Is feminism still needed in the U.S.

[Me Myself]

Shallowness again? You can't judge a book by its cover.

On contrair, it is an undeniable psychological and a bad cover will destroy your sells.

Not only can you, but it will happen.

Why on Earth would you do that to your social cause?

 

[Me Myself]

oh really? then what brand does rationalism hold? or calvanism? or marxism or naturalism?

My apologies, you dont know the jargon.


Branding means putting a name and then working with associations that make it string and further the cause and purpose of your product (product doesnt need to be material, it can be a service or even a virtue. Branding is a word also used in social marketing, or marketing for social causes)

When I say branding I mean what you do when you name that which you are "selling" in this case an idea, an ideology.

 

[crossfire]

On contrair, it is an undeniable psychological and a bad cover will destroy your sells.

Not only can you, but it will happen.

Why on Earth would you do that to your social cause?

To make sure that mostly non-shallow people get involved?

 

[Me Myself]

To make sure that mostly non-shallow people get involved?

Oh no, everyone is influenced by the cover. That doesnt mean it will be the only thing they will evaluate, but it is certainly a consideration and a bad cover will not even attract notice.

Furthermore, if the cover is really bad or offensive to your ideas, and you read the back of the book and like the ideas, you will still have the mixed associations of ideas you like with ideas you dont or ideas you shouldnt trust.

For example, if you put a book with nude women in the cover that makes them so that they are being completely the ones selling the book and you read at the back and it talks about this being wrong, a lot of pele will prefer the book that is right next to it, also says objectification is wrong but does not objectify in it's cover ( or does not do what you deem as objectification)

The whole book with the pornstar in the cover may be a gazillion times bette rin content than the other book, but you wont read it all before you buy it and it if is sealed, then you are just getting the other one.

Furthermore, in a long bookshelf, a person might not even notice the wording of the title given the pattern of ignoring the books with those images on the cover (women pornstar looking etc)

Having a bad cover is just plain stupid.

 

[MoonWater]

Thats exactly the problem.

Feminism as a word doesnt say that. It gives more importance to women. If the philosophy is equality the name is bad branding.

if by more importance to women you mean increasing the amount of importance placed on women so that they are seen as equal to men rather than being seen as less important like they have been in the past then you would be correct. If by more importance you mean making women more important than men you would be wrong, as such an idea goes against the very definition of the term feminism which is a philosophy that says women should be equal to men.

besides as has been pointed out to you numerous times before your argument is based on the logical fallacy "etymological fallacy". You are trying to criticize the movement as whole simply because you don't like the name rather than trying to criticize it on it's own merits. You're ignoring the actual issues at hand wasting time and energy to denigrate a philosophy whose ideas you agree with simply because you don't like the name.

Besides, you're the only one claiming that the term "fem" in feminism means the word must mean women are more important than men when the etymology of the word in no way necessitates such an interpretation. Words are not defined by their etymology and there are countless words out there whose current definitions don't mesh with their etymological creation. So yes you're argument is fallacious and pointless because it is based on a false premise and completely ignores and distracts from the far more important issues at hand.

 

[crossfire]

Oh no, everyone is influenced by the cover. That doesnt mean it will be the only thing they will evaluate, but it is certainly a consideration and a bad cover will not even attract notice.

Furthermore, if the cover is really bad or offensive to your ideas, and you read the back of the book and like the ideas, you will still have the mixed associations of ideas you like with ideas you dont or ideas you shouldnt trust.

For example, if you put a book with nude women in the cover that makes them so that they are being completely the ones selling the book and you read at the back and it talks about this being wrong, a lot of pele will prefer the book that is right next to it, also says objectification is wrong but does not objectify in it's cover ( or does not do what you deem as objectification)

The whole book with the pornstar in the cover may be a gazillion times bette rin content than the other book, but you wont read it all before you buy it and it if is sealed, then you are just getting the other one.

Furthermore, in a long bookshelf, a person might not even notice the wording of the title given the pattern of ignoring the books with those images on the cover (women pornstar looking etc)

Having a bad cover is just plain stupid.

No, having no content is just plain stupid.

 

[Me Myself]

if by more importance to women you mean increasing the amount of importance placed on women so that they are seen as equal to men rather than being seen as less important like they have been in the past then you would be correct. If by more importance you mean making women more important than men you would be wrong, as such an idea goes against the very definition of the term feminism which is a philosophy that says women should be equal to men.

besides as has been pointed out to you numerous times before your argument is based on the logical fallacy "etymological fallacy". You are trying to criticize the movement as whole simply because you don't like the name rather than trying to criticize it on it's own merits. You're ignoring the actual issues at hand wasting time and energy to denigrate a philosophy whose ideas you agree with simply because you don't like the name.

Besides, you're the only one claiming that the term "fem" in feminism means the word must mean women are more important than men when the etymology of the word in no way necessitates such an interpretation. Words are not defined by their etymology and there are countless words out there whose current definitions don't mesh with their etymological creation. So yes you're argument is fallacious and pointless because it is based on a false premise and completely ignores and distracts from the far more important issues at hand.

No no no no.

I am not saying feminism means that e women are more important because of its name, I am saying it IMPLIES so. It is not the same. I have said this many times. Come on, read me here.

I am talking from a perspective of marketing, or in other words "what to do so people like and join the cause"

Words are not defined by their ethymologies, but the emotions that they inspire are and are without a question. A book may not be defined by its cover, but if the cover makes you feel uncomfortable you are less likely to buy the book than that other book which you also like but has a nice cover.

If you personally dont do that with books, cool for you, but we humans do it in general and with about everything and it is not a "logical" thing, but something that simply will happen.

Social causes need people feeling emotionally driven by them. Using a name that makes many people have associations contradictory to its cause is bad branding. (Or in other words, "bad way of making pele join your cause")

Come on, I have said is for some posts already, it is easy to understand, I am not saying feminism MEANS female are more important, I am saying the WORD IMPLIES THAT. We can disagree on that and whatever but at least understand my stance.

 

[Me Myself]

No, having no content is just plain stupid.

Content has many forms and the cover is part of the content.

 

[Alceste]

I agree even though my avatar pic might make me seem bad as a man.

You should stop beating yourself up about it. Have a female avatar if you want. Wear it with pride. I had a facepalming Galileo for a while and it was no big deal. We're trying to smash gender roles, not enforce them.

 

[MoonWater]

No no no no.

I am not saying feminism means that e women are more important because of its name, I am saying it IMPLIES so. It is not the same. I have said this many times. Come on, read me here.

I am talking from a perspective of marketing, or in other words "what to do so people like and join the cause"

Words are not defined by their ethymologies, but the emotions that they inspire are and are without a question. A book may not be defined by its cover, but if the cover makes you feel uncomfortable you are less likely to buy the book than that other book which you also like but has a nice cover.

If you personally dont do that with books, cool for you, but we humans do it in general and with about everything and it is not a "logical" thing, but something that simply will happen.

Social causes need people feeling emotionally driven by them. Using a name that makes many people have associations contradictory to its cause is bad branding. (Or in other words, "bad way of making pele join your cause")

Come on, I have said is for some posts already, it is easy to understand, I am not saying feminism MEANS female are more important, I am saying the WORD IMPLIES THAT. We can disagree on that and whatever but at least understand my stance.

alright fine, I disagree. Can we move on now?

 

[Alceste]

erm... could you post a link, alceste? I can't seem to find it:help:

I think you might need a fancy blue name like mine to see it.

 

[Me Myself]

alright fine, I disagree. Can we move on now?

Move on about what?

I think all of us agree we need women rights movements.

Is there anything to move on from that?

 

[Alceste]

if by more importance to women you mean increasing the amount of importance placed on women so that they are seen as equal to men rather than being seen as less important like they have been in the past then you would be correct. If by more importance you mean making women more important than men you would be wrong, as such an idea goes against the very definition of the term feminism which is a philosophy that says women should be equal to men.

besides as has been pointed out to you numerous times before your argument is based on the logical fallacy "etymological fallacy". You are trying to criticize the movement as whole simply because you don't like the name rather than trying to criticize it on it's own merits. You're ignoring the actual issues at hand wasting time and energy to denigrate a philosophy whose ideas you agree with simply because you don't like the name.

Besides, you're the only one claiming that the term "fem" in feminism means the word must mean women are more important than men when the etymology of the word in no way necessitates such an interpretation. Words are not defined by their etymology and there are countless words out there whose current definitions don't mesh with their etymological creation. So yes you're argument is fallacious and pointless because it is based on a false premise and completely ignores and distracts from the far more important issues at hand.

I never get tired of seeing that explained to Me Myself. Apparently, neither does he.

 

[MoonWater]

I think you might need a fancy blue name like mine to see it.

..., huh. okay then

 

[Me Myself]

I never get tired of seeing that explained to Me Myself. Apparently, neither does he.

The caricature of me you have in your head

Uncomfortable box and without holes to breath. What can I say?

 

[Alceste]

alright fine, I disagree. Can we move on now?

No, you will never, ever, ever be allowed to move on. You'll think the etymology / branding / marketing nonsense is finished with, then another thread will pop up and BOOM, there it is again. We won't be able to move on until we get a feminist DIR.

 

[Alceste]

The caricature of me you have in your head

Uncomfortable box and without holes to breath. What can I say?

You built it. If you don't like it, smash it.

 

[Titanic]

You should stop beating yourself up about it. Have a female avatar if you want. Wear it with pride. I had a facepalming Galileo for a while and it was no big deal. We're trying to smash gender roles, not enforce them.

Thank's Alceste.

 

[Me Myself]

I am listening.

Who has anything new to say about it?

We know women rights movements are needed, George provided good material for it.

 

[crossfire]

Content has many forms and the cover is part of the content.

And how do you expect to change the way people think by doing the same marketing/manipulative techniques and over again? You need to establish a new pattern, and let go of the old one.