|
Being an ally suggests you are a supporter outside the group. Hetero folks might identify themselves as LGBT allies because they support LGBT rights, but are not LGBT themselves. Feminism isn't really like that. All feminists agree with and support feminism, being female isn't a prerequisite. I think the only time the ally thing gets really bashed about is when discussing voices or leadership roles in feminist activism, because guys need to be mindful of talking over women on topics like abortion access etc.
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I asked a serious question? I'm glad to hear that most feminists don't conceive of allies as working that way To be fair, it's not hard to read it as a shitpost. It seems immediately abrasive, demonstrates a mistaken preconception, and indicates nothing about how you came to hold that belief. For real, though, who told you men couldn't be feminists?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
I don't think anyone viewed it as hostile, just ignorant. "Why can't men call themselves feminists" is not a question that demonstrates any inherent interest or investment in feminist theory, it just seems like a "The kids won't let me in their clubhouse" thing. edit: On a reread I couldn't even figure out which of the responses would have been seen as hostile, so I have no idea where you're coming from. Vindicator fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Nobody in particular, just me extrapolating the concept of allies based on what I've encountered of people using it You extrapolated that men were in some way prohibited, or at least discouraged, from referring to themselves as feminists?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Where but a discussion of feminism (Not this specific thread mind you, just spitballing here) would discussions of male insecurities and other issues arising from toxic masculinity go? The Usual Spaces for men are notably bad about it, likely by design. Feminism exists in order to advance gender equality. "I don't feel like I'm being adequately centered in this gender equality movement" seems to me to be a contradictory position to hold. If the concern is that spheres in which masculinity/toxic masculinity is prevalent do not address the concerns of men, then the solution seems to be to advocate to change that environment so that it better serves those within it. Take the spaces you have and make them feminist, and all that. Vindicator fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I feel like comparing men who ask about terminology or their welcomeness in the movement, seemingly perfectly legitimate questions, to white supremacists, is probably a bad way to win public support in a purely utilitarian sense, and bespeaks a fundamental hostility and lack of good faith in dealing with the general public Now this? This is textbook shitposting. It wasn't a 'perfectly legitimate question', it was an ignorant question. And you had it answered. And now you're pivoting to "Someone used an analogy I find confronting". I'm going to follow Tiny Brontosaurus' lead now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:The comment about how men overestimate how much housework they do reminded of the studies that show in discussion groups of men and women, men perceive women as talking much more than they actually do, so that when women speak something like 30% of the time, men will say they dominated the conversation (I can't find this particular study right now, so if someone could link it that would be awesome). I can't source the article, but I think a similar point came out of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. People, when asked to gauge the gender balance of a crowd scene, tend to estimate gender parity in the scene when women comprise only 17% of the extras. Crowd scenes with actual ~50-50 gender parity tend to be recognized as predominantly women. edit: Is this it? http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/more-women-but-not-nearly-enough/?_r=0 Vindicator fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:What exactly is the advantage of someone with privilege to lose said privilege or give it up, even losing like 1% of their privilege? Ah, yes. The "what's in it for me" element of gender equality. Out of interest, why do you think abolitionists became abolitionists?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
I for one am perfectly comfortable with Tiny Brontosaurus openly calling out shitposters. Let's not pretend they entered in good faith, particularly when you see the same names trotting out the same tired poo poo they trotted out in every other thread regarding some aspect of minority rights in recent history.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
In any case it's very welcome that we have an alternate thread so all those genuine questioners can have their problems discussed. It will be interesting to see whether or not all those good-faith posters like icantfindaname and Black Baby Goku continue to contribute, given their concerns are so honestly held.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Is there a point where you people will eventually tire of reminding the rotten feminists how you are owed explanations for any and every query that you might dream up? Because there's a lot of interesting content being smothered by posts that demonstrate no desire to actually engage with it. What are you doing here other than making this all about how mean the feminists are when you talk over them?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Nah. So we're encouraging shitposters to enter a thread they're not interested in, in order to not contribute any productive discussion. Is it what we're wearing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:10
|
|
. You're a mod and you've been on the internet before [citation needed?] and I know I'm not saying anything you don't already know.
|
There's a piece up on Jezebel now, titled Becoming Ugly. I'm finding it runs extremely close to how my own feelings are going these days.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:1. Listen, you incredible nitwit. You simpering bufoon. You complete rear end. You misandrist. Damaging causes by being angry and aggressive is an actual thing that happens, you might not like it, but it's a huge turn off for people who ask questions to then get yelled at. It does, in fact, make other people less inclined to participate. So why do you hang around and whine about how mean and nasty people are, if you're less inclined to participate?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I think it says a lot that I've never read about lesbian feminism, queer feminism or any other term like that out in the wild, and arguing that a hypothetical category 'makes sense' is less relevant than whether people are making regular use of it. I don't think people are, to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
hit button posted:Regarding legality: As the BBC article notes, in the UK it could fall under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act. That does depend on the material being "publically displayed" though, which seems dubious in this case (the reporter states that the man was slanting the phone away from her - e.g. deliberately attempting to conceal it). Surely it's classed as exhibiting sexual acts in a public space, regardless of how the phone is being slanted. If you want to watch porn, do it in private where you can ensure the consent of all participants. A public space does not allow you to do such a thing. You have no control over who enters, or what they see and hear, and whether or not they consent to the exhibition of sexual acts on their daily commute. I can't believe how long this nonsense about slanting phones and turning the volume down is going to be harped on - it does not in any way render the viewing as something that is not the exhibition of a sexual act in a public space.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 14:59
|
|