annual wage which doesn't factor choices towards part time or full time jobs. Once they took the gap of hourly salary we suddenly attained a gap of 10%. Yes less than half of the nonesense the feminists were trying to spoonfeed us. And than they went even deeper and look at the gap depending on age. +/-3% was the gap at the age of 25-35. and 11.6% at the ages 45+. Now you'll probably cry victory in your head. But don't. Many factors can explain this increasing gap; carreer breaks, the fact women are much more represented in the part time job market, carreer types (the type of jobs typically chosen by women may offer less wage growth than those chosen by men) and than yes the glass ceiling. But than comes the big question: how bad is that glass ceiling? For all we know it only accounts for 1% of the gap and is thus really not worth the fuss.

But obviously actually digging deeper in those numbers isn't something that serves those feminists' agenda at all and as such they just prefer throwing the least interesting and most intellectually dishonest numbers at us and yell "discrimination". I'm sorry but i will never be able to take such a movement seriously. They're on par with the extreme right wing parties throwing numbers about criminality among foreigners and than yell "They are criminals!".

The right to have full say over your own body is pretty obviously a question of equality. That men (because the majority of legislators trying to ban abortion are men) are trying to infringe on women's rights to decide what happens with their bodies is pretty obviously a case of grossly unequal gender roles, since these men think they have that right to begin with.

No it is a question of personal freedom and not equality. I'm sorry but I am not the kind of person who's going to let the feminist movement appropriate issues to itself just because they feel it should be part of their agenda. You may add it to your feminist agenda if you want but you won't ever convince me this is about gender roles. Mainly considering most people being against abortions make it an issue of the unborn child's right.

Or we could just stick wit the terminology set up by the feminist movement itself instead of your made up, arbitrary distinctions. I think I'd prefer that.

Arbitrary distinction? Not at all. It's equal rights and opportunity vs whatever the hell the new movements push.

generals3:

You want hard proof? Most powerful political person in europe: a woman! CEO of pepsi? Oh i'll be damned it's a woman. And i could go on. There are plenty of examples of women on the top tier to prove there isn't some kind of huge discrimination. If there were none worries would be justified, but since there are plenty the number difference may be explained through various other explanations. (which doesn't seem to even cross your mind)

Isolated examples and anecdotes are not evidence, would you believe it? I want statistics that show us women make up a significant part of the leadership in private companies and governments. That a few women rise to great power shows that a few of them can break the mold. You still haven't given me proof, only anecdotes.

generals3:

Take the wage gap in Belgium. Neo-feminists decided it was at more than 20%, this seems problematic, right? Until some people decided to actually analyze that number and realized those numbers were intellectually dishonest. It was based on the average annual wage which doesn't factor choices towards part time or full time jobs. Once they took the gap of hourly salary we suddenly attained a gap of 10%. Yes less than half of the nonesense the feminists were trying to spoonfeed us. And than they went even deeper and look at the gap depending on age. +/-3% was the gap at the age of 25-35. and 11.6% at the ages 45+. Now you'll probably cry victory in your head. But don't. Many factors can explain this increasing gap; carreer breaks, the fact women are much more represented in the part time job market, carreer types (the type of jobs typically chosen by women may offer less wage growth than those chosen by men) and than yes the glass ceiling. But than comes the big question: how bad is that glass ceiling? For all we know it only accounts for 1% of the gap and is thus really not worth the fuss.

No source, so all I am seeing is anecdotal evidence that I have to take your word for. More hard evidence, less rhetorical faffing.

generals3:

No it is a question of personal freedom.

So you are basically just saying: Men have the full freedom to decide over their own bodies, women do not because they have a few biological differences that must be state-regulated. Good going.

When, I ask you, will the boot of the feminist finally be taken off the neck of the modern man so he can breathe free? I want to live in a world where my son can possibly have a future. Where are all the male CEOs? The male sports stars? The great male directors, and politicians, and scientists? Other than everywhere, I mean?

I've lived my life in fear of the great feminist machine for long enough! Thank goodness the internet has finally given men a voice, where before we could only speak up literally everywhere, all the time. I miss the halcyon days when men actually had rights, and women just kept their mouths shut. I mean geez, lady. I'm trying to play a game here. Blah blah blah.

On a completely unrelated topic; guys, do you have any dating advice? I'm having the hardest time meeting women. I'm super sensitive and I like music so really I don't understand why I can't get them to hook up with me more.

Gethsemani:

generals3:

You want hard proof? Most powerful political person in europe: a woman! CEO of pepsi? Oh i'll be damned it's a woman. And i could go on. There are plenty of examples of women on the top tier to prove there isn't some kind of huge discrimination. If there were none worries would be justified, but since there are plenty the number difference may be explained through various other explanations. (which doesn't seem to even cross your mind)

Isolated examples and anecdotes are not evidence, would you believe it? I want statistics that show us women make up a significant part of the leadership in private companies and governments. That a few women rise to great power shows that a few of them can break the mold. You still haven't given me proof, only anecdotes.

generals3:

Take the wage gap in Belgium. Neo-feminists decided it was at more than 20%, this seems problematic, right? Until some people decided to actually analyze that number and realized those numbers were intellectually dishonest. It was based on the average annual wage which doesn't factor choices towards part time or full time jobs. Once they took the gap of hourly salary we suddenly attained a gap of 10%. Yes less than half of the nonesense the feminists were trying to spoonfeed us. And than they went even deeper and look at the gap depending on age. +/-3% was the gap at the age of 25-35. and 11.6% at the ages 45+. Now you'll probably cry victory in your head. But don't. Many factors can explain this increasing gap; carreer breaks, the fact women are much more represented in the part time job market, carreer types (the type of jobs typically chosen by women may offer less wage growth than those chosen by men) and than yes the glass ceiling. But than comes the big question: how bad is that glass ceiling? For all we know it only accounts for 1% of the gap and is thus really not worth the fuss.

No source, so all I am seeing is anecdotal evidence that I have to take your word for. More hard evidence, less rhetorical faffing.

generals3:

No it is a question of personal freedom.

So you are basically just saying: Men have the full freedom to decide over their own bodies, women do not because they have a few biological differences that must be state-regulated. Good going.

Exactly what i thought. You are all about numbers. Numbers mean nothing without explanations. There being less female executives than male doesn't mean there is discrimination or that the gap is caused mainly by discrimination. Just like the decrease in pirates doesn't cause global warming.

You want a link for the pay gap: http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20130319_00510520&word=Pay+day Unfortunately the article is in dutch

And your last paragraph is a blatant lie. Tell me where i said that pregnancies should be state-regulated? If anything you should know i have always been pro-choice on that aspect. Me saying abortions isn't a feminist issue doesn't equate with me wanting to regulate abortions.

itsthesheppy:
When, I ask you, will the boot of the feminist finally be taken off the neck of the modern man so he can breathe free? I want to live in a world where my son can possibly have a future. Where are all the male CEOs? The male sports stars? The great male directors, and politicians, and scientists? Other than everywhere, I mean?

I've lived my life in fear of the great feminist machine for long enough! Thank goodness the internet has finally given men a voice, where before we could only speak up literally everywhere, all the time? I miss the halcyon days when men actually had rights, and women just kept their mouths shut. I mean geez, lady. I'm trying to play a game here. Blah blah blah.

On a completely unrelated topic; guys, do you have any dating advice? I'm having the hardest time meeting women. I'm super sensitive and I like music so really I don't understand why I can't get them to hook up with me more.

Hah, well said. Had me going with the first sentence, though.

Hardcore_gamer:

Lilani:
Just as he isn't admitting to the giant holes in his plan to save the poor and refused to admit his "proof" that his insane economic scheme was only valid proof if the economy in question is functioning within a totalitarian dictatorship.

I am actually thinking about making another experiment in Victoria 2 and making another thread about it. Except that this time I would be trying to play as a communist regime to show how poor the plannned economy is compared to a more free market.

There's a mod that addresses a lot of the shortcomings of Paradox's game, I recommend checking it out http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?495255-The-Victoria-2-Realism-amp-Rebalance-Project-%282.01-out-now!%29%29

Essentially it undoes that all industrial goods are overproduced from very early on requiring high taxes to fund industrial subsidies to keep up your score. Do keep me posted on your little experiment.

Gethsemani:

DevilWithaHalo:

Gethsemani:
Until then, I'll continue to suggest that the pay gap, the glass ceiling and all those other things I mentioned earlier (and quite a few more) are clear indicator that we do not have equal opportunities between the genders yet.

Do you see these examples of equality of "opportunity" or equality of "outcome"?

I'd argue they are a matter of equality of opportunity, or rather that women are not given the same opportunity to earn promotions and raises as men are. It could also be a case of women getting the opportunity but being held to different standards, which means they can't progress in the same way men do.

Whatever it is because of conscious or unintended sexism or because of social expectations (expecting men to work more while women take care of the family etc.), the net outcome is still that women and men are given different opportunities which are largely based on their gender. In a similar vein I'd argue it is an inequality in opportunity that men are not given the same possibilities to go on parental leave as women are, for example.

A few follow up questions if I may...

1. How do you determine the differences in outcome related to choices rather than gender in various fields?

2. How would you gauge a fair opportunity?

3. How do you personally reconcile the seemingly stereotypical gender preferences when it comes to gender dominated fields?

DevilWithaHalo:

1. How do you determine the differences in outcome related to choices rather than gender in various fields?

How can we determine that potential choices aren't related to gender? I see where you are going, but the problem as I see it is that even if the wage gap can be fully explained by men and women having different patterns of working (different number of hours, part-time/full-time difference etc) that still raises the question why it is so.

If women work less hours, have more part-time employments etc. (as suggested by wikipedia) that's still a problem that's related to gender. I am not saying it is discrimination, though it might play a part too, but there are obviously social forces at work that keeps women from earning as much as men, or men from working as little as women, whichever way you prefer to see it.

In short: I don't think it is discrimination as much as sociological trends that keeps men working more than women and women earning less.

DevilWithaHalo:

2. How would you gauge a fair opportunity?

In this case it would be when both genders would have equal motivations and chances to opt for either full or part time employment (depending on their own choice), as well as when all fields of work are considered possible regardless of gender (ie. not like today when men don't become nurses, women don't become software engineers etc.) and you don't have to fear social or societal backlash for choosing a career that's dominated by the other gender (once again, male nurses).

DevilWithaHalo:

3. How do you personally reconcile the seemingly stereotypical gender preferences when it comes to gender dominated fields?

I am not entirely sure what you are asking, so if I am answering this the wrong way please correct me and clarify the question. Anyway:

Social bias. Women are raised to consider nursing a possible career, men aren't. Men are raised to consider software engineering a possible career, women aren't. I think it mostly breaks down to social and cultural barriers that prevent men and women from considering or entering certain fields because they either don't think they'll fit ("Men don't have the empathy to be nurses" or "Women aren't good enough at math to be programmers") or because they believe the social cost would be too high ("Male nurses are all homosexual"). There might also be other variations here like men being more concerned with a higher salary and women wanting more flexible working hours, but these kinds of variations take us back to my answer to question 1: Why is it so?

These are deeply rooted ideals and cultural values and breaking them down is a slow process.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked