3 ms·

"Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women don't exist?" Of course they exist. But I wouldn't call them "many", as you did

by gnosis 16y ago

"Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women don't exist?" Of course they exist. But I wouldn't call them "many", as you did in your original reply. They're a minority. The vast majority of feminists are simply after being treated no worse than men. A "radical" and "far-left" idea, I know. And since when did some Spectator columnist become the spokesperson for feminism?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
To clarify, by "many", I meant "enough to get lots of external visibility". If I meant a majority, I would have said "most". By "many", I meant "enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life" and "enough for me to dig up newspaper columns with a quick google search". My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy. And no matter how much you try to make this a political thing, it isn't. Right wing groups (like the tea party, libertarians, etc) face similar problems.
- gnosis 16y ago
  "I meant 'enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life'" Well, I'm not sure how representative one person's experience with "feminists" is. Personally, I've never met any "feminists" of the kind you describe. But, instead of taking two such datapoints as representative, why don't we look at what the NOW, the National Organization for Women, "the largest feminist organization in the United States" (with 500,000 contributing members and 5,987 chapters in 47 U.S. states) has as its stated purpose: To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. Does this sound so "crazy" or "extreme"? This is what feminism is about. What you've encountered is a minority deviation and what you've heard about feminism is a distortion. Feminists are not after dominance. They're after fairness and equal treatment. "My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy." I don't think this is a consequence of people meeting lots of "crazy feminists". I don't think most people meet any feminists of any sort whatsoever. Their views are largely shaped by the media. Which, in the US, is largely controlled by the right wing, who are rabidly anti-feminist. Also, the media tends to jump on any sensationalist story. So it's not really surprising that it's the extremists who'd get much of the spotlight. But they are not representative, by any means.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    From my original post: "...the rest of the world is treating the entire group as the boy who cried wolf." NOW is the girl crying wolf. "Oh noes, a vampire show depicting sex and violence against a woman!" (It's the media's latest "Outrage") http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php If you want people to do something other than dismiss you as one of those "social justice people", you need to disassociate yourself from NOW and their ilk. Also, NOW explicitly opposes equality when it gets in the way of special privileges for women/minorities. See section 5 of their proposed "Constitutional Equality Amendment". http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE
    - gnosis 16y ago
      Ok.. so you think affirmative action is negative discrimination (when its whole point is to remedy discrimination) and that there's nothing wrong with the media's endless depiction of violence against women. And you think anyone who disagrees with you on these issues is a "far-left extremist" and a "radical". You also completely ignore the host of major issues that NOW has taken important stands on in its 40 year history and focus on these two things, as if that's all NOW was about. I think this will be my last post in this thread. I didn't mean to get in to an hours-long debate about this.
      - kokoito 16y ago
        I do not live in the US, so could you please elaborate on the violence depiction issue? I was under the impression, that men get their asses kicked in the media _a lot_ more. (partly due to our trouble in telling the difference between "awesome" and "possibility severe injury"). But I digress. From an international perspective, I cannot take feminism in the US seriously, I just can't. In the original post, for example, the author takes issue with the WORDING OF A TEXT BOOK. Are you f__ing kidding me? Is that a problem, noteworthy for feminists to tackle? No. Again, going back to the international context: do people know, how women are treated not only in the Middle East, but in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Russia and CIS or Turkey? _THAT_ is discrimination. _THAT_ is what feminism should be fighting against. _NOT_ about some silly issues in grammar and style.

by gnosis 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

To clarify, by "many", I meant "enough to get lots of external visibility". If I meant a majority, I would have said "most". By "many", I meant "enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life" and "enough for me to dig up newspaper columns with a quick google search". My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy. And no matter how much you try to make this a political thing, it isn't. Right wing groups (like the tea party, libertarians, etc) face similar problems.

gnosis 16y ago
"I meant 'enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life'" Well, I'm not sure how representative one person's experience with "feminists" is. Personally, I've never met any "feminists" of the kind you describe. But, instead of taking two such datapoints as representative, why don't we look at what the NOW, the National Organization for Women, "the largest feminist organization in the United States" (with 500,000 contributing members and 5,987 chapters in 47 U.S. states) has as its stated purpose: To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. Does this sound so "crazy" or "extreme"? This is what feminism is about. What you've encountered is a minority deviation and what you've heard about feminism is a distortion. Feminists are not after dominance. They're after fairness and equal treatment. "My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy." I don't think this is a consequence of people meeting lots of "crazy feminists". I don't think most people meet any feminists of any sort whatsoever. Their views are largely shaped by the media. Which, in the US, is largely controlled by the right wing, who are rabidly anti-feminist. Also, the media tends to jump on any sensationalist story. So it's not really surprising that it's the extremists who'd get much of the spotlight. But they are not representative, by any means.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  From my original post: "...the rest of the world is treating the entire group as the boy who cried wolf." NOW is the girl crying wolf. "Oh noes, a vampire show depicting sex and violence against a woman!" (It's the media's latest "Outrage") http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php If you want people to do something other than dismiss you as one of those "social justice people", you need to disassociate yourself from NOW and their ilk. Also, NOW explicitly opposes equality when it gets in the way of special privileges for women/minorities. See section 5 of their proposed "Constitutional Equality Amendment". http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE
  - gnosis 16y ago
    Ok.. so you think affirmative action is negative discrimination (when its whole point is to remedy discrimination) and that there's nothing wrong with the media's endless depiction of violence against women. And you think anyone who disagrees with you on these issues is a "far-left extremist" and a "radical". You also completely ignore the host of major issues that NOW has taken important stands on in its 40 year history and focus on these two things, as if that's all NOW was about. I think this will be my last post in this thread. I didn't mean to get in to an hours-long debate about this.
    - kokoito 16y ago
      I do not live in the US, so could you please elaborate on the violence depiction issue? I was under the impression, that men get their asses kicked in the media _a lot_ more. (partly due to our trouble in telling the difference between "awesome" and "possibility severe injury"). But I digress. From an international perspective, I cannot take feminism in the US seriously, I just can't. In the original post, for example, the author takes issue with the WORDING OF A TEXT BOOK. Are you f__ing kidding me? Is that a problem, noteworthy for feminists to tackle? No. Again, going back to the international context: do people know, how women are treated not only in the Middle East, but in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Russia and CIS or Turkey? _THAT_ is discrimination. _THAT_ is what feminism should be fighting against. _NOT_ about some silly issues in grammar and style.