Is feminism off track?

[Debater Slayer]

Indeed. I should have tried to summarize more of the video. One premise that the female speaker starts with, is that she benefits every day from the feminists that came before her.

I guess her main point is that today we have a triage situation on our hands, and we don't seem to be focusing on the critical issues.

Some people certainly don't focus on critical issues, but it seems to me that they're a minority, and, above all, as I said in my first post, I don't think focusing on more than one issue necessarily means overlooking critical issues. One can focus on a lot of issues simultaneously, in my opinion.

 

[icehorse]

Some people certainly don't focus on critical issues, but it seems to me that they're a minority, and, above all, as I said in my first post, I don't think focusing on more than one issue necessarily means overlooking critical issues. One can focus on a lot of issues simultaneously, in my opinion.

I largely agree, but those who are focusing on grievance culture are getting an awful lot of airplay.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I largely agree, but those who are focusing on grievance culture are getting an awful lot of airplay.

I get the impression that a lot of people dismiss legitimate concerns as "grievance culture" or "victimhood mentality." Maybe there's some merit to the notion that some people exaggerate minor issues in a self-serving manner, but I haven't seen that with any significant frequency or scale.

 

[icehorse]

I get the impression that a lot of people dismiss legitimate concerns as "grievance culture" or "victimhood mentality." Maybe there's some merit to the notion that some people exaggerate minor issues in a self-serving manner, but I haven't seen that with any significant frequency or scale.

One example of this grievance culture is the notion of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" on campuses.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A little forward, a little backward. That is progress uphill.

 

[Debater Slayer]

One example of this grievance culture is the notion of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" on campuses.

I view the concept of a safe space as a designated space for certain groups to get together and share their thoughts and experiences without interruption or criticism from people outside the groups--who can still freely voice their criticism elsewhere. So it's a specific place for certain groups, but it doesn't have to detract from freedom of expression elsewhere or the spaces designated for other purposes.

As for trigger warnings, my understanding is that the idea is basically to place warnings on content that could trigger people with PTSD, severe traumatic experiences, etc., so that they can accordingly choose whether or not to proceed further and view or read the content.

As worded above, what's wrong with those concepts, specifically?

 

[icehorse]

As worded above, what's wrong with those concepts, specifically?

As above worded, they're fine. But those aren't the implementations that are causing grief. What's causing grief is having students impact course curriculums, having people block controversial speech, and so on.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As above worded, they're fine. But those aren't the implementations that are causing grief. What's causing grief is having students impact course curriculums, having people block controversial speech, and so on.

I agree that's bad, yes, but I don't think the concepts of safe spaces and trigger warnings in general should be blamed or dismissed because of those instances that are clearly not what the core concepts are about. I don't see a need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[icehorse]

I agree that's bad, yes, but I don't think the concepts of safe spaces and trigger warnings in general should be blamed or dismissed because of those instances that are clearly not what the core concepts are about. I don't see a need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Then, borrowing as I do from Confucius, we ought to label these things distinctly. Because ANY erosion of free speech is a really big deal.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Then, borrowing as I do from Confucius, we ought to label these things distinctly. Because ANY erosion of free speech is a really big deal.

Labeling them (the instances of misusing the concepts, if I'm understanding you correctly) distinctly sounds reasonable. Agreed.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

One example of this grievance culture is the notion of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" on campuses.

I still persist that where these concepts are abused are minority cases and mostly perpetuated by kids yet cited frequently and called a relevant part of feminism as a whole. As a disingenuous way to put the entirety of feminism in a negative light. I've even had conversations here about a personal story where I was, out and out, triggered by Jessica Jones because it relates on a deep level to people who suffered sexual abuse as kids. But I lauded that there were already trigger warnings in place in the form of a ratings system which I was in the wrong for not paying closer attention to. And stressed the importance of ratings systems as warnings for just that reason.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Leaning on my tagline from Confucius: I believe the average person in the West, who doesn't really know much about Islam, believes that Islam is "just another religion". As such, I think it's common for western feminists to take the stance that "all women's issues are the same". I don't think there is bad intention here, just some ignorance. The media feeds the West the line that "Islam is a religion of peace". It's natural to assume some equivalent experience, e.g. "here's how my life as a woman is in the West, Muslim women in the ME probably have similar experiences".

So the first step here is to get the word out that: Women in the West - while still not playing on a level field with men - are FAR more empowered and free and safe, than women in the ME.

I don't think that that basic fact is well understood in the West.

By who exactly? And why is this relevant? When proposing change to maximize the rights of LGBT, we don't consider 'at least you're not being beheaded like in other countries' as a pertinent discussion point of issues existing for LGBT here in the states.

 

[icehorse]

I still persist that where these concepts are abused are minority cases and mostly perpetuated by kids yet cited frequently and called a relevant part of feminism as a whole.

Acknowledging that we're on a bit of a tangent, I'd say that no matter how relatively frequent or infrequent these cases are, if any of them manage to restrict free speech, they are VERY consequential. And in fact, sometimes they succeed in restricting speech.

 

[icehorse]

By who exactly? And why is this relevant?

I believe that many western feminists are ignorant of their Muslim sisters' plight.

Really, are you asking why such ignorance is relevant? Did I misunderstand your question?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Acknowledging that we're on a bit of a tangent, I'd say that no matter how relatively frequent or infrequent these cases are, if any of them manage to restrict free speech, they are VERY consequential. And in fact, sometimes they succeed in restricting speech.

I think it's very important since we're trying to assert 'a large chunk' or 'many' feminists. I'm not seeing evidence of that. Only a few fringe cases which are also largely misinterpreted. As is the angle of 'free speech.' Too often I hear claims of free speech violations when talking about private facilities, websites or venues which are not in any way protected by free speech. If RF decides that you can't talk in detail about rape because they consider it obscene it's not a 'free speech' issue because you're not entitled to not be moderated by RF, only by government oversight. And in certain public settings where space is being rented, leased, or set aside for a specific purpose or program, the organizers also have a right to moderate the content that happens there. i.e. you go to a public school room being used for a chess club and say 'Chess sucks, Go is way better.' Them having you leave is not a violation of your free speech.

I believe that many western feminists are ignorant of their Muslim sisters' plight.

Really, are you asking why such ignorance is relevant? Did I misunderstand your question?

I don't believe that. Near every feminist in organizations, social events and conventions I've been to have read books by Muslim women on the subject, at the very least some of Fatima Mernissi's work or Malala Yousafza's. Let alone the number of symposiums, signings and general debates over the subject at large. Once again, are you sure you're not classifying feminism by a minority of young people on tumblr? Because that seems to be what's getting the lion share of attention and then called 'feminism.'

I'm also seeing 'the plight of their Muslim sisters' used either as a scapegoat against Islam in general (which neither of those two prolific Muslim writers did) or as a sort of misdirection off addressing domestic social issues in a sort of 'but there are starving children in Africa' kind of way.

 

[icehorse]

If RF decides that you can't talk in detail about rape because they consider it obscene it's not a 'free speech' issue because you're not entitled to not be moderated by RF

Agreed. But while you could argue that universities aren't required to allow free speech, when universities cave in to requests for censorship, it's a really bad sign.

Once again, are you sure you're not classifying feminism by a minority of young people on tumblr? Because that seems to be what's getting the lion share of attention and then called 'feminism.'

We're all in our own self-constructed bubbles to some degree. And companies like Google further this problem. In my bubble, it seems like people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali get a lot of grief from feminists. But if your bubble gives you a different sense of the situation, I'll take that as good news. (BTW, I'm not on tumblr ) I will say that I'm a bit tapped into the silicon valley crowd, and I'd characterize silicon valley feminists as largely silent on Muslim womens' issues.

I'm also seeing 'the plight of their Muslim sisters' used either as a scapegoat against Islam in general...

To the degree that the plight of Muslims women around the world is consistent (and largely it appears to be), it naturally becomes an indictment against Islam in general. If the shoe fits...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Agreed. But while you could argue that universities aren't required to allow free speech, when universities cave in to requests for censorship, it's a really bad sign.

I think it's a worse sign to give into toxic behavior under the guise of 'I should be able to say whatever I want, wherever I want.' I grant that a middle ground should be found, which is why I have no problem with the idea of safe spaces where some people can go to escape being called a number of colorful slurs with fake genders special snowflake syndrome and find some peace and community, but that there's still plenty of forums for discussing these issues in a more positive and productive way.

I will say that I'm a bit tapped into the silicon valley crowd

I find silicon valley culture to be all kinds of toxic in a number of different ways. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

To the degree that the plight of Muslims women around the world is consistent (and largely it appears to be), it naturally becomes an indictment against Islam in general. If the shoe fits...

Then I urge you to read some of the work by the two Muslim women I mentioned, who think the battle over Western dominance and Eastern lashback is trying to force the shoe, and more or less use women only as a topic of leverage rather than actually doing much to help these women. These women who still find value in their religious beliefs and must constantly have the low level desire to roll their eyes at people who tell them that their religious views (either too liberal or not enough) is bad for them and they know what those women's religion "really means."

 

[icehorse]

I think it's a worse sign to give into toxic behavior under the guise of 'I should be able to say whatever I want, wherever I want.'

Here I have to violently disagree. Who's to judge? Who have you ever met that you would be comfortable deciding for you, what you can and cannot listen to?

Instead, when toxic speech is spoken, it needs to be criticized.

These women who still find value in their religious beliefs and must constantly have the low level desire to roll their eyes at people who tell them that their religious views (either too liberal or not enough) is bad for them and they know what those women's religion "really means."

I infer (perhaps incorrectly?), that one of your messages here is that we cannot determine that some cultures are "worse" than others. Again, I have to violently disagree. I would bet you that if children were raised without religion, and then given honest, objective comparative religion classes when they were teenagers, very, very few girls would choose Islam. If my inference is correct, you seem to be discounting the terrible power of indoctrination.

 

[Revoltingest]

As above worded, they're fine. But those aren't the implementations that are causing grief. What's causing grief is having students impact course curriculums, having people block controversial speech, and so on.

I ran across this illustrative article today.....
Universities warned over 'snowflake' student demands

 

[icehorse]

I ran across this illustrative article today.....
Universities warned over 'snowflake' student demands

Thanks for the article that supports the OP. But too bad the stuff in this article is happening!