Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[Humanistheart]

Actually, it didn't start out a slur at all, and is only used as a slur by school children, for the most part (ie, "That's so gay!") The word was used as a code by homosexuals themselves, starting around the 1920's - so that they could identify each other - but it's origins are much older. This is a word they chose for themselves.

Wrong.

As for lesbian, the word alludes to the poet Sappho, of lesbos, whose work deals largely with her emotional relationships with other women. Lesbians didn't adopt this word to separate themselves from the term "gay," it's been used since the 1500's.
.

They can use gay or lesbian for women, only gay for men. Women have more options even in names, hardly 'equal' now is it. But you miss the real point, feminists only push the topics that aid their own. It's been suggested here that this is not the case, but no example has been offered.

 

[Nanda]

Wrong.

Which part? I have literature to back my claim up, do you?

You miss the point, feminists only push the topics that aid their own. It's been suggested here that this is not the case, but no example has been offered.

Actually, an example has, you just don't choose to accept it, though you haven't given a compelling reason as to why.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that your example of how feminism is sexist was unjustified.

 

[Nanda]

They can use gay or lesbian for women, only gay for men. Women have more options even in names, hardly 'equal' now is it.

This is laughable. Feminists didn't come up with the term lesbian, to begin with, and I fail to see how womankind is benefitting from having a whole separate term for being homosexual. Maybe if you got a cookie every time you called yourself a lesbian, you'd have some kind of arguement for inequality here, but all I see is some desperate straw grasping.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They can use gay or lesbian for women, only gay for men. Women have more options even in names, hardly 'equal' now is it. But you miss the real point, feminists only push the topics that aid their own. It's been suggested here that this is not the case, but no example has been offered.

Damn straight! Also, look at how much more variety in shoes women have to choose from. Discrimination!

 

[Nanda]

Damn straight! Also, look at how much more variety in shoes women have to choose from. Discrimination!

Hey man, they make ladies shoes in men's sizes! Think of the drag queens!

 

[Perfect Circle]

Hey man, they make ladies shoes in men's sizes! Think of the drag queens!

Good point...

 

[Humanistheart]

This is laughable. Feminists didn't come up with the term lesbian, to begin with, and I fail to see how womankind is benefitting from having a whole separate term for being homosexual. Maybe if you got a cookie every time you called yourself a lesbian, you'd have some kind of arguement for inequality here, but all I see is some desperate straw grasping.

I told you, what, 3 times now? You've missed the larger picture for a side tangeant. Or perhaps your avoiding it because you can't defend your previous possition. Feminsts only advocate causes that will benifit them. Perhaps you'd care to provide an example where this is not the case?

 

[Willamena]

Feminsts only advocate causes that will benifit them. Perhaps you'd care to provide an example where this is not the case?

I thought the point was that feminists only advocate cases that will benefit women?

 

[Humanistheart]

I thought the point was that feminists only advocate cases that will benefit women?

Yes, feminists are women.

 

[Alceste]

I told you, what, 3 times now? You've missed the larger picture for a side tangeant. Or perhaps your avoiding it because you can't defend your previous possition. Feminsts only advocate causes that will benifit them. Perhaps you'd care to provide an example where this is not the case?

I'm a raging feminist, and my cause is war. I'm against it, even if it's happening far away, and my country isn't involved, and I have nothing to do with it. Wherever there's a war, I advocate the cause of peace.

If there were no wars going on, my main runners up for a "cause" would be maintaining the separation of church and state, advocating better standards of education including lowering (or eliminating) the cost of higher education, decriminalizing drug offenses, autonomy and self-determination for First Nations people, the modernization of copyright and patent laws and the protection of individual privacy against intrusions by the state or commercial interests.

What do "women" get out of all this, please tell me?

What you don't seem to realize is that the battle for equal opportunities for women is over, at least in the West. We're way, way past that now. Going on about the self-interested feminism of the suffragettes makes you look more than a little out of touch.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, feminists are women.

Except when they're men.


For what it's worth, would this count as an example of the new feminist advocating cases that don't specifically benefit women?:

Last week, I was told by a postmodern feminist on the Vegan Freak Forum that I was an anti-feminist because of my “vocal disdain” for strip bars. Anyone reading that thread who was thinking about whether to go to such a place received the approval of someone who calls herself a “feminist”—one who claims to be a graduate student in a women’s studies program no less. Indeed, the message was clear: patronizing a strip bar is a way of showing that you respect the decision a woman makes to engage in that sort of activity. It’s not only okay to go to strip bars; it’s a feminist thing to do. Remarkable.

I want to emphasize that no one is talking about criticizing or judging individual women who make such self-commodifying decisions. The issue is only whether those opposed to sexism should oppose these exploitative institutions. The postmodern feminists say that we should not do so; the radical feminists maintain that we should.

It is not surprising that PETA embraces the postmodern approach to feminism and encourages women to engage in exploitative actions “for the animals.” We have had decades of PETA sexist stunts ranging from “I’d rather go naked than [fill in the blank with just about anything]” to a “State of the Union Undress” with full frontal nudity. The postmodern feminists can always be counted on to serve as PETA’s cheering squad in the event that radical feminists point out that a movement that opposes the commodification of nonhumans should also object to the commodification of humans.

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/postmodern-feminism-and-animal-welfare-perfect-together/

 

[gnomon]

College. In the united states 64 percent of college students are female. Several decades ago when the majority of college graduates were men it was decided that the united states needed new programs to put women into college, one of them was title 9. So, when women represented the minority in college there was a big push to change this toward 'equlity', yet now that men are the minority in college where's the big push to get more men in? If the feminist movement represented equality in this country feminists would have to push for equality for all people when they are on the down end of the spectrum, but they don't. Feminists only push for equality when they're the ones to benifit from it.

1) Yes, a higher percentage of females are enrolling in college than males. So what? What do you know to prove that feminism is as opposed to sociologists who are examining this issue. People looking at the various social factors including varying cultural attitudes, the role our justice system in incarcerating a disproportionately high number of minority males, the growth in technological schools that are not classified as colleges, etc.

2) A feminist can be anyone. Any sex, gender or ethnic identity. To state that "feminists" only push for equality when they are the ones to benefit when a feminist can be anyone is just plain dumb.

3) This movement is not interested in returning to just any traditional roles. They are promoting Biblical traditional roles. There are more traditions out there regarding gender and marriage than just the Biblical one.

4) Equality is a misleading term. There is a difference between proportional equality and campaigning to remove irrational discrimination and to challenge our assumptions regarding sexual and gender identity.

5) Merely stating something along the lines like feminists are hypocrites is proof of nothing more than your opinion. Which, despite being asked to show otherwise, appears to be uninformed.

 

[Humanistheart]

What you don't seem to realize is that the battle for equal opportunities for women is over, at least in the West. .

I agree that women have already gained equal opportunities in the west. It's a reason feminism is no longer necessary. It would be like if we still had an anti-slave movement. This is why now when the movment gains in rights or privilages it's at the cost of men, the opposite of equality. Or are you not aware that women have more rights in the us than men.

And while you've listed personal concerns, noble concerns, you have not given an example of feminist organizations helping people outside the female gender.

 

[Alceste]

I agree that women have already gained equal opportunities in the west. It's a reason feminism is no longer necessary. It would be like if we still had an anti-slave movement. This is why now when the movment gains in rights or privilages it's at the cost of men, the opposite of equality. Or are you not aware that women have more rights in the us than men.

And while you've listed personal concerns, noble concerns, you have not given an example of feminist organizations helping people outside the female gender.

Ridiculous. You think we shouldn't care about the plight of women in places like Afghanistan? Slavery in places like Saudi Arabia?

So, now we're not talking about the causes of feminists any more, but the causes of "feminist organisations"? Pick a place to stick your goalposts and commit, please, then the discussion can continue.

 

[Humanistheart]

Ridiculous. You think we shouldn't care about the plight of women in places like Afghanistan? Slavery in places like Saudi Arabia?

So, now we're not talking about the causes of feminists any more, but the causes of "feminist organisations"? Pick a place to stick your goalposts and commit, please, then the discussion can continue.

Your now taking about forcing western ideals on the middle east and I'm the one that needs to commit? How far did you move those goal posts with this one? Sheesh.

 

[Nanda]

I told you, what, 3 times now? You've missed the larger picture for a side tangeant. Or perhaps your avoiding it because you can't defend your previous possition.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black! I guess you're just going to completely ignore the article that contradicts your previous "evidence".

Feminsts only advocate causes that will benifit them. Perhaps you'd care to provide an example where this is not the case?

I've already addressed your question. Gay Marriage was my answer. You chose not to accept it, based on your assertion that feminists don't intend to help gay men, only lesbians, which is absurd, which I also addressed, and yet, here we still are.

But if you don't like that, how about HIV/AIDS, which, again, effects everyone. War and Violence, which, again, effects everyone. Or the huge healthcare problem in America, Or racism, or Transgendered issues, or eating disorders.

 

[Alceste]

In the mean time,

Feminists for Animal Rights
Feminists for action on Climate Chage
Feminists against Sweatshops
Feminists against abortion clinic terrorism
Feminists for a pardon of Parwez Kambakhsh
Feminists against Abstinence Education

 

[Humanistheart]

Look at the pot calling the kettle black! I guess you're just going to completely ignore the article that contradicts your previous "evidence".



I've already addressed your question. Gay Marriage was my answer. You chose not to accept it, based on your assertion that feminists don't intend to help gay men, only lesbians, which is absurd, which I also addressed, and yet, here we still are.

But if you don't like that, how about HIV/AIDS, which, again, effects everyone. War and Violence, which, again, effects everyone. Or the huge healthcare problem in America, Or racism, or Transgendered issues, or eating disorders.

This does nothing to discourage my original assertion. As you said, stopping aids helps everyone, including women. Do you have an example of feminist groups helping with a cause that didn't benifit them? Helping other's in the process of helping themselves is good, but it's does nothing to disprove the point. How about helping with men's issue? Children's rights? Something that can be said to be altruistic and not an advancment for themselves. Also, I note you didn't cite any sources for your claims. Nor have I mind you, although none has been asked for yet. You claim feminists help in causes that don't help themselves, provide the evidence. If feminists cared about actual equality why'd they allow women to gain more rights in the US then men? That's what we call hypocrisy.

 

[Alceste]

Your now taking about forcing western ideals on the middle east and I'm the one that needs to commit? How far did you move those goal posts with this one? Sheesh.

Did you decide yet? Are we discussing feminists, as in your original post, or feminist organisations?

 

[Willamena]

This does nothing to discourage my original assertion. As you said, stopping aids helps everyone, including women. Do you have an example of feminist groups helping with a cause that didn't benifit them? Helping other's in the process of helping themselves is good, but it's does nothing to disprove the point. How about helping with men's issue? Children's rights? Something that can be said to be altruistic and not an advancment for themselves. Also, I note you didn't cite any sources for your claims. Nor have I mind you, although none has been asked for yet. You claim feminists help in causes that don't help themselves, provide the evidence.

There is nothing they can do altristically that does not involve women; and any example of benefitting men and children could also be held up as an example that also benefits them.

I think I see your game.