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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Egalitarianist!

Those terms, man.

Those dictionaries, woman.

Pretty sure egalist ain't in them.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There are reasons for why it's still there, as of above. Women are primed for it on a biological and neurological level. Social circumstances also play into it, no doubt.

I guess we disagree about which proportion is biological/neurological and which part is social circumstances.

No time off for YOU! Why should everyone else have to subsidize you breeders. You need to check your micro aggressions on the singles you married privilegeds!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Egalitarianist!

Those terms, man.

Those dictionaries, woman.

Pretty sure egalist ain't in them.

I found the word straightforward and understood immediately what it meant. I'd wager most English readers would. That's how language evolves.

Also, feminists who are for female dominance are like Jews for Jesus. They can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't make it accurate.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Also, feminists who are for female dominance are like Jews for Jesus. They can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Doesn't it get a little tricky if the person making the claim actually believes they are that thing? I.e. a misandrist-minded "feminist" or a devout ISIS aligned "Muslim" or an abortion clinic-bombing "Christian" likely all believe they are fighting the good fight for their cause even if their actions and beliefs fly in the face of the tenets of those causes.

So who gets to decide the true members? That is a rhetorical question, mind.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Also, feminists who are for female dominance are like Jews for Jesus. They can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Doesn't it get a little tricky if the person making the claim actually believes they are that thing? I.e. a misandrist-minded "feminist" or a devout ISIS aligned "Muslim" or an abortion clinic-bombing "Christian" likely all believe they are fighting the good fight for their cause even if their actions and beliefs fly in the face of the tenets of those causes.

So who gets to decide the true members? That is a rhetorical question, mind.

Well, whenever a group is defined by its enemies, the definition will always be as inclusive as possible. At some point we have to be able to separate out people who want to claim membership with a group despite failure to meet the qualifications. There are no easy answers about where to draw the line.

However, if a majority of Christians want to disown abortion clinic bombers and a majority of Muslims want to disown ISIS and a majority of Jews want to disown Barbra Streisand, I'll follow their lead. Same thing with feminists and female supremacists.

Er, did you just say a majority of Christians don't want to disown abortion clinic bombers and same to same for Muslims and ISIL?

 Frazzled wrote:
Er, did you just say a majority of Christians don't want to disown abortion clinic bombers and same to same for Muslims and ISIL?

I said they do want to disown them.

Locally, that seems to be the case.

Borderline related :

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At some point we have to be able to separate out people who want to claim membership with a group despite failure to meet the qualifications. There are no easy answers about where to draw the line.

I think that vetting qualifications becomes even more difficult with amorphous groups like feminists. Without leadership, or an official message, fringe elements can more easily cloud the public perception of what that group stands for. It is definitely a problem with feminism (and I'd argue vegetarianism and atheism, but that is for another thread). I consider myself a feminist, but I cringe daily reading the crap done in the name of popular feminism (which I mean the drivel posted on Huffington Post and the like) because it does seem to be missing the message and straying from the core ideals of feminism.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Borderline related :

Spoiler:

Really? You're still persisting with this? The whole "MRA's boycott Mad Max" was a complete non event.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Borderline related :

Spoiler:

While I have no love for MRA (seriously they really do suck) but I think comics like these are fairly problematic.

And not just because they tend to be terribly drawn and awfully written (this one included).

These comics, which are not confined to any one ideology or viewpoint, depict one side of the debate as being irrational pond scum capable of only the most basic negative emotions and the other (the author's side) as being complex saints who are misunderstood by these villains, to the point where all attempts at rational debate are useless for they will never see the "true path."

Also Mad Max Fury Road was brilliant .

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
It is definitely a problem with feminism (and I'd argue vegetarianism and atheism, but that is for another thread).

I do not know, I feel pretty nice belonging to all those groups .

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Really? You're still persisting with this? The whole "MRA's boycott Mad Max" was a complete non event.

I am not “persisting with this” (it is iirc the first thing I post that is related to this in this thread), I just found the comic funny. And stupid. Stupid funny.

While that comic was extremely amusing, perhaps it does little else than fuel the fire here.

I really fail to see how Mad Max was "Feminist Propaganda."

Having a fleshed out female character in an action film does not make said film the unholy spawn of a demonic ritual performed by a cabal of TERFs (Trans exclusionary Radical Feminists).

EDIT: don't interpret this as anti-Feminist (I'm not.) I am anti-TERF though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
It is definitely a problem with feminism (and I'd argue vegetarianism and atheism, but that is for another thread).

I do not know, I feel pretty nice belonging to all those groups .

I am glad you do, but I don't. The public perception of all three is pretty negative, generally speaking. At least in the US.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I really fail to see how Mad Max was "Feminist Propaganda."

Having a fleshed out female character in an action film does not make said film the unholy spawn of a demonic ritual performed by a cabal of TERFs (Trans exclusionary Radical Feminists).

Its because its not

people are just seeing feminist in there soup.

 Desubot wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I really fail to see how Mad Max was "Feminist Propaganda."

Having a fleshed out female character in an action film does not make said film the unholy spawn of a demonic ritual performed by a cabal of TERFs (Trans exclusionary Radical Feminists).

Its because its not

people are just seeing feminist in there soup.

By people you mean one website trolling for clicks, blown up out of all proportion and made into a "Men's Rights Activism" bogeyman to rival the "Feminazi" bogeyman?

Yes that one

If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, them what is Alien?

 welshhoppo wrote:
If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, them what is Alien?

Feminist erotica? All dat phallic symbolism, yo.

 welshhoppo wrote:
If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, them what is Alien?

The greatest horror film of all time.

Also Mentioned on the Last Page.

Sinful Hero wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, them what is Alien?

The greatest horror film of all time.

Also Mentioned on the Last Page.

Really? I couldn't see it.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, them what is Alien?

Feminist erotica? All dat phallic symbolism, yo.

Exactly. It's a tale about a woman running away from the phallic symbolism of man.

Only without a man, she grows old alone with only her cat for company....

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

In short: "No true feminist..."

So if I argue that all men should have their muscles carved to make them physically exactly as weak as women, because otherwise we won't be equal, and I call myself an egalist, you'd defend that in the same way?

No true egalist mate.

Seriously, pushing for equality is a core tenet of feminism. If you (general you, not specifically you) want all men to be burned at the stake, I won't call you a feminist, even if you tell me you really really are.

Reductio ad absurdum...

And wtf is an egalist?

An Eaglist is a red, white, and blue blooded american who thinks that even the Tea Party are lily livered Communists!


Although in all fairness, I'm also not sure what this has to do with Fury Road.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

In short: "No true feminist..."

So if I argue that all men should have their muscles carved to make them physically exactly as weak as women, because otherwise we won't be equal, and I call myself an egalist, you'd defend that in the same way?

No true egalist mate.

Seriously, pushing for equality is a core tenet of feminism. If you (general you, not specifically you) want all men to be burned at the stake, I won't call you a feminist, even if you tell me you really really are.

Reductio ad absurdum...

And wtf is an egalist?

An Eaglist is a red, white, and blue blooded american who thinks that even the Tea Party are lily livered Communists!

Spoiler:

That actually was my first thought and reaction. Something to do with eagles.

Although in all fairness, I'm also not sure what this has to do with Fury Road.[]

One clickbaity website trolled for clicks with an article telling people not to watch Mad Max "because its Feminazi propaganda", and Tumblr exploded in outrage. People need a bogeyman to confirm their preconceptions and biases, whether its Feminazi's or Mens' Rights Activists.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
As far as I'm concerned it should be up to a husband and wife (or husband and husband, or wife and wife or whatever) who takes the leave. Not the government. Paternity/Maternity leave ought to be gender blind.

That's exactly what's about to happen in the UK later on this year I believe.

Whereas before you had anything from 6 months to a year for women, normally just a few weeks for a man, it's now going to be mixed so the couple divide it as they wish.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The public perception of all three is pretty negative, generally speaking. At least in the US.

The public perception of atheists in France is… well, atheism is kind of the norm, I guess, so there is no real specific perception of it.
I do not really care about the perception of vegetarians in general, because I only care about how I am perceived, not other vegetarians . Though I did add to my OkProfile that I was not the judgmental kind of vegetarian.
And feminism… I do not really know.

 welshhoppo wrote:
If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, them what is Alien?

If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, then what is A gun for Jennifer ?

...

Back on topic please!

 Cheesecat wrote:
One of the core ideas of feminism is gender equality and someone who is a misandrist isn't for gender equality as they give worse treatment to one gender (males) over the other, therefore I fail to see how a misandrist can be feminist if they aren't even able to practice one of the most basic

and core ideas of feminism. Just identifying a feminist (or really any identity) isn't usually enough one's actions, personality, style of dress, etc should reflect the actual group's beliefs, you actually have to commit or understand what it is. You don't just get pick up an "ism" claim you're one and

then not actually practice said group's beliefs, that's just making stuff up and ideas have to have meaning otherwise it turns into pointless nonsense.

Read my answer more closely, self-identification isn’t enough by itself, the people in question also have to draw their ideas from the greater feminist movement. The misandrists aren’t off on their own entirely, making up their own ideas out of fresh cloth – they are drawing on feminist works and literature in forming their own views. You can’t just cut them off entirely.

You certainly can address their bad arguments, and put them in context (they are a tiny minority of feminism blown out of proportion by the media), but you don’t just get to pretend they’re nothing to do with feminism.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Biology is the reason for why we have such rulings. Women are supposed to raise children by nature and due to our technological advance, breast-feeding is no longer necessary to raise a healthy child (despite breast-feeding still being more beneficial for children). It's the reason for why women were expected to stay home and feed their children, they're primed for it. Breast-feeding, higher high-tone awareness, higher adrenaline output in child-danger situations etc. There's a lot to find on a biological and neurological level.

This has pretty much the same biological truthiness as people in 1900 claiming that women shouldn’t have the vote because their brains are geared for emotional family matters, and can’t logically decide important things like national politics.

Basically, yes there are differences between men and women, but mostly on a broad, general level. Trying to apply those differences as absolute differences is junk science. Especially when men are choosing to stay home while their wives work.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And does breast-feeding take that much time?

Yes. It can take hours out of the day, and more when its a newborn and rubbish at breastfeeding.

That said, there's plenty of ways around it. You can pump and store milk – lots of women will stockpile a lot at night in front of the tv, to be used during the day in bottles. No reason that it couldn’t be the man giving those bottles to the kid during the day while the wife works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering how the thread is about MAD MAX FURY ROAD...

The film had breastfeeding. This is totally on topic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Well, whenever a group is defined by its enemies, the definition will always be as inclusive as possible. At some point we have to be able to separate out people who want to claim membership with a group despite failure to meet the qualifications. There are no easy answers about where to draw the line.

The answer is to not draw a line. You can see it more as a continuum, with groups that are more mainstream and groups that are more fringe, but never worrying about the point where you say ‘and this is the point where they aren’t part of the group anymore’. Because that, as you say, just leads just leads to picking and choosing who counts as part of the movement, based pretty much on politics (enemies insist that bad groups are part of it, the group itself says they’re not).

Ultimately, though, the only way to understand anything as broad and vast as feminism, let alone something like Christianity or Islam, is to accept the diversity in the movement, the good and the bad. This doesn’t mean the majority is any way responsible for the crazies on the fringes, but it does mean the majority can’t just say ‘they’re not part of us’ and pretend that’s the end of the conversation.

As a native Tennessean(and working quite a bit in both cities), this comic rings true with me-