Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The quote you linked says equality of women Zebio not the superiority of women. By your very definition that you posted someone who wants women to have more rights than men is not a feminist.

Oddly enough, some peoples views of Equality are not equal.

Though some would view that "Getting their due" would be the real equality for women. Though I know most feminists want true equality rather then those that would rather control it so they get to be on top, their odd view of equality being that they get a turn at the 'top'.

Though my main issue is that you've got quite a few of the mainstream feminism supporting those fringe elements, and even actively taking their words to heart.

There are many people who are members of the feminist movement who would not be classed as feminists under the actual definition of the word, that I totally agree with.

Damn but this thread generates a ridiculous amount of alerts.

Rule #1 everyone - it really isn't that hard, but it is 100% required.

nomotog wrote:

You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

I have already explained why I am not a feminist and why I think that the word is now outdated. As I said before I regard myself as a humanist (incidentally I am also a humanist in the usual meaning of the word )

Now that I'm more familiar with the exact meaning of the word, I'd like to clarify that I am a feminist. These things do matter.
Thanks to Melissa for setting me straight.

 Palindrome wrote:

nomotog wrote:

You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

I have already explained why I am not a feminist and why I think that the word is now outdated. As I said before I regard myself as a humanist (incidentally I am also a humanist in the usual meaning of the word )

I consider myself to be both.

Doesn't being a humanist entail being a feminist?

I mean, I would hope that the average person argueing against racism does not limit themselves to specific ethnicities, or someone who argues for the acceptance of homosexual partnerships would mean both M+M as well as F+F pairs, rather than just one combination. These kind of things sound like "all or nothing" deals to me.

 Lynata wrote:
Doesn't being a humanist entail being a feminist?

Of course feminism as a term has however become tainted over the years and there are aspects of the feminist movement that I dislike.

I believe in equality for all, including economic equality, and as such I don't see any need to become fixated on a particular group.

Palindrome wrote:Of course feminism as a term has however become tainted over the years and there are aspects of the feminist movement that I dislike.

It may have become tainted to some because certain parts of the population like to focus attention on the existing ill-guided segment of self-proclaimed feminists who are indeed moving against what the term actually means. Given that this seems to be a minority, however, I consider the aforementioned focus far more indicative of the resistance this movement encounters, which only makes it seem all the more important.

I mean, there's segments of the Black Power movement that would be the racial equivalent to what you are referring to in the feminist movement, yet does this "taint" the movement for racial equality as a whole?

I believe in equality for all, including economic equality, and as such I don't see any need to become fixated on a particular group.

Well, you have a point there, but it's easier and generally more productive to focus on one specific issue than attempting to solve everything at once, if only because you can better spend your energy this way. You can support equality for all even though you spend most of your time focusing on something that seems particularly important for you, be it because you consider it a greater evil or because of personal experiences that have pushed you towards this decision.
Or simply because, in your environment, this is the issue that is most often talked about. How many threads did we have about racism on dakka, compared to posts concerning the role of women?

Lastly, it is also suitable as a term to segregate the various "sub-topics" of "equality for all", which - as this thread has proven - are regularly discussed and debated as separate issues.

 Lynata wrote:
Doesn't being a humanist entail being a feminist?

I mean, I would hope that the average person argueing against racism does not limit themselves to specific ethnicities, or someone who argues for the acceptance of homosexual partnerships would mean both M+M as well as F+F pairs, rather than just one combination. These kind of things sound like "all or nothing" deals to me.

As has been mentioned, there are several "groups" within the feminists camps. While supporting homosexual partnerships doesn't really entail you to any particular group.

There's sex positive feminists, those that feel that showing your body is bolstering males, then you've got the ones that rave that Males support the Patriarchy that there's a particular group out there to keep women oppressed, then you've got some that believe males can't control themselves, should be castrated and that's when the womyn will be equal.

Then you've got the normal groups, who just believe women should be allowed equality in the workforce, whether its hard "male" tasks that are very dangerous, or such and such. Which I approve of, equality in all things.

Feminists aren't one particular group nowadays, but a multitude of many groups on how females should be Equal. It's why some people feel like they want to support Equality, but don't want to be associated with any particular feminist movement.

Given that this seems to be a minority, however, I consider the aforementioned focus far more indicative of the resistance this movement encounters, which only makes it seem all the more important.

My problem as stated, is that some mainstream groups use the minorities issues, such as the infamous 1-4 rape quote statistics, despite that would mean that it would be almost as common as the Common Cold.

 Lynata wrote:

I mean, there's segments of the Black Power movement that would be the racial equivalent to what you are referring to in the feminist movement, yet does this "taint" the movement for racial equality as a whole?

Take racial equality for example, if there was a term such as blackist then I wouldn't like to associate myself with it for the same reason that I don't call myself a feminist. There is a lot more to equality than women's rights and the terminology should reflect that.

This discussion has gotten completely lost in the woods however.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:As has been mentioned, there are several "groups" within the feminists camps. While supporting homosexual partnerships doesn't really entail you to any particular group.

Why not, though?

This really seems to be a perception issue. Why is it that the alleged feminists who are clearly not supporting equality are paraded as an example for this term, whereas this is not being done for other movements?
That's what I was referring to - as if a deliberate act of sabotage is being carried out to undermine the value and meaning of the term "feminist". I don't subscribe to this interpretation of the term, and would advice everyone to continue using it in the original and more prevalent meaning, and acknowledging "false feminists" for what they are - not representative.

Palindrome wrote:Take racial equality for example, if there was a term such as blackist then I wouldn't like to associate myself with it for the same reason that I don't call myself a feminist. There is a lot more to equality than women's rights and the terminology should reflect that.

It really seems to be a matter of interpretation - I just can't see anything negative in focusing on one agenda, as long as you don't become a hypocrite as soon as it comes to similar topics concerning other parts of the planet's population. It kind of feels like accusing environmentalists focused on protecting the rainforest of not caring about the oceans.
To denounce the term "feminism" just seems as if to surrender it to the "smear campaign" of the internet, so maybe I'm also opposing that move out of principle.

 Lynata wrote:

It really seems to be a matter of interpretation - I just can't see anything negative in focusing on one agenda, as long as you don't become a hypocrite as soon as it comes to similar topics concerning other parts of the planet's population.

That's the problem though, as soon as you make an issue of equality for a particular group then there is a real danger that people will push to far and end up creating or advocating inequality. There is a need for single issue campaigns in some circumstances, basically if inequality is well entrenched, but it does outstay its welcome in the end.

My own stance was fueled by a particular 'feminist' that I had the misfortune of meeting when I was at university

That's what I was referring to - as if a deliberate act of sabotage is being carried out to undermine the value and meaning of the term "feminist". I don't subscribe to this interpretation of the term, and would advice everyone to continue using it in the original and more prevalent meaning, and acknowledging "false feminists" for what they are - not representative.

Problem is, when does this constitute as a matter of "No True Scotsmen" They believe in Feminism, they just believe that in order to be equal other things must be done to achieve true gender equality.

 Palindrome wrote:

nomotog wrote:

You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

I have already explained why I am not a feminist and why I think that the word is now outdated. As I said before I regard myself as a humanist (incidentally I am also a humanist in the usual meaning of the word )

Why is it outdated when gender inequality still exists, wouldn't that you know make the term still relevant.

Read the posts that I made after that one.

 Palindrome wrote:
Read the posts that I made after that one.

Yeah, don't see anything you said that explains why it's outdated.

Palindrome wrote:There is a need for single issue campaigns in some circumstances, basically if inequality is well entrenched, but it does outstay its welcome in the end.

Wouldn't you say that inequality between the sexes is still well entrenched, and that the "unwelcome" bit is chiefly a result of this - a mounting resistance primarily advocated by those who now feel threatened by what used to be perceived as "harmless" decades ago?

I really think it'd be better if everyone - including true feminists - would just single out those false feminists and label them for what they are, depending on what they are actually advocating. Has "anti-racism" (there ought to be a better term for this) as a whole become dirtied just because of alleged sub-groups such as black supremacists, for example?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Problem is, when does this constitute as a matter of "No True Scotsmen" They believe in Feminism, they just believe that in order to be equal other things must be done to achieve true gender equality.

I think such argument should be analysed on a case-by-case basis, but I don't necessarily see why entire movements should be held accountable by the beliefs and actions of minorities. That's no different than saying all Christians are hateful nutjobs because Westborough Baptist.

I think that it would benefit everyone better to focus on the question of equality as a whole problem rather than picking one problem out of context,by doing so you make it sound that the problem at hand is way more important than the rest and should deserve all the attention and credit and forget about the rest.

also there are people as we all know that call themselves feminists that gives the others a very bad rap, after all being a man and hearing these kinds of statements from feminists may give you second thoughts on what their real aims are.

for example:

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

theses words alone dosen't exactly give you the picture of a equal society now does it?.

Well, if you want to solve problems you have to pick up specific issues as it's much too hard to be involved in everything at once.

 SneakyMek wrote:
I think that it would benefit everyone better to focus on the question of equality as a whole problem rather than picking one problem out of context,by doing so you make it sound that the problem at hand is way more important than the rest and should deserve all the attention and credit and forget about the rest.

also there are people as we all know that call themselves feminists that gives the others a very bad rap, after all being a man and hearing these kinds of statements from feminists may give you second thoughts on what their real aims are.

for example:

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

theses words alone dosen't exactly give you the picture of a equal society now does it?.

The first two sound like they've been taken out of context imo. Andrea Dworkin was against porn after all.

The third one...now that's scary.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 SneakyMek wrote:
I think that it would benefit everyone better to focus on the question of equality as a whole problem rather than picking one problem out of context,by doing so you make it sound that the problem at hand is way more important than the rest and should deserve all the attention and credit and forget about the rest.

also there are people as we all know that call themselves feminists that gives the others a very bad rap, after all being a man and hearing these kinds of statements from feminists may give you second thoughts on what their real aims are.

for example:

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

theses words alone dosen't exactly give you the picture of a equal society now does it?.

The first two sound like they've been taken out of context imo. Andrea Dworkin was against porn after all.

The third one...now that's scary.

How does her being against porn change ANYTHING about that statement?

Cheesecat wrote:Well, if you want to solve problems you have to pick up specific issues as it's much too hard to be involved in everything at once.

Exactly. It is fairly common for NGOs to focus on specific issues. Even the UN has dedicated departments to tackle the many problems this planet has, because it's simply inefficient and of little effect to spend your energy on everything.
Not that you're not allowed to try, or at least voice support for such measures, mind you. But ultimately, you only have X amount of time, money and brainpower to spend, so you better pick carefully what to spend it on. This is quite simply the reality of the situation.

SneakyMek wrote:also there are people as we all know that call themselves feminists that gives the others a very bad rap, after all being a man and hearing these kinds of statements from feminists may give you second thoughts on what their real aims are.

It shouldn't, for anyone who has read or heard what feminism is actually about.

Should Westborough Baptist Church give you second thoughts on Christianity?

Admittedly, in a way, it probably should - in that people can take it too far. But that's no reason to accuse an entire community for the radicalism and failings of a minority segment, or be afraid of them. At least as long as they do not appear to condone these activities and statements.

Should Westborough Baptist Church give you second thoughts on Christianity?

The Westboroh Baptist church is about 4-10 members, all from one family.

Some of the extreme factions of Feminism have some extremly high numbers, with growing rates.

 Lynata wrote:
Wouldn't you say that inequality between the sexes is still well entrenche.

To be honest, no; at least nowhere near the extent that it used to be. Its still exists of course, the gak that gets posted about female gamers is a perfect example, but we are well on the road to its eliimination and we are at the point where it is now largely an organic process. Women are already successful in a 'man's world' and the more women succeed the more likely it is that more women will be successful. Look at the strides that have been made in the last 30 years, I don't doubt that in another 30 sexism will be an issue for historians, at least in the western world.

I would even go so far as to say that women are already treated equally in the majority of cases, certainly I am not aware of any discrimination occurring towards any woman that I know. In fact I have had more female bosses than male. The internet is different as it allows people to be dicks in ways that they wouldn't be in the real world although it does of course highlight peoples true views.

I know that wage disparity exists, amongst other things, but there are other factors involved aside from sex.

In light of that I see no need for feminism.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:The Westboroh Baptist church is about 4-10 members, all from one family.
Some of the extreme factions of Feminism have some extremly high numbers, with growing rates.

I'm very sure I can dig up more radical Christian groups, if you're really asking me to do this.

Is this really necessary, or do you understand my point anyways?

Palindrome wrote:To be honest, no; at least nowhere near the extent that it used to be. Its still exists of course, the gak that gets posted about female gamers is a perfect example, but we are well on the road to its eliimination and we are at the point where it is now largely an organic process. Women are already successful in a 'man's world' and the more women succeed the more likely it is that more women will be successful. Look at the strides that have been made in the last 30 years, I don't doubt that in another 30 sexism will be an issue for historians, at least in the western world.
I would even go so far as to say that women are already treated equally in the majority of cases, certainly I am not aware of any discrimination occurring towards any woman that I know. In fact I have had more female bosses than male.
In light of that I see no need for feminism.

Okay, I'm sure it's a matter of perception. Certain posts on dakka alone show me this is still very much a topic that requires attention, as I've been under the impression that the advances that were made are stalling, or that in some areas, society has even made a step back - sexualisation becoming more and more casual, for example. I fear if feminism would disappear completely, the "this isn't worth being argued about" faction would prevail, and a lot of unsolved issues (salaries, representation, eligibility laws, and most of all perception) would remain unsolved.

But this is probably not something that can actually be debated, as it hinges on what we see in the daily life in the media we consume, so it's no wonder it differentiates from person to person.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 SneakyMek wrote:
I think that it would benefit everyone better to focus on the question of equality as a whole problem rather than picking one problem out of context,by doing so you make it sound that the problem at hand is way more important than the rest and should deserve all the attention and credit and forget about the rest.

also there are people as we all know that call themselves feminists that gives the others a very bad rap, after all being a man and hearing these kinds of statements from feminists may give you second thoughts on what their real aims are.

for example:

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

theses words alone dosen't exactly give you the picture of a equal society now does it?.

The first two sound like they've been taken out of context imo. Andrea Dworkin was against porn after all.

The third one...now that's scary.

How does her being against porn change ANYTHING about that statement?

Well, porn isn't known to be...pleasant to women. When I see that statement, I don't see it so much as "men need to be subjugated" as "the fact that a type of entertainment exists wherein a women is poorly treated is disturbing."
It's like saying "I want to see the creators of the {Insert movie here} flayed alive." - You don't really want it to happen, but you resort to hyperbole to show your disgust.

One of her claims that pornography was a factor in violence and dehumanization against women. Beating someone to a bloody pulp is pretty violent and dehumanization. That could have been the context she was speaking in.
I may be wrong though.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Should Westborough Baptist Church give you second thoughts on Christianity?

The Westboroh Baptist church is about 4-10 members, all from one family.

Some of the extreme factions of Feminism have some extremly high numbers, with growing rates.

Do you have any sources for this?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 SneakyMek wrote:
I think that it would benefit everyone better to focus on the question of equality as a whole problem rather than picking one problem out of context,by doing so you make it sound that the problem at hand is way more important than the rest and should deserve all the attention and credit and forget about the rest.

also there are people as we all know that call themselves feminists that gives the others a very bad rap, after all being a man and hearing these kinds of statements from feminists may give you second thoughts on what their real aims are.

for example:

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

theses words alone dosen't exactly give you the picture of a equal society now does it?.

The first two sound like they've been taken out of context imo. Andrea Dworkin was against porn after all.

The third one...now that's scary.

How does her being against porn change ANYTHING about that statement?

Well, porn isn't known to be...pleasant to women. When I see that statement, I don't see it so much as "men need to be subjugated" as "the fact that a type of entertainment exists wherein a women is poorly treated is disturbing."
It's like saying "I want to see the creators of the {Insert movie here} flayed alive." - You don't really want it to happen, but you resort to hyperbole to show your disgust.

One of her claims that pornography was a factor in violence and dehumanization against women. Beating someone to a bloody pulp is pretty violent and dehumanization. That could have been the context she was speaking in.
I may be wrong though.

Here's a full thing of quotes from her, she's pretty much known for being part of the Misandry crowd.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/andrea_dworkin.html

Do you have any sources for this?

I had one earlier, but I'll try and find it, mainly several majorly Misandrist authors were reported as being Icons of the current Feminist Movement.

I might be wrong on that however.

 Lynata wrote:
This really seems to be a perception issue. Why is it that the alleged feminists who are clearly not supporting equality are paraded as an example for this term, whereas this is not being done for other movements?
That's what I was referring to - as if a deliberate act of sabotage is being carried out to undermine the value and meaning of the term "feminist". I don't subscribe to this interpretation of the term, and would advice everyone to continue using it in the original and more prevalent meaning, and acknowledging "false feminists" for what they are - not representative.

That'd be nice, but they are, in fact, representative. Feminism isn't about equality; it's about gaining advantage, favor, selective treatment. If you believe in equality, you need to find yourself a different label.