Is Feminism Outdated?

[muir]

@muir it isn't worth debating you on things like this because I could give you links to hundreds of articles from what most educated people would consider credible sources and you would say they are not credible because you prefer to believe rare, obscure and unproven articles. Yes, men are the victims of a lot of violence as well, but mostly from other men, and yes many women can be violent as well but it doesn't change the fact that men in the vast majority of cases cause much more physical harm when they are violent. If you still don't get that this isn't a men vs women issue then you just don't get it. Female genital mutilation has been performed on millions of girls and it is often women who perform and promote this procedure. I don't give a crap if well-known 'feminists' are funded by whoever you say they are, I care to stop young girls from being forced to endure a procedure that has been proven to be very harmful. I don't care if the people causing the harm are women or men, I just want them to stop. You are the one spreading false information and making these issues into a war between men and women. It is simply about protecting vulnerable women and girls from whoever is causing them harm.

No its not about protecting vulnerable women

I don't want women to be physically harmed either so don't try and claim that for feminism. That sort of stuff should all fall under basic human rights which should be in place to protect men and women

There is no need to raise the spectre of feminism in order to speak out for the protection of people in general

But it is rank hypocrisy to speak out only for the benefit of women whilst claiming you are doing it for 'equality'

If it was about equality you would be speaking for the protection of both men and women

if you only speak for the protection of women then you are not for equal rights...you are for womens rights

I can't understand how you cannot understand this very simple fact

I think you would really get a lot from watching the warren farrell clip i posted earlier in the thread...i presume you ignored it because it was relating to the suffering of men (young men) and you appear to not be concerned with the suffering of men?

 

[La Sagna]

No its not about protecting vulnerable women

I don't want women to be physically harmed either so don't try and claim that for feminism. That sort of stuff should all fall under basic human rights which should be in place to protect men and women

There is no need to raise the spectre of feminism in order to speak out for the protection of people in general

But it is rank hypocrisy to speak out only for the benefit of women whilst claiming you are doing it for 'equality'

If it was about equality you would be speaking for the protection of both men and women

if you only speak for the protection of women then you are not for equal rights...you are for womens rights

I can't understand how you cannot understand this very simple fact

I think you would really get a lot from watching the warren farrell clip i posted earlier in the thread...i presume you ignored it because it was relating to the suffering of men (young men) and you appear to not be concerned with the suffering of men?

With all due respect [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] you're the one who doesn't know what feminism is about, you twist it to fit your view of it. That doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong. Do you not think that if millions of men's genitalia were being mutilated that there wouldn't be a huge outcry? Now, some people would claim that circumcision could be called that and I didn't have my boys circumcised, but also the difference is that men can lead a normal life free from harm caused by the operation but FGM can lead to many health issues including an increased risk of dying from giving birth. If you can tell me of a surgical procedure forcibly being given to men so that they end up dying because they had sex (I would say when they give birth but obviously that doesn't fit) then I will support 100% any campaign, called whatsoever, to stop that from happening. You are being wilfully blind to the facts just so you can shout out your theories.

 

[invisible]

its not hypocrisy to champion a particular cause. thats completely wrong.

 

[muir]

With all due respect @muir you're the one who doesn't know what feminism is about, you twist it to fit your view of it.

No that's you

You are the one who ignores where the funding behind feminsim comes from because you don't want to face the truth...you are blinding yourself form it because it does not fit what you want to believe feminism is

How inconvenient the truth must be for you

That doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong.

Not everybody is wrong, there are many people who have understood thing at a deeper level then the superficial, surface narrative that is given to you by the mainstream media

Do you not think that if millions of men's genitalia were being mutilated that there wouldn't be a huge outcry?

Men would not start a movement called 'masculanism' to combat it they would jut decry it as a breach of human rights

Now, some people would claim that circumcision could be called that and I didn't have my boys circumcised,

I don't hear you condemning that

but also the difference is that men can lead a normal life free from harm caused by the operation but FGM can lead to many health issues including an increased risk of dying from giving birth. If you can tell me of a surgical procedure forcibly being given to men so that they end up dying because they had sex (I would say when they give birth but obviously that doesn't fit) then I will support 100% any campaign, called whatsoever, to stop that from happening. You are being wilfully blind to the facts just so you can shout out your theories.

I'm not blind to the facts..i'm the one looking at the whole picture...you are the one hiding behind the tiny sliver of the picture that is female genitalia mutilation

That has become your last hiding place

With a son you have described as being in crisis i thought that the warren farrel talk would be of interest to you

 

[invisible]

there is a movement of mens rights activists. they have started that movement.

feminism is not just one thing. it is a variety of schools of thought, many of them conflicting.

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], your argument against me wanting to protect girls from having their genitalia mutilated is like you saying that I shouldn't go save a group of dogs that are being abused by their owner because it would indicate that I don't care about cats. It is not a valid argument. If it were a group of cats being abused then I would want to save them as well, but saying that unless we save all the abused animals in the world then we shouldn't bother saving any means that we are doing nothing and just talking about it. I am more concerned with real life problems as opposed to the ideological problems that you concern yourself with. I guess I must be more of a pragmatic individual than you are.

 

[muir]

its not hypocrisy to champion a particular cause. thats completely wrong.

That wasn't what was claimed though was it? (straw man)

 

[muir]

there is a movement of mens rights activists. they have started that movement.

No doubt left with no other avenue by feminism than such a devisive move...mission acheived for the people behind feminism (divide and rule)

feminism is not just one thing. it is a variety of schools of thought, many of them conflicting.

You've said this already and i gave you an answer to it already...i said that a bias was energetically stamped within the fabric of the word 'FEMIN-ism'

 

[muir]

@muir , your argument against me wanting to protect girls from having their genitalia mutilated is like you saying that I shouldn't go save a group of dogs that are being abused by their owner because it would indicate that I don't care about cats. It is not a valid argument. If it were a group of cats being abused then I would want to save them as well, but saying that unless we save all the abused animals in the world then we shouldn't bother saving any means that we are doing nothing and just talking about it. I am more concerned with real life problems as opposed to the ideological problems that you concern yourself with. I guess I must be more of a pragmatic individual than you are.

I didn't say not to campaign for it i said don't label it 'feminism'

Label it human rights and whilst doing it say that the mutilation of women and men against their will is unacceptable

Please...no double standards....or if you must commit double standards then at least don't try and hide falsely behind equality

If you were a 'pragmatic individual' then you would watch the warren farrel talk

 

[invisible]

if theres on thing ive noticed that is common to all of your posts on this site, it is not as you claim your championing of the underdog. its your ability to wilfully ignore perspectives that you have not already accepted as your own, and to claim that doing so means that you are in possession of the truth, or that you have apprehended the genuine state of things, the bigger picture. but all you see is what you want to see. even when direct contradictions arise to statements you have made, you pervert them to support your agendas. there is no point discussing anything with you. ever. you simply will not admit of the possibility of any valid alternative perspective.

 

[muir]

if theres on thing ive noticed that is common to all of your posts on this site, it is not as you claim your championing of the underdog. its your ability to wilfully ignore perspectives that you have not already accepted as your own, and to claim that doing so means that you are in possession of the truth, or that you have apprehended the genuine state of things, the bigger picture. but all you see is what you want to see. even when direct contradictions arise to statements you have made, you pervert them to support your agendas. there is no point discussing anything with you. ever. you simply will not admit of the possibility of any valid alternative perspective.

Sounds like you are doing just that which you are claiming i'm doing lol

Please provide examples or you will look like you are setting up another strawman

For example I could call you a lying prick but unless i gave examples it would just be an unproven claim

 

[Lark]

if theres on thing ive noticed that is common to all of your posts on this site, it is not as you claim your championing of the underdog. its your ability to wilfully ignore perspectives that you have not already accepted as your own, and to claim that doing so means that you are in possession of the truth, or that you have apprehended the genuine state of things, the bigger picture. but all you see is what you want to see. even when direct contradictions arise to statements you have made, you pervert them to support your agendas. there is no point discussing anything with you. ever. you simply will not admit of the possibility of any valid alternative perspective.

Its called confirmation bias, its one of a bunch of logical fallacies which are common to a true believer type, I've encountered them online and on forums before, the ideologies change but the underlying character or personality seldom does.

 

[muir]

Its called confirmation bias, its one of a bunch of logical fallacies which are common to a true believer type, I've encountered them online and on forums before, the ideologies change but the underlying character or personality seldom does.

Oh look who pops into the party to take a pop at muir!

Ok then lark give me an example of me doing this or face accusations of being a shit stirring maker of baseless accusations!

What have i said that isn't true?

 

[Lark]

there is a movement of mens rights activists. they have started that movement.

feminism is not just one thing. it is a variety of schools of thought, many of them conflicting.

That's true, the evolution of feminism, its fragmentation and the response of its adherents and allegants, aswell as its critics, to that fragmentation is very interesting and instructive.

I think it is something which happens to all political ideologies, particularly those which endure long enough or remain popular long enough for disatisfaction to arise without disaffiliation, for instance the diversification of conservative opinion into neocons, theocons, libcons, culturalcons, fiscalcons or the diverse and disparite opinion gathered under socialist or anarchist umbrellas, that's before you get into the vagaries of globalist and anti-globalist.

I think that feminism is an excellent example of what happens to so called emancipatory or liberation movements in their relationship to their core constituency or the dilemmas of representation and representativeness. There are a lot of women who do not identify with feminism, some object to feminism's supposed monopoly upon feminity or consider it unrepresentative of feminity, in turn feminism may raise objections about what is meant by feminity or what has been decided is feminity and by whom. Which in turn opens or makes for a great discussion of what's in a name? Or how that may be applied to other ideologies, for instance is a "conservatism" which posits radical, even revolutionary change in the status quo towards abstract, theoretical "realities", still conservative?

This is part of why I love politics but its hard to discuss this, most people just want to hear themselves talk or hear their ideas confirmed.

 

[muir]

You know what i've learned?

It's not whether something is true or not that bothers some people...it is whether or not they like what they are hearing

If they don't like what they are hearing (even if it's true) then they will discount it and rationalise away about why they are objecting to it....but they can't disprove it because its true (they just don't want to face the truth on that issue)

This is when they make all sorts of baseless accusations.....because they can't criticise what has been said (because it's true) so they have to turn to personal attacks and rationalisations about why they are trying to get the person to shut up

 

[Lark]

Oh look who pops into the party to take a pop at muir!

Ok then lark give me an example of me doing this or face accusations of being a shit stirring maker of baseless accusations!

What have i said that isn't true?

The great thing about forums is that if you dont read a post the first time you can always go back and read it again:

Its called confirmation bias, its one of a bunch of logical fallacies which are common to a true believer type, I've encountered them online and on forums before, the ideologies change but the underlying character or personality seldom does.

Noticing a distinct lack of any evidence to support your post there bubby but then maybe this is an example of your good self not needing evidence any time you could jump to conclusions instead. Which is an example of what do you think?

If the cap fits you know.

 

[muir]

That's true, the evolution of feminism, its fragmentation and the response of its adherents and allegants, aswell as its critics, to that fragmentation is very interesting and instructive.

I think it is something which happens to all political ideologies, particularly those which endure long enough or remain popular long enough for disatisfaction to arise without disaffiliation, for instance the diversification of conservative opinion into neocons, theocons, libcons, culturalcons, fiscalcons or the diverse and disparite opinion gathered under socialist or anarchist umbrellas, that's before you get into the vagaries of globalist and anti-globalist.

I think that feminism is an excellent example of what happens to so called emancipatory or liberation movements in their relationship to their core constituency or the dilemmas of representation and representativeness. There are a lot of women who do not identify with feminism, some object to feminism's supposed monopoly upon feminity or consider it unrepresentative of feminity, in turn feminism may raise objections about what is meant by feminity or what has been decided is feminity and by whom. Which in turn opens or makes for a great discussion of what's in a name? Or how that may be applied to other ideologies, for instance is a "conservatism" which posits radical, even revolutionary change in the status quo towards abstract, theoretical "realities", still conservative?

This is part of why I love politics but its hard to discuss this, most people just want to hear themselves talk or hear their ideas confirmed.

Hard to discuss?

maybe its hard for you because you want to hear your ideas confirmed but instead people disagree with you?

Still at least you get to hear yourself talk huh? (cue Fromm worship)

 

[muir]

The great thing about forums is that if you dont read a post the first time you can always go back and read it again:



Noticing a distinct lack of any evidence to support your post there bubby but then maybe this is an example of your good self not needing evidence any time you could jump to conclusions instead. Which is an example of what do you think?

If the cap fits you know.

You haven't provided me with an example of me being guilty of confirmation bias so i guess you are just making baseless accusations to stir up shit

If you look through this thread and analyse the posts i am confident you will find that the poster that has offered the most evidence and the least unfounded opinion is none other than the person you are accusing of providing no evidence

 

[La Sagna]

I didn't say not to campaign for it i said don't label it 'feminism'

Label it human rights and whilst doing it say that the mutilation of women and men against their will is unacceptable

Please...no double standards....or if you must commit double standards then at least don't try and hide falsely behind equality

If you were a 'pragmatic individual' then you would watch the warren farrel talk

There is no double standard in being a champion for human rights and a feminist (the proper definition of one as in someone who supports equal rights for women). Can I not believe in animal rights and also belong to an organization that takes care of abused dogs? Can I not believe in the rights of all handicapped people to be treated fairly but also work in a charity that supports blind people in particular? Can I not support mental health services for all but have a special interest in care for schizophrenics because I have a family member who is schizophrenic?

 

[muir]

There is no double standard in being a champion for human rights and a feminist (the proper definition of one as in someone who supports equal rights for women). Can I not believe in animal rights and also belong to an organization that takes care of abused dogs? Can I not believe in the rights of all handicapped people to be treated fairly but also work in a charity that supports blind people in particular? Can I not support mental health services for all but have a special interest in care for schizophrenics because I have a family member who is schizophrenic?

Its 'animal rights' it's not 'dog rights'

Equally it should be 'human rights' not 'female rights'

why is this so hard to grasp?

If you want to focus on dogs then that's fine but by saying 'animal rights' it shows that you consciously acknowledge that what is not acceptable to be done to dogs is also not acceptable to be done to cats

Equally you can focus your efforts on women but call it 'human rights' because then it shows that you consciously acknowledge that what is unacceptable to be done to women is also unacceptable to be done to men

Legal protections that are offered to women should also be offered to men. if you do not believe this then you do not believe in equality and should not falsely claim to stand for that