Feminism Thread

[Kohan]

My brain understands this, but I can't help but feel the non-extremist feminists are very, very quiet as of late, and that worries me.

They're doing what they can, and they know that arguing with extremists will be a waste of their time. While I understand your concern, I cited some statistics previously that should ease your worries, particularly in relation to the ever-decreasing amount of anti-feminists, and the proportionately growing understanding.

If you consider the loudest lunatics on the Internet to be frightening, don't. They are not representative of the majority's social opinions, and do not have nearly as much power over shaping them as they believe they do.

[Ashmada]

Focus. Egalitarianism may be an ultimate goal, but it is incredibly broad. It includes religious and political concerns, not to mention many, many more. To say "I support egalitarianism" can be interpreted in numerous ways, and perhaps never correctly, unless you provide qualifiers. It's much like saying "I'm a humanist," and expecting that to be that. I consider myself a humanist, and I believe in egalitarianism in relation to gender, race, and so on. As I understand that feminism focuses on specific facets of equality (not only in relation to biological men and women, but—in modern day—regarding gender identity in general), I support it simultaneously. The two things are mutually beneficial, and the existence of the umbrella term (egalitarianism) does not nullify the need for anything existing underneath it (e.g., feminism).

That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with saying: "I'm an egalitarian, so I believe that individuals of any gender identity should have equal opportunities in all respects." Naturally, that's just fine. If you agree with feminist ideals, but wish to identify as an egalitarian, there's nothing wrong with that—so long as you recognize that said causes can work together. After all, considering egalitarianism to be the superior term implies an acceptance of any negative connotations attached to feminism, which is defeatist, considering that feminism contributes to egalitarianism. As such, rather than saying "I would call myself an egalitarian, not a feminist," one could say, "I consider myself an egalitarian, so I support feminist causes." Once again, qualifiers and focus.

Therefore, if someone believes in equal opportunity for all and believes that feminism exists to undermine that, I endeavor to explain why this is not the case. Extremists do not represent feminism, just as they do not represent racial, political, or religious causes, and it is always important to point that out.

Fair point.
Coincidentally, "focus" is something I've found lacking in the internet feminism I've seen lately: article upon article about privilege, most of them listing wholly unrelated issues, switching scope from US-centric to other parts of the world when it suits the agenda, with absolutely no solutions advanced.
What do these articles aim to achieve, aside from an ego boost for the author?
What do they actually achieve, aside from potentially antagonising people who'd actually agree on most/all counts had the diatribe been offered in a less bellicose and reductionist way?

Instead of writing pointless shit like "straight white male is the lowest difficulty setting", they should discuss actual issues, like the pay gap or the repugnant treatment of women in parts of the world dominated by monotheisms (mostly islam).
That is, if they actually strived to achieve something other than an ego boost.

[Kuya]

I think that kind of conduct is pretty much summed up as navel gazing.

[Drex]

Fair point.
Coincidentally, "focus" is something I've found lacking in the internet feminism I've seen lately: article upon article about privilege, most of them listing wholly unrelated issues, switching scope from US-centric to other parts of the world when it suits the agenda, with absolutely no solutions advanced.
What do these articles aim to achieve, aside from an ego boost for the author?
What do they actually achieve, aside from potentially antagonising people who'd actually agree on most/all counts had the diatribe been offered in a less bellicose and reductionist way?

Instead of writing pointless shit like "straight white male is the lowest difficulty setting", they should discuss actual issues, like the pay gap or the repugnant treatment of women in parts of the world dominated by monotheisms (mostly islam).
That is, if they actually strived to achieve something other than an ego boost.

They are prominent because they care about being prominent, not because they especially care for the cause. That also explains the issue of "real" rights vs. first world problems; after all, how does appealing to women in Nigeria get her crowdfunding and youtube hits?

Spoiler alert: The cause is herself. Awareness of herself is the end. Feminism is a means to that end.

[quannum]

What do these articles aim to achieve, aside from an ego boost for the author?

the 150k for anita's kickstarter? or the 25k for rpg camp?

gotta show those trolls that girls rule

http://www.feministfrequency.com/arc...dthetrolls.png

[BaneTheBrawler]

the whole "straight white male is easiest difficulty setting" always bugs me. not because i think its untrue, but because almost everyone who uses it throws it around as if it somehow means that, no matter what, a straight white guy can't possibly suffer as much as anyone else. Which I'll be sure to keep in mind the next time my ass explodes.

[Plow]

the 150k for anita's kickstarter? or the 25k for rpg camp?

gotta show those trolls that girls rule

http://www.feministfrequency.com/arc...dthetrolls.png

pretty sure those hoops are about 5 inches too small

[Rhinox]

Jim Norton pretty much smoked her.



Fucking lol @ his parting shot. She was not happy about that

[Rhinox]

relevant to the last video

[Charismatic]

[hey]

That was already posted.

[Not Kuno]

Jim Norton pretty much smoked her.



Fucking lol @ his parting shot. She was not happy about that

I saw this the other day and lil jim was such a trooper about the whole thing. He put up a really good argument without being as offensive as he can generally be. Well until the end at least, and man was she fucking pissed.

[Acevalefor]

Lindy's examples had more to do with horrible comedians not being funny than it had to do with people making fun of rape. Jim did a great job at pointing this out at least twice when she tried to use bad comedy as an example of offensive rape jokes being thrown all over the place. You can't censor comedy just because you don't like it and think other people won't like it either. Even if she is correct in her assumption that others don't like it, that still doesn't mean she gets to say "You're a dick. You can't say stuff like that because I am offended." She can, however, call him a dick and leave it at that.

Jim's parting comment was genius. I think he had that planned from the start. Just say something offensive in closing to irritate her and leave her no time for a response.

[Renzokuken]

[Charismatic]

I really enjoyed that video.
Probably my favorite Anita response so far.

Anita, you are the tropes.

[Callisto]

Just another example of the patriarchy trying to silence her

[Eurell]

Just another example of the patriarchy trying to silence her

http://i38.tinypic.com/1tv6sp.png

[Charismatic]

[Qalbert]

how much did you have to donate to see her tits?

[AidenCarby]

^