[saintless]

@The Roving ENFP. I will not deny the validity of those last words. However, I still don't think it is necessary that every finer point of feminism must be expressed through its name. No word or term or name or label will allow one to discern the entire picture of what said thing represents. Yes, there are people who only look at things on the surface level and then disregard anything that doesn't immediately please, however my goal is not to cater to their lack of sophistication. My goal is to drive them to actually engage with the matter at hand and explore further into it.

It's almost like through not the same as my general disinterest in dumbing things down for people. I will find a simpler and clearer way to describe something to someone if they're confused, but I will always track back to the original sentiment for that is the real meat of the matter. But also, no word, term, etc ever fully does justice for the thing it is prescribed to, which I just realize is another point to make. There is a stark difference between prescription and description. Feminism is not a description (as in describes) of the movement but rather a prescription (something that has been assigned to the movement whether arbitrarily or not).

Feminism's "bad reputation" can be restored as much as anything else can, as much as the woman's reputation can be restored, as much as the black man's or Asian woman's. If I didn't think reputations could be restored, then I wouldn't be in the fight for equality, rights, etc. However, even if feminism were to revert to a different name, I doubt it's bad reputation would go away. Why? The people who ruined feminism's reputation. Now, I am not talking about the radical feminist even though they are a factor in this. I am talking about the men, the misogynists who portrayed feminism as something evil through media, etc in order to discredit the movement. Its feminism's burden to bear, but it was not feminism's fault that people tried to discredit them. Basically, misogynists and even simply good-hearted people who simply desire to keep the status quo would find other ways to discredit the movement... they might start to bring up the history of the movement and its name change. They might claim its feminism in disguise, sneaking into your child's bedroom. Perhaps they would take a different route and claim hwo the new movement disrupts people's daily lives with absurd notions. *sighs* Who the hell knows what they would come up with, but they would come up with something. Thusly, I will still advocate for enlightenment of the topic rather than changing names. A name change might help the movement gain some ground, but it will still have many battles to fight.

[MegaTuxRacer]

@The Roving ENFP. I will not deny the validity of those last words. However, I still don't think it is necessary that every finer point of feminism must be expressed through its name. No word or term or name or label will allow one to discern the entire picture of what said thing represents.

Okay so what's the major point? From what I gathered from this thread, feminism's main goal right now is for equal rights for people of all genders. Is this correct? If it is, I wouldn't call that one of those nuanced finer points that can't be adequately described in the name.

Yes, there are people who only look at things on the surface level and then disregard anything that doesn't immediately please, however my goal is not to cater to their lack of sophistication. My goal is to drive them to actually engage with the matter at hand and explore further into it.

Yeah, but there's also the effort in pragmatism. There are so many different groups, each with their own goals and missions that I can't be assed to learn about all of them. In the case of feminism, I can't be assed to learn about all of the different types of feminism since they are all called feminism. Don't you see how insanely stupid it is to have multiple belief systems with differing modus operandi under one name, all moving in different directions and expecting people to give a rat's ass about what you have to say about your version of the story when the other versions have a stigma attached? And how many men want to run around under the banner of "feminism"?

It may lack sophistication to scoff at feminism without having heard the whole story, but I wouldn't say that's unreasonable. It's confusing in its ambiguity. The label may not mean a lot to you, but I am willing to bet that it means a lot to a lot of men. If this is indeed an effort to bring people together and you truly don't care about the label, why defend it?

It's almost like through not the same as my general disinterest in dumbing things down for people. I will find a simpler and clearer way to describe something to someone if they're confused, but I will always track back to the original sentiment for that is the real meat of the matter. But also, no word, term, etc ever fully does justice for the thing it is prescribed to, which I just realize is another point to make. There is a stark difference between prescription and description. Feminism is not a description (as in describes) of the movement but rather a prescription (something that has been assigned to the movement whether arbitrarily or not).

And why can't the prescription assigned be descriptive. By your logic, we could call it the "fuck" movement. And what is the real sentiment of feminism in your eyes, because I am arguing that the prescription should describe just that? I am not saying that the movement should only represent one thing. I am saying that at the end of the day, it should be one movement with one purpose that, if forced to choose between everything else, would be fulfilled. What is that purpose?

Feminism's "bad reputation" can be restored as much as anything else can, as much as the woman's reputation can be restored, as much as the black man's or Asian woman's. If I didn't think reputations could be restored, then I wouldn't be in the fight for equality, rights, etc. However, even if feminism were to revert to a different name, I doubt it's bad reputation would go away. Why? The people who ruined feminism's reputation. Now, I am not talking about the radical feminist even though they are a factor in this. I am talking about the men, the misogynists who portrayed feminism as something evil through media, etc in order to discredit the movement. Its feminism's burden to bear, but it was not feminism's fault that people tried to discredit them. Basically, misogynists and even simply good-hearted people who simply desire to keep the status quo would find other ways to discredit the movement... they might start to bring up the history of the movement and its name change. They might claim its feminism in disguise, sneaking into your child's bedroom. Perhaps they would take a different route and claim hwo the new movement disrupts people's daily lives with absurd notions. *sighs* Who the hell knows what they would come up with, but they would come up with something. Thusly, I will still advocate for enlightenment of the topic rather than changing names. A name change might help the movement gain some ground, but it will still have many battles to fight.

I honestly don't know what to say to this. What I am getting from this is that you're so attached to feminism that you don't want to change the name.

The main thing that confuses me is that you're saying that third-wave feminism is fighting for male and female rights. Okay that means that "feminism" isn't the best way to describe it. It was a good way to describe the first and third waves, but it's not a good description for this wave. Now you're defending the name for what? Furthermore, doing some research, I find that third wave feminism, while not anti-male rights, isn't fighting primarily for male rights. That makes me anti-feminist and pro-gender egalitarian, and that naturally makes me a misogynist.

Can someone clear this up for me because I am finding it somewhat confusing.

[sleepyhead]

Okay so what's the major point? From what I gathered from this thread, feminism's main goal right now is for equal rights for people of all genders. Is this correct? If it is, I wouldn't call that one of those nuanced finer points that can't be adequately described in the name.

The main thing that confuses me is that you're saying that third-wave feminism is fighting for male and female rights. Okay that means that "feminism" isn't the best way to describe it. It was a good way to describe the first and third waves, but it's not a good description for this wave. Now you're defending the name for what?

I would say that yes, it is true that is the main goal of feminism, equality for everyone and covering virtually every type of oppression. One of the bigger reasons it is still called feminism is because according to all the reliable, empirical evidence out there right now, women on the whole are still experiencing higher rates of sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and various kinds of oppression. Although the fight is for everyone, there's also still a conscious effort that in some area's special attention still needs to be given to women as a whole, but while also taking into account how actions will affect people of all genders. So although the main goal is to fight for equal rights for all, their is still a larger focus on women.

Yeah, but there's also the effort in pragmatism. There are so many different groups, each with their own goals and missions that I can't be assed to learn about all of them. In the case of feminism, I can't be assed to learn about all of the different types of feminism since they are all called feminism. Don't you see how insanely stupid it is to have multiple belief systems with differing modus operandi under one name, all moving in different directions and expecting people to give a rat's ass about what you have to say about your version of the story when the other versions have a stigma attached? And how many men want to run around under the banner of "feminism"?

It may lack sophistication to scoff at feminism without having heard the whole story, but I wouldn't say that's unreasonable. It's confusing in its ambiguity. The label may not mean a lot to you, but I am willing to bet that it means a lot to a lot of men. If this is indeed an effort to bring people together and you truly don't care about the label, why defend it?

I think you're right - you can't be asked to research the history and all the different threads of a movement. I believe the mainstream, third wave feminist movement is what myself and some of the other posters in this thread have been describing. If you're involved in the activism, it's very visible. But if you're not, you'll get a lot of misinformation and misleading articles written by people who are trying to sensationalize a story. Those types of popularized caricature's of feminism aren't the reality of what's happening in most of the activism.

I do know a lot of men who are comfortable referring to themselves as feminists because they do know the history of social justice and the theory surrounding feminism. I know most of mainstream society feels this way because again, what's been popularized isn't the reality.

But coming into a thread like these and seeing there is a type of feminism out there that appears to be fairly mainstream and makes a lot of sense is how some of us do get the word out. I don't think it is unreasonable for the people in this thread who don't know very much about feminist theory or current activism are confused by the word and don't really know what it encompasses. And now some of the questions you had may be cleared up, or at least give you some food for thought.

Furthermore, doing some research, I find that third wave feminism, while not anti-male rights, isn't fighting primarily for male rights. That makes me anti-feminist and pro-gender egalitarian, and that naturally makes me a misogynist.

Can someone clear this up for me because I am finding it somewhat confusing.

I don't think that's exactly correct - like I said above, while everyone is considered in feminist activism, there is still a larger focus on women because they are still the ones who experience disproportionately higher rates of oppression, as a whole - as we start breaking down into smaller groups we see so do people of colour, people in lower classes, people who are disabled, people with mental health issues, etc. So all those different groups are considered in feminist activism, and after taking into account all the relevent research and information around an issue, an action will be formed that may sometimes focus more on women, more on men, or just on all genders as a whole. If we were started from scratch right now, and we weren't working from and in a patriarchal, racist, classist, ablist, etc society, then we wouldn't need to focus on specific groups for specific issues. But because we're at our present position in society based on our history, we need to take that history, as well as sociological issues into our activism.

. As for the definition, different feminists and theorists will define the word differently and the movement is always evolving with the addition of new and better information. As I said earlier in the thread, I like to work from the stance of Critical Humility :
"...the practice of remaining open to the fact that our knowledge is partial and evolving while at the same time being committed to speaking up and taking action in the world based on our current knowledge, however imperfect...If we are to hold ourselves accountable for acting, we must have confidence that our knowledge is valid enough to shape actions that are appropriate. At the same time, we must stay consciously aware that our knowledge is distorted by hegemony and self-deception."

I also don't think you're anti-feminist from everything you've been writing. Just because you don't identify with a title or don't want to subscribe to a particular movement doesn't mean you're automatically the opposite of that movement. What I see you saying is not that you're anti-feminist, but that you do not want to use the title because you don't feel it adequately takes into account issues pertaining to all genders and you don't like how disjointed it can appear. That's a pretty legitimate reason to not want to call yourself a feminist but I don't think it makes you anti-feminist or misogynist. You believe in the same goals and rights that many of the recent posters have talked about when it comes to feminism, but you don't feel it quite fits with your beliefs, so you align yourself differently. Certainly there are women who identify as feminist that I feel I have very little in common with. As in any movement, that often happens. If you look at political beliefs (a broad example, I know) how many different types of beliefs fall under Conservative or Liberal? Or the many different branches of Christianity? I know these aren't exactly comparable to feminism, but many different labels describe many different kinds of people and often who the umbrella encompasses isn't necessarily who you would want to be associated with.

I have no problem with this stance and it's a position many former self-identified feminists have come to (if you google "why call it feminism" you'll come up with lots of examples). But many others have their reasons for keeping the name. Here's some other opinions on the subject:

On Identifying as a Feminist | Brute Reason
Feminist Fatale » Why I STILL Call Myself a Feminist….
Why I Call Myself A Feminist | The Conversation
Why I call myself a feminist
Who are you calling a feminist?
Why Many Consider Feminism The Other

Links for men's organizations/blogs/groups that support Feminism:
PRO-FEMINIST MENS' GROUPS
MENINIST: MEN SUPPORTING THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT
The Men's Resource Center for Change - About the MRC
About - Men and Feminism

[saintless]

Okay so what's the major point? From what I gathered from this thread, feminism's main goal right now is for equal rights for people of all genders. Is this correct? If it is, I wouldn't call that one of those nuanced finer points that can't be adequately described in the name.

I know this is confusing because I almost have this dual stance on the matter, but my personal point is that terms can grow and evolve to take on meanings as enough people start using said terms with new meanings. I think Feminism is such a term. Other terms/words that have seen this kind of evolution include words vanity, fulsome, democratic (with both a lowercase and capital 'd'), liberal (mainly compared to the international use of the word and American use), and Republican. The first two words are more or less mundane words. The last three are political. The meanings of those words have changed due to political context and usage. Feminism is an academic term but it also a political term. It exists in these two realms where most words don't. A change of use, meaning, and context of such a word can be expected and tolerated (as much as any fluidity to the human language can). So while it is valid to claim the term is imprecise, it is not the end of the movement or event the world.

The mention of "nuanced finer points" was an extended application of that train of thought.

To take it a step further (because I just thought of something), "gender egalitarian" would actually never suffice because sex and gender are not one in the same like most assume. "Sex egalitarian" wouldn't suffice as it is only the other side of the same coin. What we need if we are to perfect this and have the ideal term that just so happens to make everyone happy is possibly to have a word that represents both sex and gender existing in an equilibrium. So if you wish to get nit picky, then you must search for yet another term. I still don't like "humanist" all that much because it lumps in all social problems from sex to gender to race to age, etc. We need to be able to specific for the certain goals we seek out.

Yeah, but there's also the effort in pragmatism. There are so many different groups, each with their own goals and missions that I can't be assed to learn about all of them. In the case of feminism, I can't be assed to learn about all of the different types of feminism since they are all called feminism. Don't you see how insanely stupid it is to have multiple belief systems with differing modus operandi under one name, all moving in different directions and expecting people to give a rat's ass about what you have to say about your version of the story when the other versions have a stigma attached? And how many men want to run around under the banner of "feminism"?

It may lack sophistication to scoff at feminism without having heard the whole story, but I wouldn't say that's unreasonable. It's confusing in its ambiguity. The label may not mean a lot to you, but I am willing to bet that it means a lot to a lot of men. If this is indeed an effort to bring people together and you truly don't care about the label, why defend it?

I am defending feminism as a movement first and foremost, though I am also trying to point how most claims presented here are baseless and surface-level. I mean just because you disagree with the name, do you truly disagree with the movement? Bad apples aside?

Most names/terms for things don't enlightened the person as to what they stand for. All the subset of Christianity are nicely organized and titled, however not a single person can tell just by the name of these subsets what their exact take on God and the world is. Some of them give us hints at best. So... still don't think this is overly important.

However, there are various names we give to different brands of feminism. Radical feminists usually recognize their radical stances and throw that word out with pride. Black feminism is a particular brand of feminism that focuses on the black woman, which sounds racists much like the second wave but they were formed in opposition of the second, attempting to supplement what was already there. The mentioning of the different waves help determine which kind of feminism you are talking about. There are cultural feminists, gender inequality feminists, socialists feminists, ecofeminists, and the list goes on and on. Yes, people when talking about feminism only say feminism and don't mention the different kinds. However, most people who talk about feminism like this aren't actually aware of the different kinds because they don't truly understand the movement or the theories or the politics.

So, what is essentially happening here is like a person walking into a religious discussion waving the flag that all Christians are evil based upon the words and actions of very particular subsets of Christianity, a person who hasn't really read the bible (or a poor translation) and hasn't really studied the history of Christianity.

And why can't the prescription assigned be descriptive. By your logic, we could call it the "fuck" movement. And what is the real sentiment of feminism in your eyes, because I am arguing that the prescription should describe just that? I am not saying that the movement should only represent one thing. I am saying that at the end of the day, it should be one movement with one purpose that, if forced to choose between everything else, would be fulfilled. What is that purpose?

Well.. I have my opinion on swear words and their real use, but that would be digressing. However, I didn't say it couldn't be both. I was merely labeling the phenomena. A common fallacy people make is confusing prescription with description.

I honestly don't know what to say to this. What I am getting from this is that you're so attached to feminism that you don't want to change the name.

Not really that attached to it. What I am sadly attached to is sociology and other related fields. My experience with feminism has come as an offshoot of that.

The main thing that confuses me is that you're saying that third-wave feminism is fighting for male and female rights. Okay that means that "feminism" isn't the best way to describe it. It was a good way to describe the first and third waves, but it's not a good description for this wave. Now you're defending the name for what? Furthermore, doing some research, I find that third wave feminism, while not anti-male rights, isn't fighting primarily for male rights. That makes me anti-feminist and pro-gender egalitarian, and that naturally makes me a misogynist.

They aren't primarily fighting for male rights because male have rights, more rights than women. They have been the successful oppressors of women for a very long time now. There isn't much need to fight for their rights. However, men are confined by their own form of discrimination, something that is actively recognized. Feminists will and do try to help men deal with their discrimination issues while trying to uphold women's rights and fight against their discrimination issues. However, the women are still more negatively impacted than men. Women also suffer from much more systematic sexism than do men. So if every single problem men have was confronted along with every single problem women have, then it would look like women were getting more attention. This is not the product of sexism within feminism. This is the product of facing reality and dealing with it as it comes the way of feminism.

But, I am confused how you can be pro-gender egalitarian and a misogynist or how you can then be anti-feminist. This does'nt make ideological sense.

Can someone clear this up for me because I am finding it somewhat confusing.

Trying to. Honestly, with good intentions. Though... maybe my words will only go so far.

[MNiS]

Good thread although it seems much of the posts seem somewhat redundant now. Just a few thought I had while reading through this thread:

1) Feminism and Egalitarianism - I think this is the largest issue with some men and the term feminism. I'm sure everyone would agree that equality in the broadest sense of the word is an ideal that one should strive for. However, this leads me to my next point which is that valid points about reverse discrimination are completely glossed over.

Campaigning the ideals of one group by slandering the qualities of another group seems self-defeating as the issue is clearly not an "us vs them" situation. A few pages back, someone had written about an Australian Feminist who defended her work by slandering men and stating the inferior qualities of them. If it's not obvious why this approach can only hurt the movement as whole, well then I don't know what else to say.

2) Institutionalized Discrimination - How would one go about spurring changes on a systemic/institutional level? For instance, there was an article in the NYT yesterday about a female US Army Drill Sargent who was promoted to head the academy for the training of other Drill Sargents who later lost her position due to subversive elements within the department citing some necessary qualifications she lacked -- namely, combat experience. There are obviously good arguments for and against keeping women away from front line roles, but is it fair that a position traditionally given to people with direct experience be looked over in the name of equality?

3) Expectations - This is where I'm a bit at a loss. It seems to me that the major elements of gender equality are already in place, at least here in the US. The last wall, so to speak, seems to be personal biases which is a result of negative experiences or upbringing in a discriminatory environment. Realistically, how many more laws can be passed to attempt to force people to change their personal views? It's beginning to seem that if the movement in itself is going to see any kind of additional progress, then it should set about looking to persuade others either through words or actions. On a political level, it seems that aside from a few areas like the military and gay marriage, trying to affect change through those means is over.

Anyway, just a few thoughts on the subject. :)

[saintless]

Good thread although it seems much of the posts seem somewhat redundant now. Just a few thought I had while reading through this thread:

I was just amusing myself over the redundancy myself, even amongst my own posts. (;

1) Feminism and Egalitarianism - I think this is the largest issue with some men and the term feminism. I'm sure everyone would agree that equality in the broadest sense of the word is an ideal that one should strive for. However, this leads me to my next point which is that valid points about reverse discrimination are completely glossed over.

Campaigning the ideals of one group by slandering the qualities of another group seems self-defeating as the issue is clearly not an "us vs them" situation. A few pages back, someone had written about an Australian Feminist who defended her work by slandering men and stating the inferior qualities of them. If it's not obvious why this approach can only hurt the movement as whole, well then I don't know what else to say.

I would agree with the latter paragraph here, and I would once again point out that people like that Australian Feminists are considered a part of the Radical Feminists movement. The whole movement cannot be held accountable for certain bad apples or certain sub-strands. On the surface, this might seem like we are attempting to throw a cover over anything we don't like. However, I really like the analogy I used in my last post where I compared the different strands of Feminism to the different branches of Christianity. I am pretty certain that most people recognized it would be ludicrous to hold the entirety of the Christian community to the hose religious extremists that inhabit it. It would also be ludicrous to even hold the actions of certain Southern Baptists such as the Westboro Baptist Church to even any other Baptists denomination or even the Christianity as a whole.

Now, I would confront the notion of reverse discrimination, however I have primarily heard that phrased used in mainstream areas such as the media. I think a introduction sociology textbook I once read mentioned it, but I am not entirely sure. So, I don't really know much about the elements that make up reverse discrimination. In middle school, I used the word a lot because I remembering it making sense to me then. However, I took a racial and ethnic diversity class once that showed how certain claims of reverse discrimination are moreover racists/sexists who twist the words of activists back on themselves to act like they are being treated unfairly. This may be true, but just because white men no longer hold the spotlight that doesn't mean they are being neglected. It's called sharing. But, I don't really know what I am talking about in this particular area, so I will shut up now. (I might research it later if I have time.)

2) Institutionalized Discrimination - How would one go about spurring changes on a systemic/institutional level? For instance, there was an article in the NYT yesterday about a female US Army Drill Sargent who was promoted to head the academy for the training of other Drill Sargents who later lost her position due to subversive elements within the department citing some necessary qualifications she lacked -- namely, combat experience. There are obviously good arguments for and against keeping women away from front line roles, but is it fair that a position traditionally given to people with direct experience be looked over in the name of equality?

Honestly, I don't know where you are going with this point. I understand the base sentiment, and I agree. People with direct experience should be given the positions they deserve. However based upon your words, I don't see evidence that the woman was given the position originally because she was a woman. If she was later discovered to have inadequate experience required for the position, then I hope that same kind of concern would carry over to any male operative and that he lives up to standard.

However, if you have to remember how can a woman gain experience and ground in a society that often displays systematic sexism? If she was always barred from action, how could she ever become qualified? This doesn't mean she should be given the position based upon a whim, but rather there should be a program or people willing to help her gain the required experience. I am not necessarily talking about things like Affirmative Action. Rather, I am talking about a proactive means to incorporate the woman into the system that has previously and historically overlooked her.

In a note connected to the above sentiment, whites came to America and became prosperous on the backs of Black slaves. This means that whites had a good century or so to accumulate land and wealth before blacks were freed from slavery. Where did the Blacks have to turn when a lot of the land was already snatched up? True, there was still the West to be settled, but did they have the means to travel out there? Usually not. But to find jobs in the areas they were freed would be close to impossible for them? Now, you might argue that the whites built up America from nothing. That would be a misconception. They built America up from the free labor of Black slaves. Blacks didn't have that, they didn't have the education expected of most whites, they didn't have the means, and they didn't have the land. When the Civil Rights movement came around, they had managed to accumulate some wealth and some education despite everything going against them, which is amazing if you think about it. However, whites had the same amount time to build their empire up higher. So when supposedly everyone became equal, no one was truly equal. First off just because we passed a law, that doesn't mean anyone had to respect it. The men who grew up in the racist 50s, 60s, 70s still run the companies today. I believe most of them are on their way out, but they left behind a racist (and sexist) trail. Also, how could a Black man effectively compete in this capitalistic society when they have less means than their competitors? To this day, most minorities live in impoverished communities where education is low. To say they are on equal ground to anyone else is ridiculous. To say the average man has the means to achieve is even more ridiculous.

It is for reasons and histories like this that people believe in compensation. What are we suppose to do? Free them from their shackles, and then be like you have everything in the world? Without ever apologizing to them or making up for all the ham that was ever done to them?

3) Expectations - This is where I'm a bit at a loss. It seems to me that the major elements of gender equality are already in place, at least here in the US. The last wall, so to speak, seems to be personal biases which is a result of negative experiences or upbringing in a discriminatory environment. Realistically, how many more laws can be passed to attempt to force people to change their personal views? It's beginning to seem that if the movement in itself is going to see any kind of additional progress, then it should set about looking to persuade others either through words or actions. On a political level, it seems that aside from a few areas like the military and gay marriage, trying to affect change through those means is over.

Alright, the first thing I am going to ask is do you believe this because of propaganda? I know that last word is rather loaded, but America claims to be a free country of equality, but I have never heard a bigger lie in my life. If I could rattle off all the data presented to me in all my classes to help you understand how their objective facts that contradict such a notion, I would. However, I have this rotten brain that will examine data and take it in to come to conclusions, but once I have come to those conclusions it will often forget all the data. So, have you taken a class like sociology or something else, and came to your own conclusion that is the state of affairs, or is it because you see happy men and women in the workforce that you assume equal status? I am serious about this question because it would be nice to know where you are coming from with your words.

I agree. Political action is not needed. It was nice in the first place in order to have some rock solid to fall back on, to keep sexists, etc in check and to help ensure there is a system working for equality. However like I alluded to before, laws don't necessarily make a society. Any law can fail to be respected or even enforce. To achieve any substantial groundwork, one must change society's mindset. That, unlike legislation, cannot be achieved over night. It takes a very long and hard time to effect an entire society like that. If you want to get into race with me (through I will admit any such point is almost digressing from this thread), I can show how you how it took just under a hundred years to hook people on the concept of race (it was born with people like Thomas Jefferson, though didn't gain any real momentum any until Charles Darwin and the fools who misinterpreted his work) to lodge inside people's brains. Though, that was creating something from nothing, so that was comparatively easier. To now erase the concept of race and thusly racism from people, I imagine it will take just under two hundred years at the very least. I will die before I see my dream come true, but hopefully I will die knowing we are on the way to a better way of life.

Anyway, just a few thoughts on the subject. :)

Thanks. It is always good to type out your thoughts, and you are inciting me to type out mine which might help even lead me to enlightenment as I attempt to examined all the things I hold true.

[MNiS]

I was just amusing myself over the redundancy myself, even amongst my own posts. (;

:p

I would agree with the latter paragraph here, and I would once again point out that people like that Australian Feminists are considered a part of the Radical Feminists movement. The whole movement cannot be held accountable for certain bad apples or certain sub-strands.

Ideally yes, the whole shouldn't be judged by a few bad apples but it happens and it's a problem. It certainly undermines the non-bad apples.

Now, I would confront the notion of reverse discrimination, however I have primarily heard that phrased used in mainstream areas such as the media. I think a introduction sociology textbook I once read mentioned it, but I am not entirely sure. So, I don't really know much about the elements that make up reverse discrimination. In middle school, I used the word a lot because I remembering it making sense to me then. However, I took a racial and ethnic diversity class once that showed how certain claims of reverse discrimination are moreover racists/sexists who twist the words of activists back on themselves to act like they are being treated unfairly.

I suppose it really depends on how you define discrimination as many people don't consider discrimination against the dominant group to be discrimination at all. I'm just pointing out the fact that restricting the major group for the sake of another is, in fact, discrimination at its very essence. Maybe not in practice but at its core, it is.

Honestly, I don't know where you are going with this point. I understand the base sentiment, and I agree. People with direct experience should be given the positions they deserve. However based upon your words, I don't see evidence that the woman was given the position originally because she was a woman. If she was later discovered to have inadequate experience required for the position, then I hope that same kind of concern would carry over to any male operative and that he lives up to standard.

In the military women are routinely denied leadership roles because they lack combat experience except women are forbidden from taking roles that put them in direct combat. So women who're seeking leadership roles are discriminated at a systemic/institutional level.

Alright, the first thing I am going to ask is do you believe this because of propaganda? I know that last word is rather loaded, but America claims to be a free country of equality, but I have never heard a bigger lie in my life. If I could rattle off all the data presented to me in all my classes to help you understand how their objective facts that contradict such a notion, I would. However, I have this rotten brain that will examine data and take it in to come to conclusions, but once I have come to those conclusions it will often forget all the data. So, have you taken a class like sociology or something else, and came to your own conclusion that is the state of affairs, or is it because you see happy men and women in the workforce that you assume equal status? I am serious about this question because it would be nice to know where you are coming from with your words.

I'll ignore the slight against me and explain it in very simple terms. In the USA laws and regulations are worthless now in terms of forcing equality. On a legal level, most of the basic elements of gender equality are in place. If you want equality you're going to have to earn it and insulting people who might have otherwise been on your side is not how you go about it. Hearts and minds, not rules and laws. :p

Of course I'm in no way trying to suggest that the US has anything remotely resembling true equality due to institutional/systemic discrimination and the fact that most people who suffer from discriminatory -isms are just small-minded bigots. Plus most of the third world are still heavily sexist and actively brutalize women. For first world nations though, any progress is going to involve changing the system and persuading the bigots. Although just getting rid of them would be easier. :p

[saintless]

Ideally yes, the whole shouldn't be judged by a few bad apples but it happens and it's a problem. It certainly undermines the non-bad apples.

This is fundamental to why so many people hate Feminists, Christians, Muslims, Men, etc.

I suppose it really depends on how you define discrimination as many people don't consider discrimination against the dominant group to be discrimination at all. I'm just pointing out the fact that restricting the major group for the sake of another is, in fact, discrimination at its very essence. Maybe not in practice but at its core, it is.

Yes, it needs to be defined. Such that could the act of distinguishing one person or group from another be considered discrimination for you have to discriminate certain traits, etc to able to distinguish anything? That is a very broad definition, but it is a feasible one. Though I while admit that non-radical feminists with good intentions will attempt to restrict the dominant group for the benefit of the others, I think that it is feasible to give an extra-helping hand to the others without restricting the dominant group from doing what they do (unless of course what they are doing is sexist, etc). Sometimes one comes at the cost of the other but not always. It's just harder to achieve. Though, I could boil this discussion down to morals. Is it morally alright to discriminate in certain minor cases if it yields progressive and perpetual good? That, however, is something I yet to have a definitive opinion on.

In the military women are routinely denied leadership roles because they lack combat experience except women are forbidden from taking roles that put them in direct combat. So women who're seeking leadership roles are discriminated at a systemic/institutional level.

Ah. So, were you in favor of women's position be reviewed or not? Or perhaps, are you in favor in creating a system to go against the current system?

I'll ignore the slight against me and explain it in very simple terms. In the USA laws and regulations are worthless now in terms of forcing equality. On a legal level, most of the basic elements of gender equality are in place. If you want equality you're going to have to earn it and insulting people who might have otherwise been on your side is not how you go about it. Hearts and minds, not rules and laws. :p

Of course I'm in no way trying to suggest that the US has anything remotely resembling true equality due to institutional/systemic discrimination and the fact that some people are just small-minded bigots. Plus most of the third world are still heavily sexist and actively brutalize women. For first world nations though, any progress is going to involve changing the system and persuading the bigots.

Wasn't meant to be a slight. I was afraid you might take it as that, and so I attempted (yet failed) to lighten that impact by stating it was a serious question. Attempting to understand one's credibility/experience without inadvertently insulting that person is always like walking on eggshells.

I agree with every word state in the above quote. It is probably a bigger concern to install a proper legal system with third world countries that allow women's rights to flourish. Such that if a man rapes a woman in a certain Middle Eastern countries, the man might receive some form of sanction for his actions but more often than not the woman will be more more brutally punished (and sometimes killed) for she is considered adulterous if she is married or a whore if she is unmarried. The legal systems perpetuates this. However, it is true that most Western countries need social reform. Men are properly sanctioned if found guilty of rape in places like America, but regardless 1 in 4 college women of any graduating class will have been raped by usually another college man. So even with all the legal tidings in place, women's security is still low and only social reform can change that. But, Feminism is a social movement just as much as it is political. However, I think the phrase "the personal is political" originated with the Feminists. Though, I think it's an inaccurate statement (or I simply fail to fully understand it).

[MNiS]

Yes, it needs to be defined. Such that could the act of distinguishing one person or group from another be considered discrimination for you have to discriminate certain traits, etc to able to distinguish anything? That is a very broad definition, but it is a feasible one. Though I while admit that non-radical feminists with good intentions will attempt to restrict the dominant group for the benefit of the others, I think that it is feasible to give an extra-helping hand to the others without restricting the dominant group from doing what they do (unless of course what they are doing is sexist, etc). Sometimes one comes at the cost of the other but not always. It's just harder to achieve. Though, I could boil this discussion down to morals. Is it morally alright to discriminate in certain minor cases if it yields progressive and perpetual good? That, however, is something I yet to have a definitive opinion on.

Yeah, I completely agree that a proper definition is needed. :)

Ah. So, were you in favor of women's position be reviewed or not? Or perhaps, are you in favor in creating a system to go against the current system?

Here's the latest article on the story from the NYT. You could probably find similar stories from your preferred news source though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us...p-her-job.html

My personal opinion is that she shouldn't have been stripped of her position after receiving her promotion. She enjoyed wide-spread support until the leadership who supported her weren't around anymore. That caused the sexist elements within the Army to begin campaigning to have her fired/relieved of duty.

I think that just goes to show that institutions are still run by people, and people are imperfect and fallible. That's why I think trying to erase discrimination by persuading the people in power is more productive than trying to create more laws and regulations. Hearts and minds, not rules and laws. ;)

Also, it probably also didn't help that she was a total hardass. lol :p

[saintless]

@MNiS

That is all rather interesting. Based upon the NY Times article, I would have to agree that something wrong was going on here. It seems like she did not deserved to be strip of her promotion. Hearts and minds indeed.

Though, I thought drill sergeants were suppose to be a bunch of hardasses. I think her being Black also went against her. No one would have complained (or thought they had the ability to) if a man (possibly White) would have acted in the same way, but I don't know much about military structures. I should try to find a friend who does...