Simply put the name is misleading, why does the movement that is working towards the goal of gender equality continue to a large degree still call itself "Feminism" which gives the impression of a movement only being concerned about issues affecting women when in fact the vast majority of "Feminists" are just as outraged when Men are criticized for breaking with traditional gender roles doing things like being a stay at home dad, as when women are criticized for being to ambitious in their career? And as anyone who has considered themselves a feminist for a decent amount of time knows there are plenty of ignorant people (men and women) that think feminists are bitter "man haters", this change in name would do much to dispel that myth.
Well, there are always womanists... No name change is going to help, though, because those who call feminists "bitter man-haters" would do so regardless of what they called themselves. It's the content of their politics that is the issue, not the name.
Well that's the thing though. A lot of feminists are indeed "bitter man-haters." At the same time, a lot of feminists aren't.
Which really illustrates the problem with the term "feminist," and that is that it is an almost meaningless term. Just about anyone with a viewpoint on women can call themselves feminist, and there's no way to say these people aren't feminists because there's no real ideology attached to the word.
Even "gender equality" cannot be stated to be the goal of feminism, because there are schools of feminism, and certainly individual feminists, who are decidedly anti-men, and they are still called feminists. I'm not saying these speak for the whole, but separatist feminism is certainly a thing, so to say that "gender equality" is a part of feminism is evidently not the case.
So what does feminism mean? No idea. And that's the whole problem.
Well, there are always womanists... No name change is going to help, though, because those who call feminists "bitter man-haters" would do so regardless of what they called themselves. It's the content of their politics that is the issue, not the name.
"Manpower", "effeminacy": gendered terms that mislead people into sexist modes of thinking and ought to be excised from the language.
"Feminism", "patriarchy": gendered terms that mislead people, but it's their own fault for not studying feminist theory to understand what is actually meant, and how dare you suggest that they might sound offensive?!
It always amuses me that the progressive hypersensitivity to the implications of terminology abruptly ends when it reaches its own terminology. If the content of "feminism" is what's important and not the name, then surely there's no reason to object to "manpower" either. It's not as if there is any real confusion about what "manpower" means - which is more than can be said of "feminism".
And no, although it is very predictable of you to think so, not everyone who is skeptical of "feminism" is an entrenched misogynist. A name like "egalitarianism" that more accurately reflects the stated goals of mainstream feminists could do a lot to get their words taken seriously, rather than viewed as a Trojan horse for misandry and separatism. Of course, they'd have to clean up a lot of their other rhetoric, too; it is a huge recurring problem that so much of the academic progressive style was evolved in the environment of talking only with other academic progressives, and is utterly worthless for communicating with real human beings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Of course, they'd have to clean up a lot of their other rhetoric, too; it is a huge recurring problem that so much of the academic progressive style was evolved in the environment of talking only with other academic progressives, and is utterly worthless for communicating with real human beings.
I'm not sure if the implication that academic progressives aren't real human beings is deliberately ironic or just ironic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Were "feminism" created, as it is now, in the modern era it would have a different name.
The name is a holdover and, personally, I have no more problem with calling it feminism than with the NAACP even as I would hardly refer to anyone as a colored person. Historical vestiges happen, but at the same time, its the term thats actually known which has its own uses.
Correct. However, the proposition "There exist some people who will not be swayed by a name change" is not equivalent to the proposition "There do not exist any people who will be swayed by a name change".
What will convince people more effectively than any silly re-branding is genuine activism and intersectional organisation. That won't come out of academia at all. At least not first-world academia!
Intersectionality is a concept straight out of academia, and yet another example of the insular jargon with which activists are alienating themselves from the rest of the population. The American Civil Rights Movement swayed hearts and minds because its leaders were able to communicate their grievances to the public with a common language of human aspiration. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." He did not say, "The hetero- and cisnormative white patriarchal power structure institutionalizes privilege and leads to pervasive microaggressions against womyn, LGBTQI+ people, and racial minorities." Now, I suspect you may not be a huge fan of King, because he spoke of terrible things like peaceful democratic change over militancy, unity between once-oppressed and once-oppressor, and respect for the rights of every individual person. That's beside the point. The point is that his style of activism worked. His words, his clear and straightforward words, were persuasive. He is a hero in the American popular consciousness, and Derrick Bell never will be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Simply put the name is misleading, why does the movement that is working towards the goal of gender equality continue to a large degree still call itself "Feminism" which gives the impression of a movement only being concerned about issues affecting women when in fact the vast majority of "Feminists" are just as outraged when Men are criticized for breaking with traditional gender roles doing things like being a stay at home dad, as when women are criticized for being to ambitious in their career?
Holy ***** that is a long sentence.
On topic though- because feminism isn't about gender equality.
Intersectionality is a very simple concept if you can grasp what it means for things to 'intersect' as well as that groups that are marginalised don't all have the exact same experiences of it and that people can belong to multiple social categories at the same time. It's a pretty big thing far outside of any university.
Missing the point. Many (but not all) of these terms I'm talking about are actually quite simple concepts. The problem is that they're concepts packaged in an alien and unfriendly language.
Funny that you would try to browbeat me with MLK quotes, anyway, considering he also had a lot to say about how an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring and some choice words about white moderates (among which you are certainly counted).
Oh my god, he was on the left?! I had no idea! How could I possibly respect a person with whom I have some political differences of opinion?
The only reason that MLK is so loved outside of the people he fought for is that he's dead. The establishment that once hated him so have done all they can to turn him into a harmless symbol who once had a dream that is now obviously fulfilled and anyone who says otherwise just isn't grateful enough.
If this conspiracy theory were true, Malcolm X ought to be a hero too.
And again you're missing the point. Which is especially staggering because I already said directly that differences of opinion with King are beside the point. King's words persuaded America at large because he spoke the language of America at large. Ivory tower jargon does not do this. It would be wise for activists not to distance themselves through their dialect from the people they're supposed to be trying to reach. This is my central argument, and you have yet to address it even superficially.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, there are always womanists... No name change is going to help, though, because those who call feminists "bitter man-haters" would do so regardless of what they called themselves. It's the content of their politics that is the issue, not the name.
In the beginning there were plenty of womanists, those that campaigned for special labor laws that would apply only to women and children, however that school of feminism is pretty much dead and buried at this point, and actually I do think because a name change would help because there are people that genuinely believe that a "feminist" is a person that thinks women are better than men and as such are hostile to anyone that calls themselves a feminist, even while they themselves might actually believe in gender equality as well, these people are different than the people that think feminists are trying to oppress men while saying they are fighting for equality, this first groups confusion would actually be dispelled by a change of the movement's name to "Gender Equality" from "Feminism".
Well that's the thing though. A lot of feminists are indeed "bitter man-haters." At the same time, a lot of feminists aren't.
Which really illustrates the problem with the term "feminist," and that is that it is an almost meaningless term. Just about anyone with a viewpoint on women can call themselves feminist, and there's no way to say these people aren't feminists because there's no real ideology attached to the word.
Even "gender equality" cannot be stated to be the goal of feminism, because there are schools of feminism, and certainly individual feminists, who are decidedly anti-men, and they are still called feminists. I'm not saying these speak for the whole, but separatist feminism is certainly a thing, so to say that "gender equality" is a part of feminism is evidently not the case.
So what does feminism mean? No idea. And that's the whole problem.
What percent of feminists do you believe are bitter man haters? In my opinion its 2% of feminists that have any genuine hatred for men. The term "feminism" is actually pretty well defined as the fight for gender equality. Here are some dictionary definitions which all basically boil down to "the campaign to give women the same rights men hold" with the Merriam Webster definition having a second definition of "advocation for the rights and interests of women"
adjective, Sometimes, feministic
1.
advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
noun
2.
an advocate of such rights.
"Manpower", "effeminacy": gendered terms that mislead people into sexist modes of thinking and ought to be excised from the language.
"Feminism", "patriarchy": gendered terms that mislead people, but it's their own fault for not studying feminist theory to understand what is actually meant, and how dare you suggest that they might sound offensive?!
It always amuses me that the progressive hypersensitivity to the implications of terminology abruptly ends when it reaches its own terminology. If the content of "feminism" is what's important and not the name, then surely there's no reason to object to "manpower" either. It's not as if there is any real confusion about what "manpower" means - which is more than can be said of "feminism".
And no, although it is very predictable of you to think so, not everyone who is skeptical of "feminism" is an entrenched misogynist. A name like "egalitarianism" that more accurately reflects the stated goals of mainstream feminists could do a lot to get their words taken seriously, rather than viewed as a Trojan horse for misandry and separatism. Of course, they'd have to clean up a lot of their other rhetoric, too; it is a huge recurring problem that so much of the academic progressive style was evolved in the environment of talking only with other academic progressives, and is utterly worthless for communicating with real human beings.
Firstly, I am not a person that would say any criticism of the feminist movement means you are a misogynist, just as I wouldn't say any criticism of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians means you are a anti-Semite.
Moving on, political feminism has no problem with people using terms like "manpower" to mean "human-muscle-power" it has problems with people using terms like "sissy" and "*****" to describe cowards/cowardly behavior.
You're saying feminist academics need to "clean up" their rhetoric, what precisely do you advocate in this regard? My personal opinion on feminist academic rhetoric is that there is also a tendency to go tunnel vision on how the hostility to breaking traditional gender roles affects themselves as women, and forget that gender roles are bad for men and boys too, for example as a man your not supposed to admit it when you are scared and you likely will encounter hostility when you don't gender conform by wearing make up, enjoying sewing or cooking or if you just like wearing the color purple to name a few. Also I think alot phrasing academics use is a bit innarticulate, for example saying "the patriarchy is oppressive to women and men" I would say "patriarchical attitudes are oppressive to women's and men's aspirations". Also I think there is sometimes condescension when dealing with non-academics, academics think, well this person has never studied any of this in a formal setting, so they must be an ignorant ******** or this person must have never even thought about any of this stuff.
Were "feminism" created, as it is now, in the modern era it would have a different name.
The name is a holdover and, personally, I have no more problem with calling it feminism than with the NAACP even as I would hardly refer to anyone as a colored person. Historical vestiges happen, but at the same time, its the term thats actually known which has its own uses.
Meh
Sure the term feminism is already known, but it's also misunderstood widespread. A switch to "gender equality" would be very easy because what the name means is self evident.
I'm not a liberal academic. I know that there are plenty of people who have issues with the first-world feminist movements because it's often white and middle-class. Those issues would remain if the name was changed to "egalitarianism" or whatever else. The same goes for all those who have issues with feminist movements because they think there are things women should and shouldn't do. They won't be swayed by any name.
What will convince people more effectively than any silly re-branding is genuine activism and intersectional organisation. That won't come out of academia at all. At least not first-world academia!
The first world feminist movement is white and middle class for a few reasons, firstly it's overwhelming middle class women because they have the free time to engage in activism that working class women don't, and it's overwhelmingly white because the middle class in the 1st world is overwhelmingly white as a result of historic and present ethno-racial oppression/discrimination and lastly the movement is middle class and white because of despair, many women of color feel the feminist cause is hopeless and don't even bother with activism because it would be a waste of time. I know you aren't saying this but they way you worded your response it sort of sounds like you're saying "middle class white women need to shut up about their problems until poor women of color decide to join the movement too". Also plenty of academia in the first world is in fact involved in real world activism, many college professors are active members/leaders of feminist organisations.
However, the proposition "There exist some people who will not be swayed by a name change" is not equivalent to the proposition "There do not exist any people who will be swayed by a name change".
I feel the name does need to change, The times change and words can drag a movement even if something it is connected with is good having other BAD things connected with it make it a poor choice. For example we do not call environmentalist Nazi's despite the fact that the Nazi party was VERY VERY pro environmentalism. While not as an extreme shift. I am of the opinion that feminism terminology has created enough taint from its more extreme members. That it makes the cause desirable, people who would otherwise love to support gender equality, will not join this movement because of the stigma attached to it.
Because the issues that face them are different than the issues facing women worldwide.
So?
The issues facing white people in the Civil Rights Movement were different than the issues facing black people in the Civil Rights Movement. Are you saying that white support for black people in the Civil Rights Movement was a bad thing?
What percent of feminists do you believe are bitter man haters?
I do not know.
The term "feminism" is actually pretty well defined as the fight for gender equality.
That definition cannot be accurate then, as there are movements called "feminist" that involve the empowering of women beyond that of men, or even to the detriment of men.
Also, I have never met a "female seperatist" nor am I even aware of any active ones but if I'm just ignorant please educate me on the topic.
I generally don't post on this subforum (because, while I greatly enjoy debates, I tend to suck at it) but I wanted to comment on how this is such a great summation of why I'm big on personal liberty and not being ashamed to be yourself, but I really can't get into these "social justice" movements that have gained traction in recent history. The problem for me is, that I sometimes agree with the things that these people are saying, but it's the pernicious disdain for everything; their pious, smug attitude that really turns me off. I mean, just listen to how some feminists talk. What an awful, joyless worldview they have. And then there's the special little vernacular they've made up for themselves that just strikes me as a bunch of self-important academics circle jerked themselves into a singularity.
Where's the compassion? Where's the love of diversity and love of humanity that liberalism hangs its hat on? It's not there. It's replaced by smear campaigns, censorship, half-truths, regurgitation of debunked statistics and tired rhetoric. All of which is compounded by the lack of self awareness of how genuinely insane some of their claims sound. It's not a celebration of diversity. It's a shaming and status quo of a different sort. When a movement becomes so radicalized that it feels like every sentence you speak or post online feels like a constant walking on eggshells, that's where I tend to draw the line. I'd like to have a discussion and a debate about these ideas with them, but I can't. Not in a meaningful way, anyway. Not without "stepping on landmines," as the author puts it.
What type of feminism? The Islamic feminism of Fatima Mernissi and her Muslimah contemporaries? The Xicanisma of Ana Castillo and other Xicana feminists? Trans-inclusive feminism, or its opposite, TWERF?
There are as many feminisms as there are categories of women. Because the marginalization of women is something that occurs across the globe, save for a few matriarchal tribes. Just the other day I was drawn into a conversation on Facebook about what type of feminists exist within the confines of Islam. Muslim secular feminists are those who believe the UN should define the rights of the woman rather than refer to religion. Islamist feminists look at Islam through the confines of what is Islamically mandated. There are Islamic feminists who demand both Islam and human rights. There's enough discussion within the ummah about what women should wear--almost a disproportionate amount compared to FGM and slavery prevalent in the Arab Middle East--and I'm a big proponent of what Fatima Mernissi said about the mandate of the veil.
Just because you aren't aware of these various types of feminisms doesn't mean they don't exist. And the feminism of the white, middle class woman is the one that gets the most play in the American media--because the audience is white and middle class. Show me something in the American media that doesn't mostly cater to the white, middle class person.
Simply put the name is misleading, why does the movement that is working towards the goal of gender equality continue to a large degree still call itself "Feminism" which gives the impression of a movement only being concerned about issues affecting women when in fact the vast majority of "Feminists" are just as outraged when Men are criticized for breaking with traditional gender roles doing things like being a stay at home dad, as when women are criticized for being to ambitious in their career? And as anyone who has considered themselves a feminist for a decent amount of time knows there are plenty of ignorant people (men and women) that think feminists are bitter "man haters", this change in name would do much to dispel that myth.
Thoughts?
I actually wrote a paper about this in my women's studies class a few years ago. I disagreed with feminism on the basis that because feminism was so strongly tied to misandrism, that when double standards are presented by a so-called self-proclaimed "feminist" (who is actually a misandrist) that not only were people going to associate negative images with it but that people were going to falsely champion a cause that they misunderstand out of stupidity or ignorance. Additionally, it's likely that because of the name that people aren't going to assume that men need rights fought for, either. Including the breaking of gender roles.
tl;dr: This stuff just pisses me off because of the stigma attached to the term "feminism".
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I (sadly) wonder whether if the movement working towards gender equality changed its name (insofar as the movement is monolithic and able to change its name in this way), the misandric component would continue to publish misandric material under the name of the new movement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I (sadly) wonder whether if the movement working towards gender equality changed its name (insofar as the movement is monolithic and able to change its name in this way), the misandric component would continue to publish misandric material under the name of the new movement.
I would rather think the misandric component would accuse the component that changed its name of being a tool of the patriarchy, or whatever the appropriate word of the day is.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
If feminism is just "the radical notion that women are people," then how do you explain the prevalence of articles such as those listed in the attached image? Warning: language NSFW. This is for all the feminists who want to constantly tell people how feminism is hard at work advancing men's issues as well. Don't make me laugh.
One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck... "partially open handed." Another editor slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer." (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that's when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.
Yes, violence against men is "funny." The comments hardly put up much of a fight against this junk, either.
Now, every time we have gone through this before, I get the same ol', "Jezebel [or whatever site you linked] is extremely radical, hardly representative of the feminist movement as a whole." Well, no duh, nothing I could link would be representative of the "feminist movement as a whole."
Jezebel, of course, is extreme and almost no one visits it. It has the absolutely brutal Alexa ranking of 477 in the United States which makes it practically unheard of.
J/K, 477 makes it a powerhouse.
So feminism, at least the most common strain that I have encountered is not about "the radical notion that women are people" at all. It's Marxist from top to bottom. It's about class war. To suggest that anyone who opposes feminism hates women is like suggesting that anyone who isn't supporting the "revolution" must hate poor people.
Jezebel ≠ feminism, though. Particularly Jezebel's tendency to whine about conventionally attractive women. Traci Egan Morrissey recently moved to Vice, but I remember her once saying "I don't get raped because I'm smart.", demonstrating exactly how smart she is.
Oh, and I suggest you put that on Photobucket. My monitor has the text so small I can't read it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Thoughts?
Which really illustrates the problem with the term "feminist," and that is that it is an almost meaningless term. Just about anyone with a viewpoint on women can call themselves feminist, and there's no way to say these people aren't feminists because there's no real ideology attached to the word.
Even "gender equality" cannot be stated to be the goal of feminism, because there are schools of feminism, and certainly individual feminists, who are decidedly anti-men, and they are still called feminists. I'm not saying these speak for the whole, but separatist feminism is certainly a thing, so to say that "gender equality" is a part of feminism is evidently not the case.
So what does feminism mean? No idea. And that's the whole problem.
"Manpower", "effeminacy": gendered terms that mislead people into sexist modes of thinking and ought to be excised from the language.
"Feminism", "patriarchy": gendered terms that mislead people, but it's their own fault for not studying feminist theory to understand what is actually meant, and how dare you suggest that they might sound offensive?!
It always amuses me that the progressive hypersensitivity to the implications of terminology abruptly ends when it reaches its own terminology. If the content of "feminism" is what's important and not the name, then surely there's no reason to object to "manpower" either. It's not as if there is any real confusion about what "manpower" means - which is more than can be said of "feminism".
And no, although it is very predictable of you to think so, not everyone who is skeptical of "feminism" is an entrenched misogynist. A name like "egalitarianism" that more accurately reflects the stated goals of mainstream feminists could do a lot to get their words taken seriously, rather than viewed as a Trojan horse for misandry and separatism. Of course, they'd have to clean up a lot of their other rhetoric, too; it is a huge recurring problem that so much of the academic progressive style was evolved in the environment of talking only with other academic progressives, and is utterly worthless for communicating with real human beings.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not sure if the implication that academic progressives aren't real human beings is deliberately ironic or just ironic.
The name is a holdover and, personally, I have no more problem with calling it feminism than with the NAACP even as I would hardly refer to anyone as a colored person. Historical vestiges happen, but at the same time, its the term thats actually known which has its own uses.
Meh
I didn't describe you as one.
Correct. However, the proposition "There exist some people who will not be swayed by a name change" is not equivalent to the proposition "There do not exist any people who will be swayed by a name change".
Intersectionality is a concept straight out of academia, and yet another example of the insular jargon with which activists are alienating themselves from the rest of the population. The American Civil Rights Movement swayed hearts and minds because its leaders were able to communicate their grievances to the public with a common language of human aspiration. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." He did not say, "The hetero- and cisnormative white patriarchal power structure institutionalizes privilege and leads to pervasive microaggressions against womyn, LGBTQI+ people, and racial minorities." Now, I suspect you may not be a huge fan of King, because he spoke of terrible things like peaceful democratic change over militancy, unity between once-oppressed and once-oppressor, and respect for the rights of every individual person. That's beside the point. The point is that his style of activism worked. His words, his clear and straightforward words, were persuasive. He is a hero in the American popular consciousness, and Derrick Bell never will be.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Holy ***** that is a long sentence.
On topic though- because feminism isn't about gender equality.
Spam infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Oh my god, he was on the left?! I had no idea! How could I possibly respect a person with whom I have some political differences of opinion?
If this conspiracy theory were true, Malcolm X ought to be a hero too.
And again you're missing the point. Which is especially staggering because I already said directly that differences of opinion with King are beside the point. King's words persuaded America at large because he spoke the language of America at large. Ivory tower jargon does not do this. It would be wise for activists not to distance themselves through their dialect from the people they're supposed to be trying to reach. This is my central argument, and you have yet to address it even superficially.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In the beginning there were plenty of womanists, those that campaigned for special labor laws that would apply only to women and children, however that school of feminism is pretty much dead and buried at this point, and actually I do think because a name change would help because there are people that genuinely believe that a "feminist" is a person that thinks women are better than men and as such are hostile to anyone that calls themselves a feminist, even while they themselves might actually believe in gender equality as well, these people are different than the people that think feminists are trying to oppress men while saying they are fighting for equality, this first groups confusion would actually be dispelled by a change of the movement's name to "Gender Equality" from "Feminism".
What percent of feminists do you believe are bitter man haters? In my opinion its 2% of feminists that have any genuine hatred for men. The term "feminism" is actually pretty well defined as the fight for gender equality. Here are some dictionary definitions which all basically boil down to "the campaign to give women the same rights men hold" with the Merriam Webster definition having a second definition of "advocation for the rights and interests of women"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist?s=t
adjective, Sometimes, feministic
1.
advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
noun
2.
an advocate of such rights.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminist
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/feminism?q=feminist
an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men
Also, I have never met a "female seperatist" nor am I even aware of any active ones but if I'm just ignorant please educate me on the topic.
Firstly, I am not a person that would say any criticism of the feminist movement means you are a misogynist, just as I wouldn't say any criticism of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians means you are a anti-Semite.
Moving on, political feminism has no problem with people using terms like "manpower" to mean "human-muscle-power" it has problems with people using terms like "sissy" and "*****" to describe cowards/cowardly behavior.
You're saying feminist academics need to "clean up" their rhetoric, what precisely do you advocate in this regard? My personal opinion on feminist academic rhetoric is that there is also a tendency to go tunnel vision on how the hostility to breaking traditional gender roles affects themselves as women, and forget that gender roles are bad for men and boys too, for example as a man your not supposed to admit it when you are scared and you likely will encounter hostility when you don't gender conform by wearing make up, enjoying sewing or cooking or if you just like wearing the color purple to name a few. Also I think alot phrasing academics use is a bit innarticulate, for example saying "the patriarchy is oppressive to women and men" I would say "patriarchical attitudes are oppressive to women's and men's aspirations". Also I think there is sometimes condescension when dealing with non-academics, academics think, well this person has never studied any of this in a formal setting, so they must be an ignorant ******** or this person must have never even thought about any of this stuff.
Sure the term feminism is already known, but it's also misunderstood widespread. A switch to "gender equality" would be very easy because what the name means is self evident.
The first world feminist movement is white and middle class for a few reasons, firstly it's overwhelming middle class women because they have the free time to engage in activism that working class women don't, and it's overwhelmingly white because the middle class in the 1st world is overwhelmingly white as a result of historic and present ethno-racial oppression/discrimination and lastly the movement is middle class and white because of despair, many women of color feel the feminist cause is hopeless and don't even bother with activism because it would be a waste of time. I know you aren't saying this but they way you worded your response it sort of sounds like you're saying "middle class white women need to shut up about their problems until poor women of color decide to join the movement too". Also plenty of academia in the first world is in fact involved in real world activism, many college professors are active members/leaders of feminist organisations.
This is what I've been trying to say.
A) a bad thing?
B) outside of what you would expect, given that most of the first world is white?
The issues facing white people in the Civil Rights Movement were different than the issues facing black people in the Civil Rights Movement. Are you saying that white support for black people in the Civil Rights Movement was a bad thing?
I do not know.
That definition cannot be accurate then, as there are movements called "feminist" that involve the empowering of women beyond that of men, or even to the detriment of men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I generally don't post on this subforum (because, while I greatly enjoy debates, I tend to suck at it) but I wanted to comment on how this is such a great summation of why I'm big on personal liberty and not being ashamed to be yourself, but I really can't get into these "social justice" movements that have gained traction in recent history. The problem for me is, that I sometimes agree with the things that these people are saying, but it's the pernicious disdain for everything; their pious, smug attitude that really turns me off. I mean, just listen to how some feminists talk. What an awful, joyless worldview they have. And then there's the special little vernacular they've made up for themselves that just strikes me as a bunch of self-important academics circle jerked themselves into a singularity.
Where's the compassion? Where's the love of diversity and love of humanity that liberalism hangs its hat on? It's not there. It's replaced by smear campaigns, censorship, half-truths, regurgitation of debunked statistics and tired rhetoric. All of which is compounded by the lack of self awareness of how genuinely insane some of their claims sound. It's not a celebration of diversity. It's a shaming and status quo of a different sort. When a movement becomes so radicalized that it feels like every sentence you speak or post online feels like a constant walking on eggshells, that's where I tend to draw the line. I'd like to have a discussion and a debate about these ideas with them, but I can't. Not in a meaningful way, anyway. Not without "stepping on landmines," as the author puts it.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
There are as many feminisms as there are categories of women. Because the marginalization of women is something that occurs across the globe, save for a few matriarchal tribes. Just the other day I was drawn into a conversation on Facebook about what type of feminists exist within the confines of Islam. Muslim secular feminists are those who believe the UN should define the rights of the woman rather than refer to religion. Islamist feminists look at Islam through the confines of what is Islamically mandated. There are Islamic feminists who demand both Islam and human rights. There's enough discussion within the ummah about what women should wear--almost a disproportionate amount compared to FGM and slavery prevalent in the Arab Middle East--and I'm a big proponent of what Fatima Mernissi said about the mandate of the veil.
Just because you aren't aware of these various types of feminisms doesn't mean they don't exist. And the feminism of the white, middle class woman is the one that gets the most play in the American media--because the audience is white and middle class. Show me something in the American media that doesn't mostly cater to the white, middle class person.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
People are using the term as if it is a monolith. It is not. The backlash against FEMEN by Muslimah is proof enough of that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I actually wrote a paper about this in my women's studies class a few years ago. I disagreed with feminism on the basis that because feminism was so strongly tied to misandrism, that when double standards are presented by a so-called self-proclaimed "feminist" (who is actually a misandrist) that not only were people going to associate negative images with it but that people were going to falsely champion a cause that they misunderstand out of stupidity or ignorance. Additionally, it's likely that because of the name that people aren't going to assume that men need rights fought for, either. Including the breaking of gender roles.
tl;dr: This stuff just pisses me off because of the stigma attached to the term "feminism".
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I would rather think the misandric component would accuse the component that changed its name of being a tool of the patriarchy, or whatever the appropriate word of the day is.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Here's an excerpt from one of them:
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
Yes, violence against men is "funny." The comments hardly put up much of a fight against this junk, either.
Now, every time we have gone through this before, I get the same ol', "Jezebel [or whatever site you linked] is extremely radical, hardly representative of the feminist movement as a whole." Well, no duh, nothing I could link would be representative of the "feminist movement as a whole."
Jezebel, of course, is extreme and almost no one visits it. It has the absolutely brutal Alexa ranking of 477 in the United States which makes it practically unheard of.
J/K, 477 makes it a powerhouse.
So feminism, at least the most common strain that I have encountered is not about "the radical notion that women are people" at all. It's Marxist from top to bottom. It's about class war. To suggest that anyone who opposes feminism hates women is like suggesting that anyone who isn't supporting the "revolution" must hate poor people.
Oh, and I suggest you put that on Photobucket. My monitor has the text so small I can't read it.
On phasing: