what do you think feminism is? like, genuinely curious. what do you think the end goal of feminism is?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
That's just a rephrasing of your earlier statement + some vague moral high ground.
*(brief logical tempered response)*
*(omg that's why ppl h8 u!!!!)*
Why do they hate him? Because he makes sense? Elaborate. Don't throw vague words. That just makes everyone believe twofold that you don't have a legitimate ground.
Like at least tell us why he's wrong yo.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I really love the "Feminism is Fascism" take coming from the right. It's grade A quality stuff.
when you have groups who interpret "feminist" to mean "kill all men", and other groups who attack anyone who calls themselves "feminist" as "complete nutjob" then I do think the clarification is needed (and thanks for doing so Texas Cloverleaf ). Given a different context, "anti-feminism" might indeed mean "anti-feminazi" (for lack of a better term) which isn't necessarily a bad thing (and is what I think some trump supporters might paint it as)
(it's because of this confusion that I prefer calling myself egalitarian instead of feminist just because it avoids having to clarify)
that being said I think we're both essentially agreeing that "both sexes should be treated equally" is a very good thing, and anyone who doesn't think so is indeed a sexist idiot
Anyone who says "not being a feminist is simply sexist" needs to be made aware of the saying "one bad apple spoils the bunch"
To the people who reject the label, even despite agreeing with the core tenet of equality between the sexes, it isn't about the dictionary definition of feminism. It's about the actions of certain sets of people who call themselves feminists. As just one example, the poison M&M analogy, where a bunch of users of Twitter and Tumblr who called themselves feminists said something like "You say not all men are rapists? Here's a bowl of M&Ms, 10% are poison. Would you take a handful?" to essentially justify branding an entire group of people based on the actions of only a few individuals. You can call this a fringe group, but it's enough to taint the label "feminist" to large groups of people - yes, even those who agree with its core message.
Or, let me use an example that hits a little closer to home for me: intactivism. There was a group on Facebook called Mutilation Watch that would basically name and shame any parent who had their children circumcised (posting photos was common, and I do seem to remember that they doxxed several of these parents as well.) It was just one group, and mainstream intactivist groups like Intact America repeatedly condemned their actions, but Mutilation Watch was enough to turn people away from the label "intactivist," even those who agreed with the movement's anti-circumcision message. So, believe me, I understand very well about how a few bad apples can taint a label to some people.
Overall, though, why does it have to be about "label vs. label?" We can't unify on the grounds of having the same message (in the case of feminism, equality of the sexes)? We shouldn't be getting hung up over semantic disagreements; it's pointless.
To the people who reject the label, even despite agreeing with the core tenet of equality between the sexes, it isn't about the dictionary definition of feminism. It's about the actions of certain sets of people who call themselves feminists. As just one example, the poison M&M analogy, where a bunch of users of Twitter and Tumblr who called themselves feminists said something like "You say not all men are rapists? Here's a bowl of M&Ms, 10% are poison. Would you take a handful?" to essentially justify branding an entire group of people based on the actions of only a few individuals. You can call this a fringe group, but it's enough to taint the label "feminist" to large groups of people - yes, even those who agree with its core message.
Or, let me use an example that hits a little closer to home for me: intactivism. There was a group on Facebook called Mutilation Watch that would basically name and shame any parent who had their children circumcised (posting photos was common, and I do seem to remember that they doxxed several of these parents as well.) It was just one group, and mainstream intactivist groups like Intact America repeatedly condemned their actions, but Mutilation Watch was enough to turn people away from the label "intactivist," even those who agreed with the movement's anti-circumcision message. So, believe me, I understand very well about how a few bad apples can taint a label to some people.
Overall, though, why does it have to be about "label vs. label?" We can't unify on the grounds of having the same message (in the case of feminism, equality of the sexes)? We shouldn't be getting hung up over semantic disagreements; it's pointless.
No ill will towards you, but if you identify as an egalitarian, then by intentionally separating yourself from the "feminists" you're helping to perpetrate the myth that feminists are for anything other than equality. Since you do care about equality, then identifying as a feminist allows you to help stamp out the shitty baseless "kill all men" stereotypes much like how Texas Cloverleaf and blarajan are doing right now. It genuinely bothers me to see how many undeserved negative associations feminism has, and the more that people work to show that feminism is not some scary force of evil reverse-sexism, then that's much more beneficial for the movement as a whole.
i forgot that all feminists in the world are conspiring to destroy and kill all men.
how the hell can you even say, by ANY stretch of the imagination, that feminism is spoiled? spoiled by what? are you taking your views of feminism from reddit and meninist twitter? what is your idea of the word spoiled - not conforming to your specific set of beliefs on gender? i think the majority of feminist hate comes from people who don't understand the issue, or are simply unable to put themselves in another person's shoes. people get mad that feminists often go after nuanced issues, but if you were inconvenienced in any way then you would throw a fit.
i don't know if your latter quoted response is just a troll or not. either way it adds nothing. "point proven," great response!
edit: post i responded 2 was deleted
how the hell can you even say, by ANY stretch of the imagination, that feminism is spoiled? spoiled by what? are you taking your views of feminism from reddit and meninist twitter? what is your idea of the word spoiled - not conforming to your specific set of beliefs on gender? i think the majority of feminist hate comes from people who don't understand the issue, or are simply unable to put themselves in another person's shoes. people get mad that feminists often go after nuanced issues, but if you were inconvenienced in any way then you would throw a fit.
i don't know if your latter quoted response is just a troll or not. either way it adds nothing. "point proven," great response!
edit: post i responded 2 was deleted
Last edited:
I saw a video about the wall Trump's supposedly going to build, and I did a little mental maths regarding how much it would cost to run.
The average security guard in America earns $14 per hour, rounding up (source). Now obviously, it's no good just having them there 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, you're going to need them there 24/7. So that's $336 for 24 hours. My godfather worked in the security business for most of his working life, and he said you'd want at least 5 guards per mile of wall. The wall would be around 2000 miles long, so that would be roughly 10,000 guards. So that would cost $3,360,000 per day, or to put it another way $1,226,400,000 per year. Hell even if you made huge cutbacks and went as low as 2 guards per mile it would still cost $490,560,000 per year. And that's just in wages. That's before you've bought their clothes, food, water, weapons, ammunition, cameras and other equipment. AND this is assuming you're using the basic average joe security guards. The more highly trained ones will cost you much more. And since Mexico will NOT pay for the wall (source), all that money would be coming straight out of your taxes.
Oh and that doesn't include the cost of maintaining the wall either.
The average security guard in America earns $14 per hour, rounding up (source). Now obviously, it's no good just having them there 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, you're going to need them there 24/7. So that's $336 for 24 hours. My godfather worked in the security business for most of his working life, and he said you'd want at least 5 guards per mile of wall. The wall would be around 2000 miles long, so that would be roughly 10,000 guards. So that would cost $3,360,000 per day, or to put it another way $1,226,400,000 per year. Hell even if you made huge cutbacks and went as low as 2 guards per mile it would still cost $490,560,000 per year. And that's just in wages. That's before you've bought their clothes, food, water, weapons, ammunition, cameras and other equipment. AND this is assuming you're using the basic average joe security guards. The more highly trained ones will cost you much more. And since Mexico will NOT pay for the wall (source), all that money would be coming straight out of your taxes.
Oh and that doesn't include the cost of maintaining the wall either.
Asek
Banned deucer.
These numbers whilst alarming neglect the money america is already spending in manning its border. A more interesting figure would be an analysis of the cost differance between current figures spent on border security and the cost associated with building and manning the wall. I'd imagine money spent on border security would already be quite high, but I'm not an american so take what I say as a grain of salt
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...crimes/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
just amazing, comey for prison 2016
just amazing, comey for prison 2016
Have you never visited Tumblr?
I'm not going to deny that there probably exists at least one or more idiots out there who want to "kill all men" because there are nutjobs of all varieties in the world and all of them, regardless of their political stances, are loud, obnoxious, and not worth paying attention to.
My point is that you can't equate issues like the wage gap, abortion, and other examples of sexism still ingrained in our society with things like "a tumblr feminist once yelled at me so now I hate feminism". It literally doesn't matter, and if you think it does then you probably need to change your perspective and pay attention to more relevant issues.
A rather hilarious 5 reasons on why to vote for Trump from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/opinion/5-reasons-to-vote-trump.html?_r=0
Well, it's not like the US border service (or whatever it's called) would suddenly dissolve all their other operations if a wall was built. The cost of manning the wall would likely be in addition to everything else you already pay for.
That's like hating all republicans and conservative politics just because Trump exists.
half the people on tumblr probably can't even vote and are just speaking simplistically. and any person who does say they hate men is usually speaking from personal wrongs that men have done towards them (such as abuse). no one genuinely believes that theres going to be Women Ruling The World And Getting Rid Of All Men.
Ash Borer
I've heard they're short of room in hell
Let's rephrase the question. Are there people out there, that only have women's interest in mind, without regard for men's issues, that also call themselves feminist? I think that would describe pretty much everyone that calls themselves a feminist, actually. Of course, there are women's issues, and there are facets of society where women are disadvantaged. But, it's pretty clear that the goal of feminism, is not equality, but rather women's rights. This is evidenced by the fact that aspects of male disadvantage, such as higher suicide rate, lesser post-secondary enrollment, and no reproduction rights are not in the domain of feminism. This is not a critique of feminism, there's nothing wrong with having a rights group that seeks all of the injustices of the people it represents righted, and is not concerned about people it does not represent.
However, what disgusts me is the way in which the critics of feminism are smeared, from upon a golden throne of morality, because they claim that feminism's ultimate goal is equality. This is not the case, I've shown this, if it was about achieving an equality, men's issues would be in its domain. Now, it would be fine to agree that yes, feminism is not about equality and instead about women earning more rights, but to still think that it would still be wrong to call feminism is evil, because there ARE women's issues. I don't see an issue in that statement itself, but only because it has made admission of men's issues.
See this is the issue that I take. When you say that feminism is about equality, and it only is concerned with women's rights, you're saying that men's issues don't exist. A feminist skeptic viewpoint can be thought of to be something like "In our society men and women both have their advantages, and disadvantages. These balance out and create an equal society overall, even though in some areas there are inequalities. Therefore I'm against a women's rights group, because only furthering women's rights would turn them into a privileged class, and create inequality in society." Rather than "Men have it better than women in every way, and I'm opposed to women's rights because I want to keep it that way, and I am a man." Now while I don't agree with that first statement, we can all agree that it is way more defensible, morally.
I think a lot of people perceive feminism to be an ideology that believes that women are only disadvantaged in society, and have no privileges themselves. An ideology that has a perverse view on what equality actually is, and will not acknowledge that there are some places where gender inequality is a natural outcome of the differences between men and women. For example, how far more women are elementary school teachers being a product of women much more likely to want to be involved with young children, and not discrimination. It's not that they oppose aspects of women's rights where it is appropriate, or they want to have gender discrimination in society, but rather they see an ideology that by necessity denies that men have issues, and denies the reality of gender differences, which ultimately dehumanizes men, and denies reality.
Last edited:
Honestly I'm glad that people have handled the topic fairly well, but this has strayed too far from the topic. Steer it back or don't keep harping.
Oh cool, a response that's significantly more thought-out than "Have you never visited Tumblr?"
Either way, I'm not arguing that the movement is without flaws, but it honestly sounds to me like you're reading way too much into stuff that isn't there. Equality is good. Women's rights is good. If people are talking about women's rights, it doesn't mean they don't give a fuck about men. Nothing about this means or implies that feminism isn't about equality.
But yeah you did raise some interesting points and it's always nice to hear another perspective that has ideas that go beyond all of the negative stereotypes that people on the internet so often dwell on.
I can personally attest to the fact that it doesn't describe me, and while I don't care to try and statistically prove it, I find your claim that it describes "pretty much everyone that calls themselves a feminist" to be rather unlikely. I genuinely believe that feminism, not just indirectly but also directly, benefits men just as much as women, and I don't think it's an uncommonly held belief at all. A big example of this is definitely how getting rid of gender roles in society greatly helps both men and women in general.
That's a reasonable enough point, though it's rather on the harsh side.
I can't really agree with this. The end goal is equality, and furthering women's rights is one of the means of getting there. Being a feminist doesn't mean that I don't care about men's issues, kinda like how being a feminist doesn't mean that I don't care about racism or anti-semitism or whatever other issues are plaguing this world.
Either way, I'm not arguing that the movement is without flaws, but it honestly sounds to me like you're reading way too much into stuff that isn't there. Equality is good. Women's rights is good. If people are talking about women's rights, it doesn't mean they don't give a fuck about men. Nothing about this means or implies that feminism isn't about equality.
But yeah you did raise some interesting points and it's always nice to hear another perspective that has ideas that go beyond all of the negative stereotypes that people on the internet so often dwell on.
Hi, I hope this is okay, but considering the infowars post about voter fraud is not deleted I assume that posting theories that may or may not be true is allowed (also this theory has way more backing evidence than the infowars article fwiw), I just wanted to point out the possible positive outcome of this election. The positive being that either way the winner of this presidential election will be from a group of people that were once denied the ability to vote. Hillary Clinton, being a woman, would not have been allowed to vote prior to the passing of the 19th amendment in 1920. But as part of the Jim Crow laws starting in southern states in 1890 as part of a tool to deny African Americans their right to vote, several Literacy Tests were required in order to vote (they were administered disproportionately to Black men). I'm not saying that Donald Trump is illiterate, I'm just putting forth the following evidence:
So even if Hillary Clinton loses the Presidency, this would still be a historical election, as America would finally have a potentially illiterate president, seems like a win-win to me.
the wage gap (actually just an earnings gap) is bullshit. will add more shit after school but this is here for now
e: not only has clinton described herself as a feminist, she has brought up the (not) wage gap (among many others, like obama)
e: not only has clinton described herself as a feminist, she has brought up the (not) wage gap (among many others, like obama)
Last edited:
- Status