[saintless]

Also, you guys really aren't listening to @theRovingENFP and I. You hear 'we don't agree that Feminism is wonderful' and you shred us on instinct, refusing to hear us out and assume wrong and false things about us. We cannot have a discussion if such things persist. Until you lot are ready to have a truthful and open discussion, we will not waste ourselves in vain only to be massacred out of hand.

Funny. I was just thinking you two have failed to supply any real analysis of most points brought up and seem to be basing most of your opinions on mere assumptions, which is a claim I can more easily back up for you two don't seem to have any real or substantial experience with Feminism while KINGoftheAMAZONS, sleepyhead, myself, and the others who have stopped frequenting this thread do have real experience and thus can provide analysis of all points presented.

I mean The Roving ENFP has agreed on several occasions with claims I have made, but then persists to reject Feminism as a legitimate movement or field of study that is an unbiased nature. This doesn't make any sense to me for if the premises I present are valid and soundly follow each other, then the conclusion that follows next should be the same each and every time. Yet, it's not. That begs arbitrary thinking in my mind.

Any point that has been made logically only splits hairs on technicalities, which is quite an easy feat to accomplish given there are few absolute in this world. I have yet to see the bulk of any claim I have made adequately argued or argued at all.

If you don't want to waste your time with an intelligent discussion that is fine, though I will be honest and say I appreciated this discussion. It has helped me review my own beliefs while giving me experience with ideas that oppose mine. I never take my knowledge for granted, and I never assume I am right. In other words, I have taken every word into consideration, but just because I reject your words regardless doesn't insinuate I am closed-mnded. I mean I accept I could be wrong about some things, however I don't believe you are therefore right on other things. I have yet to be presented with compelling evidence. This is what most of your points lack, evidence; they seem to be mainly assumptions and generalizations of the masses' opinions and behaviors.

[The Roving ENFP]

Also, you guys really aren't listening to @theRovingENFP and I. You hear 'we don't agree that Feminism is wonderful' and you shred us on instinct, refusing to hear us out and assume wrong and false things about us. We cannot have a discussion if such things persist. Until you lot are ready to have a truthful and open discussion, we will not waste ourselves in vain only to be massacred out of hand.

@KINGoftheAMAZONS & @Mutatio NOmenis Well, considering I am an ex-supporter of liberal-feminism, I most definitely have differing views from current feminists on the movement.. I don't support the movement any more for a number of reasons and I don't plan to ever support it in the future until I can see that there has been a change. As a male, I want to be respected, and in many ways this movement has disrespected me as a person..
@vinndi - the reason I have agreed with some points and disagreed with feminism as a whole is probably because of my involvement with it, and the education I got - not to mention the real-world examples I have seen and been caught up in. I didn't find it to be very respectful of men.. That's just the vibe I got.. I do believe it is a biased field --> that's just been my experience..

We analyze your views of feminism, and the issues that you've applied to feminism. And people like me dissect your statements in order to flesh out it's implications, so that I might properly analyze it to its core. We aren't massacring you, or even trying to do such things. We simply disagree with your assessments and relegations of feminism. But if you don't want to "waste" your time here in vain, then okay. This was a good debate.

Yeah.. We have different views, debating over the same thing.. Ex-Feminist (male) -vs- current feminist (female).. Despite some passionate opposition I have really enjoyed the debate...


Well, there are two sides to every story.. I have experienced both, having been a supporter of the movement.. Now I see it from a completely different light and feel much more happy and carefree having washed my hands of the movement..

Here's a quote man-haters, woman-haters and equal-rights activists should all consider:
"Self-worth comes from one thing -- thinking that you are worthy" - Wayn Dyer

[saintless]

I'd say that that does make them valid, because there is a constant in your example - when they are seen as valid or invalid they are judging a set of core values and beliefs, but if the core values and beliefs are fluid as you suggest then they would have to accept all terms as valid and consider them long term because they can all evolve into a new meaning. But then if no term is official then why are terms such as democracy stoic? Yes there are variations of democracy, but it can be seen as valid or invalid based on it's core belief which is in the word hich means basically rule by the people (Often cited as meaning freedom as well). So if it is not an official term then why do we add adjectives to this apparently fluid word? what of the adjectives themselves? they are describing a certain political position that is itself fluid, so we are using fluidity to further describe a fluid term that is not official or stoic, yet it is seen as a solid pillar of our society :/. Humans are social creatures and thrive on structure and need solid terminology, thus I believe for society to function, terminology must be stable and official ^_^. That is my observational nature.

That was a nice long philosophical ramble that doesn't really seem to lead anywhere. The following is all I can manage to say based upon your collection of words:

-- Langauge is core to our society and culture and thusly livelihood. We need to have consensual, agreed upon words that define things as strictly as possible (for there are no absolutes) in order to have any consistency, congruency, or coherence in our day-to-day lives.

-- Language, despite the above stipulation of what language should entail, is a fluid a phenomena and will always be so. Language is not always consensual and rarely if ever definitive. Many definitions are arbitrary and nuanced. Things evolve over time. The human brain works off of metaphors and thus connotations affect denotations, transforming words. This must always be taken in account. We should work to limit such effects, but it would be counter-productive to strictly limit these effects let alone impossible unneeded.

-- Terms aren't official ever. It's impossible. We do have widely accepted and used terms, but doesn't make them official. We have official languages, but that is more like an agreed upon manner of communicating. However when I think of official terms, I think of government-mandated entities. Language is not that formal. We have formal language, but language once again is fluid in and of itself. We impose formality into certain parts of language in attempt to give our worlds a more solid base, but I don't believe in following absolutes.

-- None of this actually has anything to do with my post for I was merely mentioning how cited terms are official evidence of a phenomena. Sometimes we decide to name phenomenas different things. Sometimes things we think are phenomenas are false. For adequate support of any point, more substantial evidence needs to be presented. That was the point I was making, but thanks for attempting to explain to me the nature of language regardless even though I was moreover discussing arguments. It's technically rhetoric but simply different parts of it.

One does not need to take a feminist studies course to understand feminism, just like someone dosen't need to take a theology course to comment of theology (Because if that were the case, there would be no debate over it. All one needs to do is be able to observe and make connections. The grrek astronomers and mathematicians didn't take mathematics and astronomy courses, yet through obervation could still discover much the same things.

You do not need to take a course and a course alone. You do, however, need to engage in Feminist-related material in any form. You don't need to engage in such material to understand the role of sex and gender in society, but you must engage with such understanding if you wish to argue any such points. Like, I can argue religion based upon philosophical concepts, but I cannot truly argue religion for I have never read the Bible, the Quran, or ever actively engaged in religious activities. Therefore, I hold my judgements of religion at arm's length. I have an opinion of it, yes, but I accept that I might have gross misunderstandings of it. I just have my philosophies of life and have enough religious discussions to see their analogous relationships.

And the difference here is this is dealing with the social issues of a particular society, and when one is looking for a certain thing they will not see things as clearly from the other side. For example when studying the power of women in ancient rome many feminists would immediately see that they didn't have the political powers and thus see women as being powerless. However due to thier immense influence they could have more power than men. For example Nero's wife had more power than Nero himself and could send armies due to that power and influence. So when one sees an issue one must be careful, especially with social/political issues, and this one is far too precarious in my opinion, but to each thier own ^_^.

As I already mentioned to The Roving ENFP, Feminists do not fail to examine things in such a manner. In my opinion, they often try to analyze a situation from every angle. They recognize the bias or the misleading perceptions that can often distort the facts. I think they are one of the most movements/fields of study that is keen on this for they have to reconcile such biases that have come from the White male's recording of history and women. They recognize things aren't always as they seem, and so they explore every option. Lovely argument, if you were right that Feminists fail to do such things, but they don't. They do exactly what you wish for them to do.

I don't think the class would like me very much :3. And no, i'll stick with historical studies etc ^_^.

If people don't appreciate dissenting opinions, they don't appreciate the capacity to expand their minds.

Anthropology's "Man" means - "Mankind" which basically means humanity which is still used today, yes the roots are sexist, however it is not one to alienate but rather stating the male as the head, the representative so to speak. So when armstrong jumped on the moon he stated "That's one small step for [a] man," singular, denoting himself and then "One giant leap for mankind," plural, meaning humanity. However feminism has roots specific to females. In any case I do agree that the individuals can play both sides of the field, however when one identifies with the word, it reinforces the word itself which is not true. more to come later.

KINGoftheAMAZONS touched nicely upon my issue with the above quote. I would elaborate, but that would be redundant and I have other things to say.

[The Roving ENFP]

Here's a good summary:

As I already mentioned to The Roving ENFP, Feminists do not fail to examine things in such a manner.

That is what they would like to think.

[saintless]

@KINGoftheAMAZONS & @Mutatio NOmenis Well, considering I am an ex-supporter of liberal-feminism, I most definitely have differing views from current feminists on the movement.. I don't support the movement any more for a number of reasons and I don't plan to ever support it in the future until I can see that there has been a change. As a male, I want to be respected, and in many ways this movement has disrespected me as a person..
@vinndi - the reason I have agreed with some points and disagreed with feminism as a whole is probably because of my involvement with it, and the education I got - not to mention the real-world examples I have seen and been caught up in. I didn't find it to be very respectful of men.. That's just the vibe I got.. I do believe it is a biased field --> that's just been my experience..



Yeah.. We have different views, debating over the same thing.. Ex-Feminist (male) -vs- current feminist (female).. Despite some passionate opposition I have really enjoyed the debate...


Well, there are two sides to every story.. I have experienced both, having been a supporter of the movement.. Now I see it from a completely different light and feel much more happy and carefree having washed my hands of the movement..

Here's a quote man-haters, woman-haters and equal-rights activists should all consider:
"Self-worth comes from one thing -- thinking that you are worthy" - Wayn Dyer

Based upon what you have mentioned about your education, I question its reliability. I am just going to throw that out there.

I do feel like a bit of fool for I might have underemphasized the fact that you have mentioned before your involvement with the movement. However, I guess I figured your involvement was cursory and not fully engaged. Therefore, can you elaborate upon your experiences with more detail so I may understand where exactly you are coming? Otherwise, I am apt to continue along with the information I posses and for none it supports your claims. Make sense?

Though, I do have a question for you. How will you know the movement has improved by your standards if you don't ever check back in with it? Can you adequately gauge the current state of the movement due to your past experiences? Are they tainting your perspective and stopping you from seeing things objectively? Remember, everyone has their own personal biases.

These questions are serious ones. Without knowing such things, I cannot truly evaluate your stance on the matter.

Also, how comprehensive was your involvement? For example, were you involved with many local, national, or global movements? Do you think the Feminists you encounter truly represent the whole? Okay, you definitely seem to believe that bit. What I mean to say is rotten, man-hating Feminists still exist. Just is it fair to hold everyone else to faults of those Feminists? As I have mentioned before, I don't hold men to the faults of misogynists. I don't hold Republicans to the faults of Rush Limbaugh. Some people do, but those people annoy me. I am far more Liberal than I am Conservative, but I want to rip almost every Liberal I personally know a new one for the hateful rhetorical they have adopted towards Republicans for it solves no problem. It actually furthers the divide, and it keeps them close-minded. However though I know a handful of hateful Liberals, I don't judge all Liberals based upon those traits for I know every person is an individual. The people who adopt hateful rhetoric are probably inclined to do so regardless of whatever political stance they take. It's a personal flaw, not a flaw endowed by the group or label they proclaim to belong to.

I cannot and will not overlook your experiences, but you must approach your experiences maturely and I can hold you to do that if I wish.

EDIT (SAW ABOVE POST): That is what you would like me to think... see the problem with that train of thought. Again, I recognize the bad apples of the Feminist movement, but can you not recognize the good apples? They exist. I know they do. Several of them including myself have popped up in this thread. We are not man-haters. We limit our biases as much as possible. We approach things appropriately and examine every angle. But, you will dare tell me that for the sole fact that I consider myself a Feminists I must be everything you claim I am? Without even knowing me?

EDIT (DISCLAIMER): Please, I don't mean to be invasive with my questions, but I have the mind of sociologist. I ask these kinds of questions all the time about the world around me. I believe them to pivotal to my understanding of things. This is how a Feminist Sociologist approaches the world (though I am far more than just those two things.), or well how I do...

[Bear987]

In itself feminism isn't good or bad, I'd say. It just is. To me, it seems more important to figure out the reasons for its existence - and to take those underlying causes into account. However, even without digging deep I'd say that because there are females, there should be female champions, people who support and defend female interests.

I am a guy, so I won't say anything judgemental about feminists. I reckon it is up to female to decide whether feminists are doing a proper job. I do find it hard to see how some feminists look down upon other females who decide to be a stay-at-home mom for instance. I don't understand why these feminists lack a female touch in their approach - or am I being chauvinistic now?

[Vaan]

To be more specific, the roots are biased towards men, and based on male superiority. The latter being a false concept (as any gender superiority would be). Feminism isn't based on female superiority. And the word feminism denotes which gender is still considered the "less than" in society's eyes, as well as the "contempt for anything feminine" in which both the patriarchal implications of misogyny & misandry are built upon.

Your definition of Feminism makes me doubt the purpose of Feminism all the more on two levels. Firstly it is showing it's centre as being female focused, which is not in concurrence with what 3rd wave Feminist theory is trying to show which is an egalitarian style organisaqtion(or a failure of one), and secondly it means that for Feminism to survive, females will have to always be seen as "less than", which actually fits, because at the start of each wave there has been brought in some new concept of how they are thought of as less than. So in actuality thier continual upping of the standards of "less than" and lack of understanding of male "less than" means that, to survive, in due time it will become a supremacy movement ^_^. Please tell me if I followed the logic wrong.

Which is also a false concept based on patriarchal presuppositions. Nature and it's objective impressions have not determined the human male to be the "head" of anything. In fact, men being the "head" stems from the mental conditioning of presumptuous notions that are based on the socially (and violently) conceived structure of male superiority. Even many false religious edicts reaffirm these haughty beliefs. So I would say that lumping women into the category of "man" is alienating. And I'd imagine that many men would feel the same way if cultural scientists starting categorizing all homo sapiens as "woman", or "womankind".

So man being seen as the head is a patriarchal(Meaning male as the head of a family) concept? So the heads of the family aren't the heads of the family while being the head of the family?.

And Homo Sapiens Sapiens and 'womankind' and 'mankind' are different, Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the biological name and wo/mankind is a common grouping name(humans would be more accurate as a common name though), for example Panthera Pardus is the biological name and Leopards is the common name

[Vaan]

That was a nice long philosophical ramble that doesn't really seem to lead anywhere. The following is all I can manage to say based upon your collection of words:

-- Langauge is core to our society and culture and thusly livelihood. We need to have consensual, agreed upon words that define things as strictly as possible (for there are no absolutes) in order to have any consistency, congruency, or coherence in our day-to-day lives.

-- Language, despite the above stipulation of what language should entail, is a fluid a phenomena and will always be so. Language is not always consensual and rarely if ever definitive. Many definitions are arbitrary and nuanced. Things evolve over time. The human brain works off of metaphors and thus connotations affect denotations, transforming words. This must always be taken in account. We should work to limit such effects, but it would be counter-productive to strictly limit these effects let alone impossible unneeded.

-- Terms aren't official ever. It's impossible. We do have widely accepted and used terms, but doesn't make them official. We have official languages, but that is more like an agreed upon manner of communicating. However when I think of official terms, I think of government-mandated entities. Language is not that formal. We have formal language, but language once again is fluid in and of itself. We impose formality into certain parts of language in attempt to give our worlds a more solid base, but I don't believe in following absolutes.

-- None of this actually has anything to do with my post for I was merely mentioning how cited terms are official evidence of a phenomena. Sometimes we decide to name phenomenas different things. Sometimes things we think are phenomenas are false. For adequate support of any point, more substantial evidence needs to be presented. That was the point I was making, but thanks for attempting to explain to me the nature of language regardless even though I was moreover discussing arguments. It's technically rhetoric but simply different parts of it.

well that creates an impasse so we have no choice but to leave the issue. As for the argument of phenomena of course there has to be evidence, but the evidence is based on the core of it. This is why tyrrany includes both the good and the bad, and why Christianity is simply the belief in Christ. Otherwise I am confused as to what you are talking about XD.

You do not need to take a course and a course alone. You do, however, need to engage in Feminist-related material in any form. You don't need to engage in such material to understand the role of sex and gender in society, but you must engage with such understanding if you wish to argue any such points. Like, I can argue religion based upon philosophical concepts, but I cannot truly argue religion for I have never read the Bible, the Quran, or ever actively engaged in religious activities. Therefore, I hold my judgements of religion at arm's length. I have an opinion of it, yes, but I accept that I might have gross misunderstandings of it. I just have my philosophies of life and have enough religious discussions to see their analogous relationships.

That would be true if Feminism was a doctrine based irganisation, but it is a social institution and does not have a centralised doctrine, but it can be grouped based on common themes and thus can be observed and judged without being apart of it. Judges and lawyers and polkice officers don't need to spend half of thier life being junkies to know that drugs are bad. Why? because they can observe the social and physical affects of the drug. Religion however has it's roots in texts and a higher power so to speak so an understanding of the text is needed to understand the higher power that they are representing and logically deduce the likelihood of the existence of thier percieved being or concept.

As I already mentioned to The Roving ENFP, Feminists do not fail to examine things in such a manner. In my opinion, they often try to analyze a situation from every angle. They recognize the bias or the misleading perceptions that can often distort the facts. I think they are one of the most movements/fields of study that is keen on this for they have to reconcile such biases that have come from the White male's recording of history and women. They recognize things aren't always as they seem, and so they explore every option. Lovely argument, if you were right that Feminists fail to do such things, but they don't. They do exactly what you wish for them to do.

Now I just have to see that as being true in application and then I could agree with you ^_^. However I have not, in fact, the more in depth they get, the worse it gets often >_>.

If people don't appreciate dissenting opinions, they don't appreciate the capacity to expand their minds.

Many people don't unfortunately(true for many fields).

[saintless]

Now I just have to see that as being true in application and then I could agree with you ^_^. However I have not, in fact, the more in depth they get, the worse it gets often >_>.

So... you have seen only bad stuff. I have seen both, but I swear I have seen more of the good stuff than not. There's nothing else to say since this is where we will clearly divide always. However, I will say that any act of absolute condemnation is a rather awful one. It is also awful to never leave room for speculation and doubt of not only other's theories but your own. So, please just keep an open mind. That's one of the most basic things you can manage to do if you are of good intentions.


But, now. For anyone who believes language can only ever be interpreted strictly, I present with you with this:

[KINGoftheAMAZONS]

Your definition of Feminism makes me doubt the purpose of Feminism all the more on two levels. Firstly it is showing it's centre as being female focused, which is not in concurrence with what 3rd wave Feminist theory is trying to show which is an egalitarian style organisaqtion

The definition of feminism shows the history and roots of it's foundation. Feminism was started in an effort to stop the subjugation of women. 3rd wave feminism has NOT given up the fight against misogyny, but it has adopted the views of "intersectionalism". This means that while feminism still fights for the equality between women and men, it also recognizes that sexism intersects with other different discriminations (like racism, heterosexism, classism, etc), and that in order for society to truly rid itself of one supremacy system (patriarchy), it must also rid itself of all supremacy systems (white supremacy, heterosexual supremacy, Classism, etc). By obliterating these systems, you obliterate hierarchies in general, which destroys the assumptions of superiority & inferiority.

Just because feminism still holds to its historical roots of anti-misogyny, doesn't mean that it is not egalitarian, or that it does not seek to actively fight against non-female focused discriminations. The NAACP is also starting to become more egalitarian by actively fighting against sexism, and heterosexism. That doesn't mean that it no longer focuses on racial equality, or its emphasis on raising the statuses of "colored" people.

The better question is, why is feminism the only movement that is accused of not being egalitarian enough when it focuses on raising the status of a more socially inferior minority (women)? I never hear anyone invalidate the NAACP because it has historically been an organization that promoted the equality of racial minorities. I've never heard anyone say that the Human Rights Campaign has failed because it never focuses on heterosexual rights. Basically this shows me that anti-feminists don't really have a reason to be against feminism, other than the fact that this sort of change between the genders scares the shit out of them.

and secondly it means that for Feminism to survive, females will have to always be seen as "less than", which actually fits, because at the start of each wave there has been brought in some new concept of how they are thought of as less than. So in actuality thier continual upping of the standards of "less than" and lack of understanding of male "less than" means that, to survive, in due time it will become a supremacy movement

I'm not sure how you're getting from point A, to point B in your "logical" analysis. First of all, feminism shouldn't even exists in the first place, because no gender should ever have power over the other. Secondly, no one is fighting for feminism to survive in the context that, no one is fighting for women to be continuously seen as less than so that the flames of feminism can be kept burning. So that assertion in itself is a fallacy, and it tells me that you truly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the purpose of feminism. The sexist circumstances of life was the cause of feminism. Feminism didn't cause the sexist circumstances of life. Feminism aims to erase gender inequality, not keep it alive.

Also, each wave of feminism didn't bring in a new concept of how women can be thought of as less-than. Saying so implies that feminists simply created problems where there were none, which kind of shows a Freudian slip on your part as to what you "really" think about the relevance of women's suffrage. The truth is that society has systematically implemented structures that are geared towards the specific purpose of keeping hierarchal power divides between men and women. Every feminist wave has been a reactionary movement against some type of assault on specific rights (whether they be social or legal) that tends to be peculiar to women. Again, it is the patriarchal environment that is responsible for feminism, not the other way around.

So man being seen as the head is a patriarchal(Meaning male as the head of a family) concept? So the heads of the family aren't the heads of the family while being the head of the family?

Please reword this. I have no idea what you're trying to ask.

And Homo Sapiens Sapiens and 'womankind' and 'mankind' are different, Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the biological name and wo/mankind is a common grouping name(humans would be more accurate as a common name though)

No one, including scientists, ever lump human males in the category known as "womankind". But women do get lumped into the category known as "mankind". Even the words "human" & "woman" have "man" in it. That was my point in my assertion that anthropological terms are male based. I'm not sure what your point was?