|
I think feminism got into trouble with a lot of those people when it made the movement the same word as the concept. Kinda like you could have anti-communist communists in a country with a communist party if they were communists who disagreed with the communist party; you can have anti-feminism feminists if people who agree with the concept of feminism do not like the feminism movement. Plus the whole trying to equate feminism with absolute gender equality rather than one aspect of the struggle for gender equality was always going to piss people off and should probably not have been attempted.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
To be fair the OP just asked for ideas and talk around this phenomenon, not solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
That's why you wouldn't change the feminism movement into an egalitarianism movement, you'd just stop pushing the idea that the feminism movement is the egalitarianism movement, rather than a movement within egalitarianism. This is a thing that actually bothers me a little. And by bothers me a little I mean only enough to post about it in this thread that already exists. I'm thinking that if it bothers me a little, it probably bothers some other people more, and perhaps enough for them to actually shy away from the movement or prime them to be turned against the movement. I doubt it's a particularly big issue so if someone wants to reply with "I doubt it's worth worrying about" then cool, I can't really object to that. But I do object to the absolutism presented here, which is a problem the left seems to have all over the place, where every person is either currently/soon for something, or irredeemably against it. I think we leave a lot of people in the middle that could be picked up with slight changes in approach or effort. Again though, not necessarily saying this is a point where we stand to pick up a lot of people. Kinda just going on about it here because this discussion is what prompted me wanting to address the broader trend. Deified Data posted:To be frank, "I used to be feminist until X" is a thing I hear a lot of and it always felt like emotional manipulation to me - like they want me to feel bad that we'd be on the same side if it weren't for those darn SJWs. I don't really buy it. If you held the belief with any conviction you wouldn't stop just because someone was rude to you or you saw something cringey on Tumblr, right? I don't let individuals reflect on the entire movement. See this point is part of what I'm talking about. You're trying to superimpose your own thought process on other people in order to divine what they believe. People fall into all kinds of logical traps all the time, extrapolating over an entire movement because of a few individuals is probably one of the milder ones. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
There is that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Honestly I think privilege theory is a wasteful dead end because it consists of vague, wide-net accusations that will never draw a useful response from anyone. Agreed. Additionally describing basic human rights as "privilege" is beyond hosed up. Not being stopped by police for my skin tone is not a privilege, it's the way every person should have it. Privilege implies I should either give it up or be ashamed of it. That I'm getting something I shouldn't have gotten. What the gently caress is a person supposed to do with their privilege? They shouldn't give it up because it constitutes basic human rights, so are you telling them to make them feel guilty? To shame them into being an ally? We fix this problem by moving people UP, so why does the term imply the fix would be bringing people DOWN? It's something we fix by removing something minorities have (disadvantage) but the term implies we fix the problem by removing something the majority has (privilege). It's a really terribly bad idea to use it on the majority. It was always going to cause anger, and it drat-well deserves to cause anger. Time to drop it and move on. It's entirely possible to teach about inequality without using this terrible term. Forgot another thing. The concept of privilege takes a systemic problem and places it on the individual. It shouldn't be possible to miss-describe a real existing problem this thoroughly. It's like the term was designed to be wrong. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:That's not what it does. Yes. No. No. To be conscious about it. No. No. It doesn't. No it does not. What? No. No. Maybe, but why give up a useful tool? I wasn't talking about the underlying thing privilege seeks to describe. I'm saying what the term itself implies. And you should give it up because it is not a useful tool, unless it's supposed to cause conflict and increase rifts while describing a phenomenon we've otherwise had the language to describe forever ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
I legit have never run into mansplaining or manspreading outside of internet arguments about feminism. Like I know some people tweet this poo poo, but I've only ever seen the tweets in said internet arguments. I really don't see them being all that relevant to anything. However. Mansplaining and Manspreading both seem to miss the point. Like mansplaining seems to be about men assuming women don't know poo poo than with the actual explaining. Manspreading is about the person lacking consideration and nothing to do with the spread itself. It should be mansuming and mansideration. It's no wonder they've been relegated to dumb internet wars. 
Futuresight fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
I'm talking about the terms. The terms. I'm saying that complaining about people using the terms mansplaining and manspreading is kinda ridiculous in a anti-feminism sense because you don't run into the discussion very often as a man unless you go looking for it. It's not like privilege that gets thrown around everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Well it wasn't a very serious post so I didn't think I'd have people taking it seriously. I even brought my mate along to help with that.Not saying it's people's fault for assuming I was very seriously attacking feminism though given the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Reproductive rights and equality are not directly relevant to a lot of women though, or at least not perceived to be by them. If you're comfortable where you are or there are non-gender barriers holding you down then equality doesn't matter to you. Same for reproductive rights if you never intend to have an abortion and can afford all the expenses around reproduction. A lot of reproductive rights revolves around access for poorer women because women of greater means can just circumvent things like states rights and pay for the stuff not covered by insurance, etc. And about Trump's pussy grabbing, he's not grabbing their pussy is he? I mean, Republicans are anti-human in plenty of ways and humans still vote for them. Without a sense of solidarity there's plenty of ways for a selfish rear end in a top hat to ignore the consequences to others, no matter how much those people are like them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
There might be some  stuff in there somewhere but we operate at such a high level relative to our evolutionary history these days that it would get lost in the noise of society and the complex nature of what we do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 22:04
|
|