By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Where are the feminists?

setsunatenshi on 28 June 2016
SuaveSocialist said:
setsunatenshi said:

1. no, not all types of feminism even pretend to strive for equality, that is an inane statement. there are plenty of people who would call themselves feminists and actually advocate women supremacy. i don't have any ground to stand here and determine who the 'true feminists' are, so, as I said before, if someone tells me they are a feminist I will take them at their word

2. i have expanded in a later comment on the patriarchy theory, so no, I don't agree it exists in today's western societies. It certainly did exist at some point in time where there was actual discrimination of genders, not anymore, not today. actual discrimination based on gender is in most places punished by law.

3. yes, of course it's a good thing. no, it does not depend on feminism, that is a baseless claim. it's simply a better term someone who actually wants true equality of opportunity for all people. If you need to specify that it's based on gender, you might be saying you're comfortable with discriminating for some other reason (race? religious views? eye color? sports team? nationality?)

4. as stated in further discussion with him, you could see we came to understand exactly what each other's points were on all of this. but to clarify in case you won't read, the comparison was an ad absurdum, showing that it's not fair to tell someone they are a feminist or communist (or whatever else) just because someone agrees with a part of what the entire ideology stands for. feminism is not contained by equality of gender anymore than communism is contained in agreeing with a non class based society. there's a ton more than that.

1.  If one identifies as a feminist and advocate female supremacy, one is either lying or wrong----just as one who advocates violence as a means to an end is not a pacifist, no matter how much one would insist whilst doing the Frank Castle all over the neighborhood.  Words mean things, and the meaning exists independently of people misusing them.
2.  Like I said, it is the degree of its existence to which where it can be argued for and against; arguing its existence as feminists define it is not incorrect in of itself and your point here was irrelevant in its entirety.
3.  That is not what I said.  I said it would fall short of being achieved if the gender aspect falls short, just as it would falll short of being achieved if any other aspect you've mentioned falls short.  For an egalitarian society to exist, all must pursued---including feminism.  Without, an egalitarian state cannot exist.
4.  That's what feminism is.  Dictionary, dude.  Someone else dug it up (in an inept attempt to argue against me) and proved it.  You're simply denying reality---but reality exists whether you accept it or not.  Your entire position is self-defeating considering the very language we're using demonstrably refutes it.

1- i am not the arbitrer of who is the true feminist, nor it's my job to discern between all the people who call themselves feminists. as several people have pointed out, the most vocal so called representatives of feminism today are pretty objectionable people with ideas I am absolutely against. that is who we are all arguing against. if you somehow believe these people don't represent you, then go and argue against them, not us.

2- please point to specific laws that are keeping women opressed in western developed societies nowadays in comparison to men. i don't care about feelings on the subject, only facts. as I said before, I could point to specific laws that discriminate in favor of women. can't think of a single one that does the exact opposite.

3- i meant a general you, not you specifically. if we both agree people should be treated fairly, no matter what gender, race, etc, then why would you need another word so say you are an egalitarian? or a humanist? feminism starts from the principle that women are somehow begining at an inferiority stage and trying to reach equality. I do not agree with this statement at all, which makes the concept of feminism and that word meaningless in today's western societies.

4- you are trying to do what's called the 'argument from definition'. not sure you did it intentionally or not, but I don't fall into such basic logic fallacies. there's feminism as a word (as it was conceived, a product of it's time) and there's feminism as a movement. the actions of current proponents of feminism don't match the definition you want to attach to. Where in the definition of National + Socialism is there anything about gas chambers and genocide? I argue against the actions of the current 'popular' feminists, not against dictionaries.



Around the Network
SuaveSocialist on 28 June 2016
setsunatenshi said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1.  If one identifies as a feminist and advocate female supremacy, one is either lying or wrong----just as one who advocates violence as a means to an end is not a pacifist, no matter how much one would insist whilst doing the Frank Castle all over the neighborhood.  Words mean things, and the meaning exists independently of people misusing them.
2.  Like I said, it is the degree of its existence to which where it can be argued for and against; arguing its existence as feminists define it is not incorrect in of itself and your point here was irrelevant in its entirety.
3.  That is not what I said.  I said it would fall short of being achieved if the gender aspect falls short, just as it would falll short of being achieved if any other aspect you've mentioned falls short.  For an egalitarian society to exist, all must pursued---including feminism.  Without, an egalitarian state cannot exist.
4.  That's what feminism is.  Dictionary, dude.  Someone else dug it up (in an inept attempt to argue against me) and proved it.  You're simply denying reality---but reality exists whether you accept it or not.  Your entire position is self-defeating considering the very language we're using demonstrably refutes it.

1- i am not the arbitrer of who is the true feminist, nor it's my job to discern between all the people who call themselves feminists. as several people have pointed out, the most vocal so called representatives of feminism today are pretty objectionable people with ideas I am absolutely against. that is who we are all arguing against. if you somehow believe these people don't represent you, then go and argue against them, not us.

2- please point to specific laws that are keeping women opressed in western developed societies nowadays in comparison to men. i don't care about feelings on the subject, only facts. as I said before, I could point to specific laws that discriminate in favor of women. can't think of a single one that does the exact opposite.

3- i meant a general you, not you specifically. if we both agree people should be treated fairly, no matter what gender, race, etc, then why would you need another word so say you are an egalitarian? or a humanist? feminism starts from the principle that women are somehow begining at an inferiority stage and trying to reach equality. I do not agree with this statement at all, which makes the concept of feminism and that word meaningless in today's western societies.

4- you are trying to do what's called the 'argument from definition'. not sure you did it intentionally or not, but I don't fall into such basic logic fallacies. there's feminism as a word (as it was conceived, a product of it's time) and there's feminism as a movement. the actions of current proponents of feminism don't match the definition you want to attach to. Where in the definition of National + Socialism is there anything about gas chambers and genocide? I argue against the actions of the current 'popular' feminists, not against dictionaries.

1.  It IS your job to know these things when YOU are trying to argue them.  You have been informed; what you do with the facts is your prerogative--even if that means your continued exercise of illogic and cognitive dissonance.  As it stands, you've gotten the very basics completely wrong and that sends a message that you know nothing about the subject--you will only find solidarity with the uninformed.

2.  No, your entire point here was proven irrelevant and it shall be treated as such.

3.  Because the two are not equal; a feminist can be racist and vice versa.  To be Egalitarian, one must strive for the sum of its parts and feminism is but one part.  A necessary one but one nonetheless.

4.  Actually, you have fallen into basic fallacy.  You have tried to assign a new meaning to concepts that is incompatible with those concepts in an irrational attempt to argue against them.  Your aim was to defeat your new meaning to assert your position against the actual concept.  CLASSIC STRAWMAN.  Failing that, you are now erroneously trying to form a FALLACY FALLACY because you'd rather be illogical than admit you were throwing around the concept of Feminism completely incorrectly.  It was not a fallacy to make this known to you.

 

Finally: Godwin's Law.  GG.  Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.



setsunatenshi on 28 June 2016
SuaveSocialist said:
setsunatenshi said:

1- i am not the arbitrer of who is the true feminist, nor it's my job to discern between all the people who call themselves feminists. as several people have pointed out, the most vocal so called representatives of feminism today are pretty objectionable people with ideas I am absolutely against. that is who we are all arguing against. if you somehow believe these people don't represent you, then go and argue against them, not us.

2- please point to specific laws that are keeping women opressed in western developed societies nowadays in comparison to men. i don't care about feelings on the subject, only facts. as I said before, I could point to specific laws that discriminate in favor of women. can't think of a single one that does the exact opposite.

3- i meant a general you, not you specifically. if we both agree people should be treated fairly, no matter what gender, race, etc, then why would you need another word so say you are an egalitarian? or a humanist? feminism starts from the principle that women are somehow begining at an inferiority stage and trying to reach equality. I do not agree with this statement at all, which makes the concept of feminism and that word meaningless in today's western societies.

4- you are trying to do what's called the 'argument from definition'. not sure you did it intentionally or not, but I don't fall into such basic logic fallacies. there's feminism as a word (as it was conceived, a product of it's time) and there's feminism as a movement. the actions of current proponents of feminism don't match the definition you want to attach to. Where in the definition of National + Socialism is there anything about gas chambers and genocide? I argue against the actions of the current 'popular' feminists, not against dictionaries.

1.  It IS your job to know these things when YOU are trying to argue them.  You have been informed; what you do with the facts is your prerogative--even if that means your continued exercise of illogic and cognitive dissonance.  As it stands, you've gotten the very basics completely wrong and that sends a message that you know nothing about the subject--you will only find solidarity with the uninformed.

2.  No, your entire point here was proven irrelevant and it shall be treated as such.

3.  Because the two are not equal; a feminist can be racist and vice versa.  To be Egalitarian, one must strive for the sum of its parts and feminism is but one part.  A necessary one but one nonetheless.

4.  Actually, you have fallen into basic fallacy.  You have tried to assign a new meaning to concepts that is incompatible with those concepts in an irrational attempt to argue against them.  Your aim was to defeat your new meaning to assert your position against the actual concept.  CLASSIC STRAWMAN.  Failing that, you are now erroneously trying to form a FALLACY FALLACY because you'd rather be illogical than admit you were throwing around the concept of Feminism completely incorrectly.  It was not a fallacy to make this known to you.

 

Finally: Godwin's Law.  GG.  Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

1- I don't argue definitions, it's pointless. I argue against the arguments presented to me. I gave specific examples, like the notion that women are somehow a type of 2nd class citizen flies in the face of reality for the western developed world that I know. I would never argue against feminism in actual patriarchal societies like Saudi Arabia. I have made it perfectly clear, the definition you use does not match the actions of the movement. I'm not concerned with the dictionary like you seem to be. If you still fail do understand the distinction, I'm sorry but I don't think I can help you on this one.

2- That is not a rebutal. I asked to be provided examples of laws that would support the feminist claims that women somehow don't have at least equal rights to men (again, to be 100% clear, in the western developed world). You have failed to provide such evidence and that speaks volumes.

3- we agree, finally! yes, being an egalitarian to me tells me a lot more about a person's views on society. I give 0 fucks if person A believes men and women should be treated fairly if at the same time this person thinks race X should have special benefits compared to race Y. It would be like saying Hitler was really kind to animals and forgetting to adress the rest of his views. basically, i don't have a special care for gender equality over other forms of equality and fair treatment of people.

4- when I said I don't argue definitions, I address the arguments that are presented to me. feminism starts with the assumption that we live in a patriarchal society (which i reject) and suposedly tries to fight against said patriarchy to reach equality of opportunity to men. when the base assumption is already in contention (existence of said patriarchy), that should clue you in on where the disagreement begins. It would be a strawman if the Anitas Sarkeesians and Zoe Quinns of the world didn't have the media pull they have. If tumblr, big reds and trigly puffs of the world didn't exist. If you feel you're not included in the same group of people a bunch of us are arguing against, then fight against them too, not against us. The type of people that need 'safe spaces' and trigger warnings, silence free speach on college campus, campaign to ban certain forms of art because they have objections to it. If all of these things don't apply to you, then great, we're not arguing against 'your' feminism. but just because it doesn't represent you specifically, it doesn't make it a strawman.



SuaveSocialist on 28 June 2016
setsunatenshi said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1.  It IS your job to know these things when YOU are trying to argue them.  You have been informed; what you do with the facts is your prerogative--even if that means your continued exercise of illogic and cognitive dissonance.  As it stands, you've gotten the very basics completely wrong and that sends a message that you know nothing about the subject--you will only find solidarity with the uninformed.

2.  No, your entire point here was proven irrelevant and it shall be treated as such.

3.  Because the two are not equal; a feminist can be racist and vice versa.  To be Egalitarian, one must strive for the sum of its parts and feminism is but one part.  A necessary one but one nonetheless.

4.  Actually, you have fallen into basic fallacy.  You have tried to assign a new meaning to concepts that is incompatible with those concepts in an irrational attempt to argue against them.  Your aim was to defeat your new meaning to assert your position against the actual concept.  CLASSIC STRAWMAN.  Failing that, you are now erroneously trying to form a FALLACY FALLACY because you'd rather be illogical than admit you were throwing around the concept of Feminism completely incorrectly.  It was not a fallacy to make this known to you.

 

Finally: Godwin's Law.  GG.  Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

 

Godwin's Law has been put into effect.  I'm no longer bothering to read your replies.  Feel free to keep rambling if you derive psychological validation from having the last word.



setsunatenshi on 28 June 2016
SuaveSocialist said:
setsunatenshi said:

 

Godwin's Law has been put into effect.  I'm no longer bothering to read your replies.  Feel free to keep rambling if you derive psychological validation from having the last word.

there are no brownie points to be earned here, but if it causes so much distress to have civil discussion (like I believe was the case from both sides) then you are free to bow out.

have a nice one