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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

generals3:

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

You are the one who's bringing discrimination into this. Read my answers to devilwithahalo, because that's where I develop my actual thoughts on the matter some more. Sufficient to say is that you can claim we aren't equal without claiming that one gender is consistently discriminated, even if you want to believe otherwise.

Gethsemani:

generals3:

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

You are the one who's bringing discrimination into this. Read my answers to devilwithahalo, because that's where I develop my actual thoughts on the matter some more. Sufficient to say is that you can claim we aren't equal without claiming that one gender is consistently discriminated, even if you want to believe otherwise.

You did bring up discrimination. Maybe unintentionally but you constantly tried to argue with me that feminism - which tries to fight for equal rights and opportunity - wasn't finished. If either one of those isn't achieved women are de-facto being discriminated against.

And at one point you even brought racial discrimination into the discussion. Everything pointed towards you claiming there is widespread discrimination against women.

I would like to add that the outcome is totally irrelevant to me. If for some reason in a country where women can chose freely what they do decide massively to become housewives i don't see that as a problem. I am not going to trample upon people's right to chose for the sake of equal outcome.

Gethsemani:

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.

1. If the social forces *suggest* to women that they work less to devote more time to other pursuits, why is that a problem?
1A. Doesn't social influence compensate based on the expectations? (More leisure time, etc)

2. Do you view the desire for children as a social force?

3. How do you determine what the social force is?
3A. How do you determine to "correct" said social force?

Gethsemani:

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).

4. How do you compare "possible" employment against social expectations?

5. How is it that some of a specific gender still choose to *break into* other gender dominated fields?
5A. If social backlash is expected in these cases; why do we hold them in such high esteem?

Gethsemani:

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.

6. How does this work in comparison to the standards that individual industries set for potential employees?

7. How would you propose to adjust social bias through raising children with certain expectations?

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.

So...you're entirely ignoring that there is a distiniction between first, second and third wave Feminism? Because there are in fact clearly defined distinctions between dogmas, the same way that the Civil Rights movement had it's differences in opinion, the same way gay rights groups have differences of opinions.

I mean jesus christ what the fuck are you even blabbering on about? It's like you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Even TV Tropes has a better understanding of Feminism then you do:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Feminism

Just because Feminism today isn't the same as Feminism fifty years ago doesn't mean that "feminism" is an outdated concept.

Shaoken:

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.

So...you're entirely ignoring that there is a distiniction between first, second and third wave Feminism? Because there are in fact clearly defined distinctions between dogmas, the same way that the Civil Rights movement had it's differences in opinion, the same way gay rights groups have differences of opinions.

I mean jesus christ what the fuck are you even blabbering on about? It's like you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Even TV Tropes has a better understanding of Feminism then you do:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Feminism

Just because Feminism today isn't the same as Feminism fifty years ago doesn't mean that "feminism" is an outdated concept.

How am i ignoring it? I actually did in this topic made very clear distinctions first and second waves which i called plain "feminism" and the Third wave (being the most "recent" one) which i called neo-feminism. The thing is that i have seen people often complain about the fact that some people bash feminism because it essentially puts the 1st and 2nd wave feminist waves into the same sack as the other feminists. As such it felt only important to make a distinction between those ideals and the new ones. Now you could complain that i'm not using correct feminist vocabulary and that i should use third wave instead of "neo". But i'm lazy like that. It makes posting much less tedious to make the distinction between feminism (referring the the older movements) and neo feminism (referring to the modern movements).

So if you prefer: 1st and 2nd wave feminism is done, finished. And 3rd wave feminism is in my opinion filled with ludicrous agendas which i do not consider any good for society.

generals3:

How am i ignoring it? I actually did in this topic made very clear distinctions first and second waves which i called plain "feminism" and the Third wave (being the most "recent" one) which i called neo-feminism.

Incidentally, I've decided to start calling all libertarians sningleflops, and all liberals toodlepips, and I don't have a name for conservatives so instead I have replaced them with a series of punctuation. God, guys, why won't you take me seriously?

So anyway, according to your understanding of the different waves of feminism, you believe that the good and true and noble waves were the ones that tried to exclude black women and trans-women, and tried to ban pornography, and told women that they weren't allowed to be housewives because they were betraying the cause. But this nasty "third wave" that is sex-positive and intersectional and tells women that they can be whatever they want to be and recognises the negative effects of gender roles on men and boys as well ... wow, that's the wave that has totally gone too far.

You know, you could just admit that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Would probably make things easier for everyone. Because right now you're sort of like the one kid in history class who didn't read the book but is insisting until he's blue in the face that Daniel Boone was the first US president.

boots:

generals3:

How am i ignoring it? I actually did in this topic made very clear distinctions first and second waves which i called plain "feminism" and the Third wave (being the most "recent" one) which i called neo-feminism.

Incidentally, I've decided to start calling all libertarians sningleflops, and all liberals toodlepips, and I don't have a name for conservatives so instead I have replaced them with a series of punctuation. God, guys, why won't you take me seriously?

So anyway, according to your understanding of the different waves of feminism, you believe that the good and true and noble waves were the ones that tried to exclude black women and trans-women, and tried to ban pornography, and told women that they weren't allowed to be housewives because they were betraying the cause. But this nasty "third wave" that is sex-positive and intersectional and tells women that they can be whatever they want to be and recognises the negative effects of gender roles on men and boys as well ... wow, that's the wave that has totally gone too far.

You know, you could just admit that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Would probably make things easier for everyone. Because right now you're sort of like the one kid in history class who didn't read the book but is insisting until he's blue in the face that Daniel Boone was the first US president.

I stand corrected. Apparently the feminist movement went nuts already by the second wave. I guess I underestimated how quickly they went wrong. However i don't see how the ideology the first wave put forward is anything like you said:
"First-wave feminism was a period of activity during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. In the UK and US, it focused on the promotion of equal contract, marriage, parenting, and property rights for women".

See that's standing for equality of rights. Now let's look at the newer agendas:
"Second-wave feminists see women's cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked and encourage women to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures."
or "Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's essentialist definitions of femininity, which, they argue, over-emphasize the experiences of upper middle-class white women. Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for women, and tend to use a post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality"

Which is basically just extending further the second wave agenda. An agenda which i find by all ludicrous due to the assumptions it makes and the emphasis it puts on "outcome".

And no the neo feminism i talk about refers to the second wave, third wave and also the misandryst extremists. Because they're all wrong in my eyes. No need for me to start saying "A, B, C, D , E ,..." is wrong when i could just say "Group X" (which encompasses them all) is wrong.

generals3:

So if you prefer: 1st and 2nd wave feminism is done, finished. And 3rd wave feminism is in my opinion filled with ludicrous agendas which i do not consider any good for society.

Your opinion is wrong, because "3rd wave feminism" is no more one single monolithic viewpoint than any other, and it is as stupid to lump all of 3rd wave feminism in the same basket as it would be to do the same to Conservatives, or Liberal, or Gay Rights activitists, or Catholics, or literally any other group larger than five people.

I mean jesus fucking christ you're talking about the wave of Feminism that was against 2nd waves "house wives are traitors to women" and preaching that women should have the choice to lead whatever life they want to lead. And you call them the ludicrous ones?

You're also making the mistake of thinking that 2nd wave feminism is done when there are 2nd wave feminists still out there getting new members.

The original document is still really vague on what 'anti feminism' means.

Even in really clear cut racism stuff, it can get murky, like if someone says something that could be construed as racist but the individual isn't necessarily racist, just ill informed or mistaken or in a bad mood and would probably trash talk ANY race that pissed him off at that particular moment, but generally we know when someone has said something racist.

Feminism is a much more confused issue then racism. We have some feminist who say things that other feminist would consider anti-feminist. So who determines by which measure something is 'anti feminist'. And when yuo combine that with a kind of broad 'We should make anti-feminism a hate crime',

1. If someone isn't advocating violence or just holds a dim view of feminism it could be considered a hate crime, isn't that kind of over-big? What kind of levels of 'banned' are we talking? Are ALL anti-feminist views going to be charged at the same level of hate crime?

2. What the hell does anti-feminism mean? What warrants a ban and what doesn't?

3. As I pointed out in another thread, tolerance doesn't mean you have to sit quietly and accept it. You can still make noise, and you should be allowed to make noise. Banning 'anti-feminism' being even talked about in any other light other then 'it's evil and hate it grr' haven't you essentially started telling people that their not allowed to have an opinion?

So mostly my issue with the document (From what I can read and what was translated here) is the vagueness of it and the sort of absolutism about it. It kind of vibes off an 'either you're pro-feminist or anti-feminist and anti-feminist are evil' thing.

generals3:
I guess I [have no idea what I'm talking about and should probably just stop embarrassing myself.]

Yup.

And no the neo feminism i talk about refers...

Sneeple flarp tungkah reeble floop.

Oh, that? That's the language that I just invented. I decided that the existing languages weren't really doing it for me so now I'm going to use this instead, and you all have to start speaking the same language and treating it like it's legitimate. Flibble tarb goop de wodchik.

boots:

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to invent political terms on the fly, decide arbitrarily which people fit into them, and then start using them like they're an actual thing. Especially when you're comically uninformed about the subject matter because you were, by your own admission, "too lazy" to do any research.

This is less like debating with someone, more like throwing peanuts at someone who has stuck a bucket on their head and is now repeatedly running head-first into a wall. Childish, but funny.

Words are "invented" (though i doubt i'm the first one to use that word) at one point by one person. It's not always the result of a big gathering of people coming up with them. And it is not as if i've never explained what i meant by neo-feminism. If i didn't I would understand the concern.

Secondly it was more about thinking i remembered it correctly while memory was failing me than laziness. Surely you have also had instances where you thought you remembered something correctly while you didn't? That is why discussions are very informative, because once in a while someone points out you were remembering wrong and can thus correct yourself and move on with your life with more knowledge. And i doubt you would have the pretense to claim you google everything you're going to discuss prior to engaging into the discussion?

EDIT: I will also add that i will no longer respond to semantics complaints. I have explained various times why i used the term neo-feminism and what i meant with it and since it is a combination of two perfectly valid words which combined have a perfectly valid meaning I consider it a waste of my time to further go into that. And on top of that it is totally off topic.

generals3:

boots:

Words are "invented" (though i doubt i'm the first one to use that word) at one point by one person. It's not always the result of a big gathering of people coming up with them. And it is not as if i've never explained what i meant by neo-feminism. If i didn't I would understand the concern.

No, you have explained. By "neo-feminism" you mean quite literally every single variation on second or third wave feminism on the planet, which means that you think even the simplest notion that people should be treated equally regardless of gender is "ludicrous". Since you think that that idea is ludicrous, I can only assume that you think that one gender is inferior and should therefore be afforded less rights than the other.

Oh, and it's not called neo-feminism any more. I've decided I want to call it flowerpatchology, in my authority as Random Person On The Internet #394847. Please adjust your posts accordingly.

Secondly it was more about thinking i remembered it correctly while memory was failing me than laziness. Surely you have also had instances that you thought you remembered something correctly while you didn't? That is why discussions are very informative, because once in a while someone points out you were remembering wrong and can thus correct yourself and move on with your life with more knowledge. And i doubt you would have the pretense to claim you google everything you're going to discuss prior to engaging into the discussion?

Nooo, but I would have the pretense to claim that I know the bare-bones basic definitions of the terms I'm using before I try using them. It is actually possible to know something without constantly googling it at the start (or, in your case, several pages in) of a discussion about it.

You, on the other hand, claimed to know the ins and outs of feminism so well that you genuinely felt qualified to invent a new term for, to use its proper definition, "bits of feminism that I sort of think I've heard of and don't like the sound of". Then it turned out that you were, uh, "misremembering" the basic facts about the different waves of feminism that you were speaking so confidently about. Oops.

Incidentally, "lazy" was your word, not mine.

Would you two please stop sniping each other over whatever personal bullshit you have going on? I'd like to talk about the actual document in question and you two are flooding the damn thread. Two minutes after I posted my thing you had 5 replies to each other, completely ignoring all other conversation in here.

1. If someone isn't advocating violence or just holds a dim view of feminism it could be considered a hate crime, isn't that kind of over-big? What kind of levels of 'banned' are we talking? Are ALL anti-feminist views going to be charged at the same level of hate crime?

2. What the hell does anti-feminism mean? What warrants a ban and what doesn't?

3. As I pointed out in another thread, tolerance doesn't mean you have to sit quietly and accept it. You can still make noise, and you should be allowed to make noise. Banning 'anti-feminism' being even talked about in any other light other then 'it's evil and hate it grr' haven't you essentially started telling people that their not allowed to have an opinion?

So mostly my issue with the document (From what I can read and what was translated here) is the vagueness of it and the sort of absolutism about it. It kind of vibes off an 'either you're pro-feminist or anti-feminist and anti-feminist are evil' thing.

I don't think it's as bad as the OP paints it, but it can be construed in some pretty horrible ways, largely due to the vague language and sort of nebulous terms thrown out. Obviously I can only read the english part and the part that was translated here, but do they ever define what an anti feminist is to any reasonable degree to suggest declaring it a hate crime to even speak in support of it?

Bentusi16:
Would you two please stop sniping each other over whatever personal bullshit you have going on? I'd like to talk about the actual document in question and you two are flooding the damn thread. Two minutes after I posted my thing you had 5 replies to each other, completely ignoring all other conversation in here.

1. If someone isn't advocating violence or just holds a dim view of feminism it could be considered a hate crime, isn't that kind of over-big? What kind of levels of 'banned' are we talking? Are ALL anti-feminist views going to be charged at the same level of hate crime?

2. What the hell does anti-feminism mean? What warrants a ban and what doesn't?

3. As I pointed out in another thread, tolerance doesn't mean you have to sit quietly and accept it. You can still make noise, and you should be allowed to make noise. Banning 'anti-feminism' being even talked about in any other light other then 'it's evil and hate it grr' haven't you essentially started telling people that their not allowed to have an opinion?

So mostly my issue with the document (From what I can read and what was translated here) is the vagueness of it and the sort of absolutism about it. It kind of vibes off an 'either you're pro-feminist or anti-feminist and anti-feminist are evil' thing.

I don't think it's as bad as the OP paints it, but it can be construed in some pretty horrible ways, largely due to the vague language and sort of nebulous terms thrown out. Obviously I can only read the english part and the part that was translated here, but do they ever define what an anti feminist is to any reasonable degree to suggest declaring it a hate crime to even speak in support of it?

You are right, thats why i added the edit where i clearly stated that i'll stop arguing semantics.

1. The fishy part about their desire to attack violence and harassment towards feminists is that those things are already considered crimes de-facto. If you ask me it is a way to put themselves above everyone else. As if harassing feminists is any different from harassing anyone else...

2. That's a good question, I myself pointed earlier that the fact they never defined it is very fishy to say the least. When someone wants to push the media and governments against a certain group they better well define that group.

3. couldn't agree more. If anything it is devious manipulation. They know that if they went for outright censorship it would backlash immensely. Meanwhile by allowing the opinion to exist in such a way it is never legitimized you won't get the same backlash but you'll still act in such a way that an entire group's opinion becomes meaningless.

I've always wondered what this particular animal farm will do when they run out of horses.

Paradoxrifts:
I've always wondered what this particular animal farm will do when they run out of horses.

You really think they won't find something innocuous to complain about? They've already started!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2300554/Are-nail-polish-names-anti-feminist-Manufacturers-accused-disempowering-women-colors-like-Dirty-Slut.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/why-the-word-panties-is-so-awful-and-what-to-do-about-it/273224/

DevilWithaHalo:

Paradoxrifts:
I've always wondered what this particular animal farm will do when they run out of horses.

You really think they won't find something innocuous to complain about? They've already started!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2300554/Are-nail-polish-names-anti-feminist-Manufacturers-accused-disempowering-women-colors-like-Dirty-Slut.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/why-the-word-panties-is-so-awful-and-what-to-do-about-it/273224/

No, thank you.

I decided yesterday that I'm no longer clicking on anything published by either The Atlantic, or The Daily Mail. Neither publication ever publishes anything other than sensationalist bullshit, which positively stinks of desperation for page views and ad revenue.

Paradoxrifts:

DevilWithaHalo:

Paradoxrifts:
I've always wondered what this particular animal farm will do when they run out of horses.

You really think they won't find something innocuous to complain about? They've already started!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2300554/Are-nail-polish-names-anti-feminist-Manufacturers-accused-disempowering-women-colors-like-Dirty-Slut.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/why-the-word-panties-is-so-awful-and-what-to-do-about-it/273224/

No, thank you.

I decided yesterday that I'm no longer clicking on anything published by either The Atlantic, or The Daily Mail. Neither publication ever publishes anything other than sensationalist bullshit, which positively stinks of desperation for page views and ad revenue.

Fair enough. Hopefully you can already fathom how far they're reaching by just looking at the article titles.

DevilWithaHalo:

Fair enough. Hopefully you can already fathom how far they're reaching by just looking at the article titles.

I will say one thing, the second article was a nice piece of comedy. I don't really see any other way to read it.

DevilWithaHalo:

Paradoxrifts:

DevilWithaHalo:

You really think they won't find something innocuous to complain about? They've already started!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2300554/Are-nail-polish-names-anti-feminist-Manufacturers-accused-disempowering-women-colors-like-Dirty-Slut.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/why-the-word-panties-is-so-awful-and-what-to-do-about-it/273224/

No, thank you.

I decided yesterday that I'm no longer clicking on anything published by either The Atlantic, or The Daily Mail. Neither publication ever publishes anything other than sensationalist bullshit, which positively stinks of desperation for page views and ad revenue.

Fair enough. Hopefully you can already fathom how far they're reaching by just looking at the article titles.

I'm sure they're almost as bad as when people reference a link to a Wikipedia article as irrefutable scientific evidence, without first checking that the footnotes were sourced from reputable scientific journals.

Isn't this equivalent of wanting to ban racist websites?

I mean sexism isn't good right? :S

I'm not saying the internet should be censored because that will lead to all kinds of government malarky. But hate speech is hate speech isn't it.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Isn't this equivalent of wanting to ban racist websites?

I mean sexism isn't good right? :S

I'm not saying the internet should be censored because that will lead to all kinds of government malarky. But hate speech is hate speech isn't it.

Well yes, and no.

There is no such thing as a hate crime by itself. A hate crime is when you perpetuate another crime and your MOTIVATION was hatred based on race/gender/religion (dependent on state/country).

For example, if I beat up a man because he's white, that's a hate crime. If I do it because he's annoying, or I want his money, or he just pissed me off, that's not a hate crime.

There is a heavier penalty for a hate crime, but it's also harder to prove because you have to establish very firmly and clearly that the motivation for the crime that took place was hate based on, in the U.s. anyway, generally race, though in some states sexual orientation or/and religious affiliation is also added.

Saying 'All white people are monsters who want to enslave the world' is certainly bigoted as hell and possibly racist (racism being about supremacy of one race over another), but as a crime it's not existent. You are not committing a crime by being a bigot or a racist.

If you then start beating up white people because of those views, you are committing a hate crime.

So someone advocating 'women should go back to the kitchen' under the U.S. law system is NOT committing a crime.

The European system is a little different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Eurasia .

Extrapolating and guesswork but I think what their trying to do for the most part is get violence against a woman allowed to be a hate crime, since it doesn't seem to mention gender/sex as a motivation for hate crimes.

But some of the other stuff like outright banning racist/sexist speech is a violation of peoples right to an opinion. And again, they have not really defined what 'anti-feminism' is.

Moonlight Butterfly:
Isn't this equivalent of wanting to ban racist websites?

I mean sexism isn't good right? :S

I'm not saying the internet should be censored because that will lead to all kinds of government malarky. But hate speech is hate speech isn't it.

The problem, at it's core is, who do we trust to make that judgement? Who do we trust to make the differentiation between a jerk and true hate speech.

This entire thread is an example of people having different thresholds of what is acceptable. Non of us would probably be comfortable to let someone who didn't agree with us completely make that distinction.

Bentusi16:
snip

On page 7 of the report is a description of what the authors consider anti-feminism:

This is not a literal translation. I have removed some of it.

Anti-feminism is opinions, manner and acts
Anti-feministic atcs can range from comments of facebook to terror. Anti-feminism can be an explicit ideology, a subset of an other ideology or it can be an unconscious opinion that is not seen the person in question as part of a larger ideology. A common feature of several ideological motivated groups, criminal acts and totalitarian organizations is a view of women to be objects. A view where women can have support functions and without equal possibility to be heard in the organization.

Anti-feminism is opposition to feminism and equality
Feminism is the thought that an unequal framework exist in society that favors men over women. And that it is necessary to act in order to remove this inequality. Anti-feminists speak against feminism and claim that such a framework does not exist or that the framework actually favors women over men.

Anti-feminists have a relatively one dimensional view of feminism as a monolithic and all mighty, who's only goal is to assert women at the expense of men. A central part of the anti-feministic ideology is that power is a zero-sum-game. If women get more power than they by definition must take that power from men.
From this point of view it is feminism goal to hand over the power of society to women to the point where men are powerless. Some even thinks that feminism has already succeeded. Because of this it is a rational to oppose feminism on behalf of all men.

The two last paragraphs is a about Anti-feminists' wish to reinstate a hierarchy where white hetero-sexual men are at the top. And a claim that Anti-feminists don't like minorities of any sort.

Gorr:

Moonlight Butterfly:
Isn't this equivalent of wanting to ban racist websites?

I mean sexism isn't good right? :S

I'm not saying the internet should be censored because that will lead to all kinds of government malarky. But hate speech is hate speech isn't it.

The problem, at it's core is, who do we trust to make that judgement? Who do we trust to make the differentiation between a jerk and true hate speech.

This entire thread is an example of people having different thresholds of what is acceptable. Non of us would probably be comfortable to let someone who didn't agree with us completely make that distinction.

Bentusi16:
snip

On page 7 of the report is a description of what the authors consider anti-feminism:

This is not a literal translation. I have removed some of it.

Anti-feminism is opinions, manner and acts
Anti-feministic atcs can range from comments of facebook to terror. Anti-feminism can be an explicit ideology, a subset of an other ideology or it can be an unconscious opinion that is not seen the person in question as part of a larger ideology. A common feature of several ideological motivated groups, criminal acts and totalitarian organizations is a view of women to be objects. A view where women can have support functions and without equal possibility to be heard in the organization.

Anti-feminism is opposition to feminism and equality
Feminism is the thought that an unequal framework exist in society that favors men over women. And that it is necessary to act in order to remove this inequality. Anti-feminists speak against feminism and claim that such a framework does not exist or that the framework actually favors women over men.

Anti-feminists have a relatively one dimentional view of feminism as a monolithic and all mighty, who's only goal is to assert women at the expense of men. A central part of the anti-feministic ideology is that power is a zero-sum-game. If women get more power than they by definition must take that power from men.
From this point of view it is feminism goal to hand over the power of society to women to the point where men are powerless. Some even thinks that feminism has already succeeded. Because of this it is a rational to oppose feminism on behalf of all men.

The two last paragraphs is a about Anti-feminists' wish to a hierarchy where white hetero-sexual men are at the top. And a claim that Anti-feminists don't like minorities of any sort.

Oh OK, thank you for the translation.

Well in that case I seriously disagree with what they want, since they essentially want to ban an opinion. That's a step to far.

Gorr:

On page 7 of the report is a description of what the authors consider anti-feminism:

This is not a literal translation. I have removed some of it.

Anti-feminism is opinions, manner and acts
Anti-feministic atcs can range from comments of facebook to terror. Anti-feminism can be an explicit ideology, a subset of an other ideology or it can be an unconscious opinion that is not seen the person in question as part of a larger ideology. A common feature of several ideological motivated groups, criminal acts and totalitarian organizations is a view of women to be objects. A view where women can have support functions and without equal possibility to be heard in the organization.

So they want to combat facebook comments they don't like? I'm sorry but that's plain Orwellian madness.

Anti-feminism is opposition to feminism and equality
Feminism is the thought that an unequal framework exist in society that favors men over women. And that it is necessary to act in order to remove this inequality. Anti-feminists speak against feminism and claim that such a framework does not exist or that the framework actually favors women over men.

So in paragraph one they categorize anti feminists as people who consider women as objects and here people who simply don't believe there is an inherent discriminatory society that favors men. So basically if you don't adhere to their view there is a structural discriminatory patriarchal problem you consider women as objects?

boots:

Oh, and it's not called neo-feminism any more. I've decided I want to call it flowerpatchology, in my authority as Random Person On The Internet #394847. Please adjust your posts accordingly.

That only gets more childish when you repeat it over and over, and given that the use of the prefix "neo-" in this case is at least theoretically valid (although its correctness can be debated) it just makes you look like you're trying to argue semantics when you don't understand semantics very well.

Okay this is my take on the separate things in this slightly biased article (note everything outside of the quotation marks are my opinions):
"Antifeminist Threats and Harassment must be made Illegal" well this one makes sense (although aren't threats and harassments illegal already, maybe they mean that there should be more investigations in them).
"Annual national surveys of anti-feminism must be implemented." Annual might be a bit much since I don't think attitudes change that quickly among the populace, but fine.
"Research on anti feminism must be prioritized." Over what exactly, I am really trying to take Humanities seriously (I still joke about them) but I don't agree that gender studies should have priority over natural sciences (I might have misunderstood the statement).
"The press must take care of their responsibilities against antifeminism." Yes I completely agree with this (depending on what happens if an editor fails their responsibility)
"Cooperation on antifeminism between countries and groups must continue. " Yes.
Didn't completely understand the other points though.

" In particular, he argues that women's sexuality gives them power over men, and draws on well-known theories about sexual capital to back up his arguments." Well my personal opinion is that this is partly true and doesn't the well-known theories kind of back this up.

" Serious gender research..." okay I snickered a bit here I'm sorry I guess

Also Iceland isn't in Scandinavia (it's "just" a nordic country)

"Finland is ruled by the state feminism."
Sure I'm Swedish but I'm pretty sure this statement is false.

"It's entirely possible, that expert panel's recommendations will be taken granted in the Nordic countries." Well it's possible but it sure as hell isn't likely.

Good damn it double post sorry

generals3:

Gorr:

On page 7 of the report is a description of what the authors consider anti-feminism:

This is not a literal translation. I have removed some of it.

Anti-feminism is opinions, manner and acts
Anti-feministic atcs can range from comments of facebook to terror. Anti-feminism can be an explicit ideology, a subset of an other ideology or it can be an unconscious opinion that is not seen the person in question as part of a larger ideology. A common feature of several ideological motivated groups, criminal acts and totalitarian organizations is a view of women to be objects. A view where women can have support functions and without equal possibility to be heard in the organization.

So they want to combat facebook comments they don't like? I'm sorry but that's plain Orwellian madness.

You're just making it clear you're hopelessly biased.

Not even claiming anti-feminism and racism are the same but I think we'd all see how biased someone is if they took: "Racist acts can range from comments of facebook to terror. Racism can be an explicit ideology, a subset of an other ideology or it can be an unconscious opinion that is not seen the person in question as part of a larger ideology." and then started screaming about how they wanted to combat facebook comments they don't like. You purposefully try to interpret it the worst way possible to defend your ideology.

Dijkstra:

You're just making it clear you're hopelessly biased.

Not even claiming anti-feminism and racism are the same but I think we'd all see how biased someone is if they took: "Racist acts can range from comments of facebook to terror. Racism can be an explicit ideology, a subset of an other ideology or it can be an unconscious opinion that is not seen the person in question as part of a larger ideology." and then started screaming about how they wanted to combat facebook comments they don't like. You purposefully try to interpret it the worst way possible to defend your ideology.

How is reading what is written biased? The conclusion of the paper was quite clear: they want the government and media to combat "anti-feminism". The government was asked to combat the more "severe" cases through legal means and the media through deligitimizing any "anti-feminist".

And i'd be as appalled by the idea of even trying to manipulate racist opinions actually. Being in favor of free speech with the exceptions of inciting violence i wouldn't like any group of extremists asking for what this "panel of experts" asks.

So you see the orwellian part of this panel is that not only do they very very broadly define anti-feminism (basically defined as not believing what they do) but also the fact they want such opinions to be delegitimized. A lot of people tried to protect this panel by saying "they just want to get violence and harassment stopped". But considering anti feminist actions are categorized as ranging from a simple comment on facebook where someone says they don't believe in the inherently discriminatory nature of our patriarchal society to basically terrorist actions and that they clearly want actions to be taken against anti-feminism in general i can only conclude they're bonkers. (and that was a long sentence)

generals3:

Dijkstra:

You're just making it clear you're hopelessly biased.

Not even claiming anti-feminism and racism are the same but I think we'd all see how biased someone is if they took: "Racist acts can range from comments of facebook to terror. Racism can be an explicit ideology, a subset of an other ideology or it can be an unconscious opinion that is not seen the person in question as part of a larger ideology." and then started screaming about how they wanted to combat facebook comments they don't like. You purposefully try to interpret it the worst way possible to defend your ideology.

How is reading what is written biased? The conclusion of the paper was quite clear: they want the government and media to combat "anti-feminism". The government was asked to combat the more "severe" cases through legal means and the media through deligitimizing any "anti-feminist".

And i'd be as appalled by the idea of even trying to manipulate racist opinions actually. Being in favor of free speech with the exceptions of inciting violence i wouldn't like any group of extremists asking for what this "panel of experts" asks.

So you see the orwellian part of this panel is that not only do they very very broadly define anti-feminism (basically defined as not believing what they do) but also the fact they want such opinions to be delegitimized. A lot of people tried to protect this panel by saying "they just want to get violence and harassment stopped". But considering anti feminist actions are categorized as ranging from a simple comment on facebook where someone says they don't believe in the inherently discriminatory nature of our patriarchal society to basically terrorist actions and that they clearly want actions to be taken against anti-feminism in general i can only conclude they're bonkers. (and that was a long sentence)

It was not clearly written 'Let's combat Facebook comments'. Just like if someone pointed out that Facebook comments can be racist and also happened to say they wanted to combat racism it does not mean they want to combat Facebook comments. You jumped to that because you are simply biased. Saying they want to combat something does not mean they will take every instance of it very seriously or do something about every case of it they see. YOU made that interpretation because YOU seek to discredit them.

Dijkstra:

It was not clearly written 'Let's combat Facebook comments'. Just like if someone pointed out that Facebook comments can be racist and also happened to say they wanted to combat racism it does not mean they want to combat Facebook comments. You jumped to that because you are simply biased. Saying they want to combat something does not mean they will take every instance of it very seriously or do something about every case of it they see. YOU made that interpretation because YOU seek to discredit them.

But here's the thing: they want to deligitimize opinions. If all they said was that they wanted to stop violence or incitements to violence than yes i would be grasping at straws. But when you clearly state you want to deligitimize an opinion which is so widely defined, well i'm sorry, but than their intentions are quite clear. Now sure they probably know as anyone else they'll never be able to get people to act on social medias (heck who could) but it's quite clear that if it could work they'd ask for it explicitly.

generals3:

Dijkstra:

It was not clearly written 'Let's combat Facebook comments'. Just like if someone pointed out that Facebook comments can be racist and also happened to say they wanted to combat racism it does not mean they want to combat Facebook comments. You jumped to that because you are simply biased. Saying they want to combat something does not mean they will take every instance of it very seriously or do something about every case of it they see. YOU made that interpretation because YOU seek to discredit them.

But here's the thing: they want to deligitimize opinions. If all they said was that they wanted to stop violence or incitements to violence than yes i would be grasping at straws. But when you clearly state you want to deligitimize an opinion which is so widely defined, well i'm sorry, but than their intentions are quite clear. Now sure they probably know as anyone else they'll never be able to get people to act on social medias (heck who could) but it's quite clear that if it could work they'd ask for it explicitly.

It's not clear, you are being paranoid about it. Assuming they want to delegitimize opinions that does not prove that they will therefore want to fight Facebook comments. That is a paranoid leap in logic. 'I'm sorry but their intentions are quite clear' is a cop out. It screams 'I don't have actual logic to link the two so I'll just say this is clear'.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked