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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I judge all <25 year olds by Bronies.

Good thing I am not 25 or older huh?
Also, I admitted it was wrong already.

when reading left to right,
< = less that

> greater than

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Im fine with feminists.

Only ones I dislike are -video game feminists- who try to shoehorn there agenda into every game regardless of the games intent regarding gender.

People who complain about pixels harming them mentally or "triggering" them need to get real about life.

If games are so unreal why are you so upset that women are contesting your ideas about them?

 Polonius wrote:
That's of course both simple and correct, and will be completely ignored.

It's certainly simple, I'll give you that.

This chick...

Well I can tell you point 3 is wrong. Everyone is a target for violence when you're a Al Qaeda

 whembly wrote:
This chick...

You were just waiting to use that

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This chick...

You were just waiting to use that

Of course... who doesn't like a hot chick with a good egg on her shoulders?

Feminists responses to the questions raised in the OP are easily found by googling them. I put forward it's possible that actual feminists might have a somewhat better idea of why they choose the vocabulary and framing they do more than the OT section of a wargaming forum.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Martin Luther King Jr. didn't call himself an "african-americanist" (though the movement he was primarily involved in was called almost as such), he called himself a civil rights activist. Why? Because caring about all civil injustice will net you far greater sympathy.

When did MLK call himself a civil rights activist?

My main problem with feminism is the same thing that occurs within any sufficiently large group - liars, charlatans and just generally awful people can shield themselves from criticism by self identifying with that group; and whenever someone disagrees with or attacks that individual for any reason they can translate that into an attack on the group as a whole and then the group automatically comes together to defend the individual, whether they deserve it or not.

Just so long as you don't oppose feminism on the grounds that it promotes equality for women.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just so long as you don't oppose feminism on the grounds that it promotes equality for women.

But you're cool with it being opposed on the grounds that it doesn't, right?

 Polonius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why wouldn't a Feminist who supports both sexes being completely equal call themselves a Humanist or an Equalist?

Because the vast majority of gender-based inequality, especially large-scale inequality imposed by society as a whole, goes against women, not against men. The title "feminism" is intended to make this clear, instead of pretending that inequality hurts everyone the same way.

That's of course both simple and correct, and will be completely ignored.

The reactionary forces of American culture have done a very great job of learning to point out every way a majority (usually privileged) group is "oppressed," all while loudly proclaiming that they love equality. As long as they don't have to do the slightest thing to achieve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, feminism, at its broadest, is pretty simple: it's the belief that women are people, with a package of rights like any group of people.

Women are more different from men then really any other faction divide, aside from disabled/healthy. Obviously women have issues that seem like advantages, but those are often due to the risks and downsides inherent in being a woman.

Hear, hear.

 Seaward wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Almost every single rights group has extremist members who make it look bad though.

PETA for animal rights being a good example just off the top of my head.

I'm cool with "real" feminists who have a good head on their shoulders. Like most here I also can't stand "feminazis". The latter are where a lot of the stereotypes surrounding their movement come from and do far more to hurt their cause than help it. I just learned to ignore the crazies, like I have to do with any other movement.

I think part of the problem is that the term is simply too broad. Trying to distill it down to, "Anyone in favor of equality," doesn't really work, because there are far too many factions that are about so much more than that. I might be on Camille Paglia's team, but not on Gloria Steinem's.

I like the distinction between equity feminism and gender feminism.

IIRC there was a Scandinavian country (Sweden or Norway??) that instituted an "Affirmative Action" program, to get women into more male dominated Majors at its universities. Well, on the one hand it worked well, but then, in the article I had read, a male attempted to use affirmative action to get into his local school's Veterinarian program, but was denied. The reason he was using affirmative action? In that country, over 90% of all students who signed up for the Veterinary program in a university/school were women.


I will also parrot the idea many here have said: there are "good" feminists out there who genuinely want to see actual equality (a web designer should make 60k* per year, regardless the thing between their legs), but there are also the horrible ones who want to see women thrust into positions OVER men, as "men are evil" BUT, I think the difficulty is in realizing, on both sides, that because men and women are literally wired differently, that there will ALWAYS be differences. Sometimes, a career field is dominated by men due to physical aspects of it; and on the other side, a career field may be dominated by women due to their more natural desire to care for people (as an example).

We are also beginning to see some waves where the feminist movement, even with good intentions may just be wrong. By this, I mean the push to get women into the infantry or other combat arms. As the tests are ongoing, it's coming to light more and more, that without significantly altering the standards that have existed for "ages" women just wouldn't be physically capable of doing the job. Is that necessarily wrong? I don't think so, as it goes back to the wiring and that just because there are folks who can't do one job doesnt mean anything, other than there is another job that they could/should be doing and its not the end of the world.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just so long as you don't oppose feminism on the grounds that it promotes equality for women.

But you're cool with it being opposed on the grounds that it doesn't, right?

Yeah, I think that's fine, although not true. However many people believe untrue things and act on them. The only ways to try and change people's minds are to talk about stuff, and to make changes to the situation and see what happens.

Dictionary wrote:Feminist:
fem·i·nist
[fem-uh-nist]

adjective Sometimes, fem·i·nis·tic.
1.
advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
noun
2.
an advocate of such rights.

Simply put, if you believe that women should have equal rights and social opportunities to men, you are a feminist.

And if you're not... well then, you're probably not someone worth socializing with.

An egalitarian (the proper word you're looking for instead of 'equalist'), for example, would also very likely be a feminist. Similarly, they'd also probably believe in equal social standing for people of differing races.
The point of the word feminism, then, is that it is simply focused on the problem of the sexual/gender divide.

My interpretation is that feminism is about gender equality in general (of both men and women) it just tends to focus on women's issues more (rather than men's although it doesn't ignore them either) as they have a harder life in general.

 Cheesecat wrote:
My interpretation is that feminism is about gender equality in general (of both men and women) it just tends to focus on women's issues more (rather than men's although it doesn't ignore them either) as they have a harder life in general.

While that's probably true, the problem that we see, is that the more vocal and visible feminists out there are actually the "feminazis" and give equal rights advocates of all stripes a bad name.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
My interpretation is that feminism is about gender equality in general (of both men and women) it just tends to focus on women's issues more (rather than men's although it doesn't ignore them either) as they have a harder life in general.

While that's probably true, the problem that we see, is that the more vocal and visible feminists out there are actually the "feminazis" and give equal rights advocates of all stripes a bad name.

And you can say that about any group that contains people, since in a group with people, you're bound to have someone who's loud and unintelligent. That does not, however, change the definition of a word, nor how it should be perceived.

rather than men's although it doesn't ignore them either

Shame that it isn't shown by many of them.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
My interpretation is that feminism is about gender equality in general (of both men and women) it just tends to focus on women's issues more (rather than men's although it doesn't ignore them either) as they have a harder life in general.

While that's probably true, the problem that we see, is that the more vocal and visible feminists out there are actually the "feminazis" and give equal rights advocates of all stripes a bad name.

Well, apparently you see that problem. I don't.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

rather than men's although it doesn't ignore them either

Shame that it isn't shown by many of them.

As a white male, I can say that being a guy is already pretty damn sweet.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Almost every single rights group has extremist members who make it look bad though.

PETA for animal rights being a good example just off the top of my head.

I'm cool with "real" feminists who have a good head on their shoulders. Like most here I also can't stand "feminazis". The latter are where a lot of the stereotypes surrounding their movement come from and do far more to hurt their cause than help it. I just learned to ignore the crazies, like I have to do with any other movement.

I think part of the problem is that the term is simply too broad. Trying to distill it down to, "Anyone in favor of equality," doesn't really work, because there are far too many factions that are about so much more than that. I might be on Camille Paglia's team, but not on Gloria Steinem's.

I like the distinction between equity feminism and gender feminism.

IIRC there was a Scandinavian country (Sweden or Norway??) that instituted an "Affirmative Action" program, to get women into more male dominated Majors at its universities. Well, on the one hand it worked well, but then, in the article I had read, a male attempted to use affirmative action to get into his local school's Veterinarian program, but was denied. The reason he was using affirmative action? In that country, over 90% of all students who signed up for the Veterinary program in a university/school were women.

That was here in Sweden. IIRC he got in after the thing went national and it turned out most people aren't idiots.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just so long as you don't oppose feminism on the grounds that it promotes equality for women.

But you're cool with it being opposed on the grounds that it doesn't, right?

 Fafnir wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

rather than men's although it doesn't ignore them either

Shame that it isn't shown by many of them.

As a white male, I can say that being a guy is already pretty damn sweet.

I personally like to think this way. Being a dude sucks. But being a girl sucks far more though . Then again I generally regard the world as a, the world sucks, people are jerks often or mess up when meaning well but have no fear, for life is worth fighting for and whilst we make mistakes we try to be better. We might fail spectacularly but gosh darn it we can try! On feminism, personal opinion. I don't care for feminism. I care for what somebody who is a feminist believes feminism means. If they believe it is the dictionary term for feminism, then yes I support them. If they say feminism but it is then followed by men are terrible and should be subservient for revenge, killed off, butchered, sacrificed to the dark gods of chaos then I say nope. Luckily the latter of the two is the smaller, albeit louder group