Yep.
Instead, they want to spend the bulk of their time trying to prove how bad feminism is, and how women aren't taking enough responsibility for their actions.
That's interesting to note, btw.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The "F word" for those who hate the word "feminist"
- Thread starter MoonWater
- Start date
Yep.
Instead, they want to spend the bulk of their time trying to prove how bad feminism is, and how women aren't taking enough responsibility for their actions.
That's interesting to note, btw.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi Revolting.....
OK....... got your point.
But the Rogers incident (or anything in context about it) won't remind many of any jokes, honest. (I do love the odd opportunity to be self-righteous!
)If you watch Rogers pre-murder video it does point to woman-hate, it does. But the actions that ensued pointed to young-people-hate in general.
I would not have used it (in debate combat) but a year ago we caged a young woman who liked stabbing men (of any age) to death. She thought it was funny. These incidents surely cannot be used in such debates.... just can't.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I missed nothing, I asked :-
..... and then went on to another point.
So...... where was that, then?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That is a very biased pov.
I just read the above afterp[osting to Revolting. Have a look at what I wrote.
No agenda here.......
and with your:-
....you're playing the old 'stuff words in their mouths' trick.
No go!
xkatz
Well-Known Member
To be fair this thread is in the debates section. Did you expect this thread to be a hugbox?
I call straw man here.
You refer to "they", thereby avoiding exactly who you're speaking about. If you have a beef with a particular post,
it would be good to address it, rather than give the appearance of lumping all us nons together in one group of
knuckle walking anti-feminists. And to seize upon CCypher's inability to find support for transsexual men by those
she would call "egalitarian" is a red herring.
Also, you don't define the "feminism" of which you speak.
Is it simply about gender equality?
Does it include both the libertarian & authoritarian wings of feminist thought?
Does it include the full breadth of feminist culture, from male friendly to the more oppositional fringe?
Last edited:
Answer my question, for the fourth time:
What has egalitarianism done for gender equality?
Nope. But please bring something of substance and legitimacy. Not misrepresentation or lies about a movement one knows little about.
First, I'm active in many areas IRL and online with gender and queer equality. So when I say "they", I'm not narrowing my scope to RF alone. It's a generalized "they" I regards to self-identified egalitarians who are so because they don't like feminism.
Second, there has yet been notable discussion about queer men and trans men with their experiences with inequality by egalitarians and MRA's in my experience. It's something feminism has been through before with its history of ignoring gay and bisexual women and trans women. A valid criticism of feminism is it's tendency to be dominated by white middle class or upper class educated heterosexual cis women. Intersectionality has been a problem that must be addressed by feminism in order for it to move forward.
So because we have been there and done that, it's easy to see in other labels and movements. I ask the question not to win any internet debate or play "gotcha!" But to help others avoid the mistakes we've made and still make.
Yes. Which leaves it open to critique and to praise. We are just as human as everybody else.
Of course, I already know that you're "bi" (ie, feminist & egalitarian).
Look at you...criticizing feminism in an area where I don't.
It does point out a difference between feminism as a subculture (or set of subcultures), & feminism as a philosophy (or set of'm). As I see advocacy for gay, bi, & trans women (& men), it's done by people who might not identify as feminists, but would fit comfortably into the feminist philosophy of gender equality. Consequently, I see feminism as benefiting them. (An example of it not being "bad".)
You are so often nicer to me than I expect.
Wait...that was supposed to sound good.
But instead it sounds bad...like I expect you to be an ogre!
Please...just ignore me when I try to act normal.
Even more so!
(Don't read anything into that cryptic response. I just thought it would sound cool.)
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
.......for the fourth time? I can't believe that you needed to shown this....
...... it would be fun if you could give an answer to any of my points, but you have not...... cannot......?
....Oh, alright, just for fun I'll let you steer this and answer your question, because it is such an easy one..........
What has the condition of Eggie done for Equality...?
Where I live, in 2010 a wonderful new piece of legislation was passed, called the Equality Act 2010. I picked just one Web site (at random) which writes about this..... here you go.
It gets better, because the entire European Union enacted Equality legislation which reaches even further than our UK law.... amazing.... and it was fueled by humanistic egalitarian mindsets. So easy.....
I don't expect you to answer mine.
I honestly do not believe that you can.
I didn't start this thread.... I responded to it....... and (imo) my points have not been answered at all.
I have shown that Feminism is exclusive and selective.... = not good
I have shown that there could never be a selective-exclusive section for Eggies....... = better
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
......... they might just feel that with eggie mindsets they don't need feminism. ??
This doesn't apply to all of feminism though.
It's too big a tent to generalize that much.
(I can only speak of Americastan though.)
It's divisive to make it about movements being starkly "good" or "bad".
(And yeah, I know...some feminists are guilty of this too.)
There's merit to be found all over the place....MRM, feminism, egalitarianism,
humanism....even within those evil Pubs & Dems. Shocking, eh?
For me the contentious issue has been which of the many banners I'll adopt.
The reason I started the thread about why I don't identify as feminist was cuz in
discussing the new DIR, no one was willing to offer a definition to allow inclusion.
But they made it clear that one had to identify as a "feminist". My favoring gender
equality was insufficient to join. So as soon as it became purple, I was pointedly
told to leave. I thought an explanation for not joining seemed in order. But some
feminists heatedly objected to the subject, & the thread was closed.
Last edited:
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
And exactly why is being selective a bad thing?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I don't see how you can be selective and claim to be egalitarian at the same time.
A loaded question, eh?
I didn't & don't say it is "bad".
I've even said it has its benefits.
But this narrow focus is a reason that I won't fly the flag.
Others simply call more to me, eg, libertarian, egalitarian.
It seems your posts to me are often a response to what someone else said.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So are people who fight against child abuse being too selective and non-egalitarian because they choose to focus on that issue?
Actually, your points were only in response to the videos posted in the OP. I thought they were poorly argued, in that you provided nothing but strawman responses. I did, in fact, argue against your counter-points.
Oh goodie. I like fun. Let's see how much fun this is...
Were you aware that the 2010 legislation was written under the guidance of Harriet Harman? Now, how does she identify herself again?
You're right. This is fun, isn't it?
oldbadger said:
Interesting. Back in 1923 Alice Paul penned the Equal Rights Amendment for the U.S., for the purpose of ensuring that suffragists did not end the fight for equality after attaining the right to vote. You know what the E.R.A. states?
'Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'
Sourced by wiki
You know who has been fighting to get this amendment passed?
Feminists.
You know who has been fighting against the ratification of this legislation?
People who don't like feminism.
Nope. Your example of equality legislation and my example of equality legislation have both been penned and advocated for by feminists.
Nope. Try again.
I just don't see that big a fundamental difference between fems & eggs.
You could easily be one, the other, or both. We shouldn't be so much at
odds with each other. Of course, I still want to disagree about something.
You could easily be one, the other, or both. We shouldn't be so much at
odds with each other. Of course, I still want to disagree about something.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
My fight is not against real egalitarians at all.