Feminist Philosophy

[Elcura]

Considering this thread has become more of "let's make a mockery out of what some feminists do"

I've been reading this thread for a while and you're only just noticing this? Also, that's why I read the thread.

[Lyall]

Here's the cycle I've come to expect:

1) Something stupid happens
2) Someone, usually a guy or someone not claiming to be a feminist, points it out
3) Someone, usually a woman or a feminist, gives the #notallfeminists defense
4) Go back to 1.

Not putting anyone here on blast intentionally, but anytime something silly or outlandish gets posted it's always "This isn't real feminism." The news reporting on it says otherwise. Take it up with the press?

Edit: I'm not going to bring up Gamergate because no one wants that, but I will agree that it's annoying to see people taking the worst examples and accrediting it to the entire banner.

[Aksannyi]

If this is directed at me, please do bear in mind that it was a snarky comment and I'm not being serious. I can't say I understand why it would be triggering to hear applause. Perhaps someone was physically abused and it reminds them of the experience?

It was directed at you, and I know it was meant as a joke, but the implication was that feminists are all man-haters, which I constantly feel like I have to remind people that we are not. And yes, that's generally why triggers occur, some time of sound or smell brings a person back to an experience they once had, causing either a panic attack or some other type of episode - I've heard of seizures or disassociations, those sorts of things, but I've never had any sort of panic/anxiety attack so I don't know what it's like.

But, if clapping is a god damn trigger for you, you should be in fucking therapy to find out why.

They probably are, but being in therapy doesn't mean your entire life stops. I've personally never heard of applause triggering anyone's PTSD, I have heard of things like car horns (that was the signal we used in OIF in 2003 to signal a possible Nuclear, Biological or Chemical [known as NBC] attack) that can trigger PTSD. While it's true that maybe that person should avoid situations where it might be a problem, I seriously don't understand why a venue that is trying to be inclusive and understanding of what might trigger someone (who probably made a special request, because I don't think applause is a "common" trigger) accommodating that requests is being treated like they're stupid? It isn't like someone went to a baseball game and asked people not to cheer for their team. They were in a space that was probably called a "safe zone," where they wanted to be reasonably safe from their own triggers. That's my personal take on this, but I could be wrong.

Not putting anyone here on blast intentionally, but anytime something silly or outlandish gets posted it's always "This isn't real feminism." The news reporting on it says otherwise. Take it up with the press?

I'd love to get the press to change the way they portray a lot of things, not just feminists, but that's a hell of an axe to grind and a lot of people have been trying to change media perceptions for a very long time. Social media is somewhat better, but not entirely, because social media doesn't go through any filters, while mainstream media goes through several. There seems to be no happy medium on that one, unfortunately.

I've just come to view this thread as more "let's see what kind of shit [some] feminists are pulling today and how we can all make fun of them," rather than any discussion or debate on what feminists are trying to achieve. Granted, "what feminists are trying to achieve" is incredibly fragmented right now, because there are so many brands of feminists out there. The general and most positive (but unfortunately, least vocal, at least in many places) feminists want equality between men and women, which is inclusive of multiple races, gender identities, sexualities, religious orientations, etc. Things like inclusion are rather big, because a lot of movements are very exclusionary in nature, which is why you see the TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and the man-hating feminists. To me, (and sooooo many others) that's not what feminism is about, though those women are going to continue to use "feminist" as a label for themselves, and there's little we can do about it except continue to spread a message of positivity and freedom from oppression - of any kind - rather than messages of hate.

It's very hard.

[NynJa]

You're this riled up because some people are mocking the fact that feminists want to eliminate clapping and replace it with jazz hands because clapping "might trigger anxiety"?

[Aksannyi]

Actually no, I am not riled up in the slightest. I just find it more annoying than anything that this thread, which should be about philosophical issues, has become entirely about mocking the feminist movement.

And again, it isn't like they said we should do away with clapping everywhere, for always. It was for this one event. If it was a bunch of deaf people asked to use jazz hands (which, iirc, is actually kind of close to the ASL for "applause") then no one would even bat an eye.

[Vandalhart]

It was directed at you, and I know it was meant as a joke, but the implication was that feminists are all man-haters, which I constantly feel like I have to remind people that we are not. And yes, that's generally why triggers occur, some time of sound or smell brings a person back to an experience they once had, causing either a panic attack or some other type of episode - I've heard of seizures or disassociations, those sorts of things, but I've never had any sort of panic/anxiety attack so I don't know what it's like.

How does it imply that feminists are man-haters? I would never paint an entire group as certain way because of one person in that group (well unless they were a group that wanted to be known for that... which some radical feminists do want to be known as man haters).

Sometimes a joke is just a joke. I'm sorry that you felt that it had some sort of deeper meaning but it was just meant to illicit a snicker.

I KNOW not all feminists ARE man-haters. If I've gotten anything from all of the videos I've watched and articles I've read, it's that the middle of the road feminists are the people I support. Even if I dislike the radical stance on just about everything, we live in a society where freedom of speech is a right and I feel that individuals have the right to say whatever the hell they want and support whatever the hell they want. Whether I agree with their stance or not is irrelevant.

They probably are, but being in therapy doesn't mean your entire life stops. I've personally never heard of applause triggering anyone's PTSD, I have heard of things like car horns (that was the signal we used in OIF in 2003 to signal a possible Nuclear, Biological or Chemical [known as NBC] attack) that can trigger PTSD. While it's true that maybe that person should avoid situations where it might be a problem, I seriously don't understand why a venue that is trying to be inclusive and understanding of what might trigger someone (who probably made a special request, because I don't think applause is a "common" trigger) accommodating that requests is being treated like they're stupid? It isn't like someone went to a baseball game and asked people not to cheer for their team. They were in a space that was probably called a "safe zone," where they wanted to be reasonably safe from their own triggers. That's my personal take on this, but I could be wrong.

I hate playing the "what if" game but:
What if someone did go to a baseball game and asked people not to cheer for their team because it was a trigger for them? How is that any different that this situation? You have a very small minority dictating and enforcing a majority to change their normal, every day behavior to make them more comfortable.

I'd love to get the press to change the way they portray a lot of things, not just feminists, but that's a hell of an axe to grind and a lot of people have been trying to change media perceptions for a very long time. Social media is somewhat better, but not entirely, because social media doesn't go through any filters, while mainstream media goes through several. There seems to be no happy medium on that one, unfortunately.

I've just come to view this thread as more "let's see what kind of shit [some] feminists are pulling today and how we can all make fun of them," rather than any discussion or debate on what feminists are trying to achieve. Granted, "what feminists are trying to achieve" is incredibly fragmented right now, because there are so many brands of feminists out there. The general and most positive (but unfortunately, least vocal, at least in many places) feminists want equality between men and women, which is inclusive of multiple races, gender identities, sexualities, religious orientations, etc. Things like inclusion are rather big, because a lot of movements are very exclusionary in nature, which is why you see the TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and the man-hating feminists. To me, (and sooooo many others) that's not what feminism is about, though those women are going to continue to use "feminist" as a label for themselves, and there's little we can do about it except continue to spread a message of positivity and freedom from oppression - of any kind - rather than messages of hate.

It's very hard.

It is very difficult, and you have my empathy. You're braver than I as it's not something I would put myself out there over. The closest thing that's almost brought me to be a little more vocal was Gamergate. I'm sure that'll paint me in some way negatively but that doesn't matter to me.

In the end, I just remember this:
"Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, most of the time they're full of shit, and more often than not, it's best to keep them to yourself."

Especially since having a difference in opinion over certain things can lead to real life consequences.

[Lyall]

Actually no, I am not riled up in the slightest. I just find it more annoying than anything that this thread, which should be about philosophical issues, has become entirely about mocking the feminist movement.

And again, it isn't like they said we should do away with clapping everywhere, for always. It was for this one event. If it was a bunch of deaf people asked to use jazz hands (which, iirc, is actually kind of close to the ASL for "applause") then no one would even bat an eye.

As you've mentioned, it is very difficult to express what it is feminism is actually doing or achieving. Conversely, it's very easy to look at a ban on clapping because someone told someone else they heard someone was triggered by it and question the sanity of the planet and the people who take that seriously. Dumb things will always have more press than good things because we as a people thrive on sensationalism.

Feminism is all for painting folks who are critical with the MRA brush (which you haven't done, but I can speak in general terms too) but don't like it when it gets turned on them with their own extremists. Actually, correct that: Everyone is all for painting anyone with the easiest way to ignore criticism, and we all hate it when the #notallhashtags get invoked.

At least we all treat everyone as shit equally.

[Aksannyi]

I hate playing the "what if" game but:
What if someone did go to a baseball game and asked people not to cheer for their team because it was a trigger for them? How is that any different that this situation? You have a very small minority dictating and enforcing a majority to change their normal, every day behavior to make them more comfortable.

There is a point when people have to recognize that not all spaces are safe spaces. Yes, even people with PTSD or chronic anxiety. In a perfect world, people would accommodate everyone and everything and any time someone needed an extra hand or whatever to make them more comfortable or feel more included, it would just happen naturally. Unfortunately, the world isn't like that, and although people can advocate for change, there are just some things that they may have to accept will not change.

Is it possible that hundreds of years down the road, clapping at sporting events will no longer be a thing because the greater part of the population banded together and agreed that it was no longer a socially acceptable form of showcasing our appreciation for what our teams do? Maybe. Huge social paradigm shifts like that take years though, decades and even centuries probably.

More than advocating for people to stop clapping at events, I'd advocate for better mental health care and rehabilitation services so that triggers become less triggering over time. I do think it is possible for people to eventually work through and overcome their triggers. So then the question becomes this: Is it better to advocate for inclusion of those people at events, which may require everyone to shift to accommodate them, or to advocate an exclusionary stance, where that person is left to feel as though they are unwelcome at the event until such a time when the behaviors and tactics of the people there are no longer triggering and/or dangerous? That's a damn hard question to answer. Simply put, I don't know what the right answer is. Some people advocate for full inclusion, and some people advocate for adaptation. Neither are necessarily wrong, in my opinion, and I can understand the points of view of both sides on this one.

Then again, I really don't see what it hurts to ask people not to clap, if we know that someone would be triggered by the act. If it's just a supposition that "someone" might be triggered, as opposed to knowing that at least one person absolutely does get triggered by clapping, does that make a difference? I don't know. I think it's one of those questions you have to ask about your event. I think for this particular thing, it was just a convention, probably with a bunch of like-minded individuals who didn't have any problem with accommodating the request. The fact that the media made such a big deal about it, touting "extreme political correctness" seems to be the most ridiculous part about the whole thing. Now if these particular feminists are now saying that clapping is an evil terror and must be eliminated completely, now and forever, then I can see why this would be such a big deal. But for one event ... I guess I'm not seeing why it even made the news, honestly.

[Brill Weave]

This thread.

[Eurell]

Lets ban clapping, but fuck everyone that gets triggered by hundreds of people do jazz hands all at once, amirite?

[NynJa]

(nhl related) I bet there are a few Rangers fans out there who have flashbacks of June 2014 when they see jazz hands. (/nhl related)

Seriously though, whats next? Dont make any noises either when clapping jazzhanding since the sound of everyone cheering and yelling and whistling could be triggering? Why stop there!! All seminars will be done one on one because being in a room with 50-200 other people may be triggering.

Theres a point where shit gets ridiculous, this is beyond that point.

[Salodin]

#notallfeminists is going to become a thing eventually

[Koul]

feminism, like everything else, isn't immune to being mocked when it's being ridiculous. I think it's appropriate to list obnoxious things even fridge feminist groups do because it's still a window into the mindset. If you have a problem with that, that's not my issue that's yours that you need to get over. I'd dare anyone to try and have a conversation with one of these feminist and let them know they're making the group look bad as a whole, let me know how that'd go.

[Byrthnoth]

To be real though, 100 people doing jazz hands is so much scarier than clapping. I would feel like I found all of the backup dancers from Thriller.

[Blubbartron]

I'd actually like to take a moment to talk about inclusion as a goal of feminism. Does anyone else have a fundamental problem with inclusion?

Inclusion is kind of an amorphous umbrella term that gets thrown around a lot. In education it's about including people with learning disabilities, behavioral problems, or straight up mental retardation into (otherwise) normal classrooms. In cultural issues, it's about forcing established groups to change their (otherwise) typical behavior because it's displeasing to some small group of people. In areas requiring standards of any sort (think firefighters, or military), inclusion is used to get standards dropped, either specifically for the group that doesn't feel included, or for everyone across the board. In general, it's a concept of applying fairness, but the problem is that the fairness is unilaterally decided by one group, and if you disagree with what they decide is fair, you're portrayed as racist/sexist/the devil himself. So I ask again, am I alone in my perception of this term?

Only slightly related, but I wonder if there has been any research into the simultaneous rise of "multiculturalism" and "inclusion" as goals/attributes of American society. Back in the day the U.S. was a melting pot, meaning that people who wanted to join the group were forced to adapt to become part of the group. With multiculturalism, other groups come in and are expected not only to maintain their own cultures, but the dominant culture is expected to change to accept them. With multiculturalism being what it is, it only seems natural for it to evolve into "inclusion" as a sort of "you have to change for me whenever and however I want." Responsibility for integration of a person/minority into a group has shifted from the individual/minority, where such a task is logically and obviously easier, to the group. This might have been a bit rambly, but the hopefully people can see where my train of thought was. It might just be me that sees these two things as having a common, irrational thought pattern.

[thetruepandagod]

I've just come to view this thread as more "let's see what kind of shit [some] feminists are pulling today and how we can all make fun of them," rather than any discussion or debate on what feminists are trying to achieve. Granted, "what feminists are trying to achieve" is incredibly fragmented right now, because there are so many brands of feminists out there.

Why don't you post an Aksannyi version of feminism with your platform and what you hope to accomplish. Be more in depth than, "equality between men and women" Explain what is required by your specific brand of non insane feminism to consider the sexes equal and ways to go about reaching it.

They might help people discuss legitimate versions of feminism as opposed to internet shitwave militant feminism.

Is it better to advocate for inclusion of those people at events, which may require everyone to shift to accommodate them, or to advocate an exclusionary stance, where that person is left to feel as though they are unwelcome at the event until such a time when the behaviors and tactics of the people there are no longer triggering and/or dangerous? That's a damn hard question to answer.

Is this a genuine question? I don't want to slippery slope you but we are already at the point where clapping can be considered a trigger, what if smiling/colors/laughing/looking become triggers? Your question is basically, Is it better to live in a world of neutral gray nothingness or help people to live in a normal world. If this is "a damn hard question to answer" I am honestly terrified of what sort of world you envision for the rest of us.

Really 90% of the time I read a post by you all I can do is sigh because you have such a good heart and it's in the right place but it's pure idiocy to see anything you want to happen as anything other than pure fantasy or working in the real world in even the slightest.

[Thunder]

I try sometimes to get it. But feminism is a goldmine for comedy

Speaking of comedy and feminism, I really get a kick out of bill burr's stuff. Love it, makes me feel all misogynistic inside when I listen - so empowering (*'.')

Spoiler: show

Srsly though, aks&other feminists, what's the opinion on ^?

[thetruepandagod]

Only slightly related, but I wonder if there has been any research into the simultaneous rise of "multiculturalism" and "inclusion" as goals/attributes of American society. Back in the day the U.S. was a melting pot, meaning that people who wanted to join the group were forced to adapt to become part of the group. With multiculturalism, other groups come in and are expected not only to maintain their own cultures, but the dominant culture is expected to change to accept them. With multiculturalism being what it is, it only seems natural for it to evolve into "inclusion" as a sort of "you have to change for me whenever and however I want." Responsibility for integration of a person/minority into a group has shifted from the individual/minority, where such a task is logically and obviously easier, to the group. This might have been a bit rambly, but the hopefully people can see where my train of thought was. It might just be me that sees these two things as having a common, irrational thought pattern.

Basically your view of immigration/multiculturalism is one guy walking into a group of 6 people and instead of attempting to fit in with the 6 people he asks the 6 people to accommodate him instead and mesh with his interests,life style.

Spoiler: show

You aren't wrong.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Back in the day the U.S. was a melting pot, meaning that people who wanted to join the group were forced to adapt to become part of the group.

I am moved to point out that is is wrong. The melting-pot metaphor is much more literal than that. You don't just dump a bunch of copper and tin into a pot and watch the tin turn to copper, you get an alloy made of both. it's not copper or tin anymore, it's bronze: stronger and more valuable than either independently.

you end up with something new, not just more of the old. that's the melting pot metaphor. You see it in food, too. Like spaghetti and meatballs, or pizza. and languages.

[Andalusian girls]

look you dumb cunts if you want Mexicans to start making hot dogs instead of enchiladas you can just get the hell out right now