[offtopic split] Egalitariansm + feminism + related topics

[brenden]

Why don't you explain it to me then?

Ever thought that people might just have different opinions to other people on certain issues that they fully understand?

I have thought that at least on two occasions. Once, when I was four-and-three-quarters, my cousin (who was quite the daredevil) and I were in the backyard of our Nana's house, when all of a sudden we saw a possum scoot across the fence and into a tree! We entered into a detailed discussion about the pros and cons of telling the adults, the dangers of possums, the surreal nature of there being a fence there when there was once no civilisation at all among other things. On talking about the dangers of possums, both my cousin and I came to the conclusion that they were very dangerous, and my cousin even searched multiple databases and read the most prestigious possum related peer-reviewed journals and shared his information with me. I ended up saying "perhaps it's best we go inside and enjoy a cup of hot milo with milo sprinkled on top, the way Nana likes to make them".
My cousin said, "No, Ned Nerb! You must live with a thirst for adventure in your heart!"
I said, "Cousin Lachie, surely you don't fully understand the issue!"
He said, "Preposterous, Ned Nerb! You've nought lived for more than five moons - and I have read prestigious journal articles, I fully understand the perils of climbing the tree; rather, I place higher value on adventure and less value on my physical safety than you do!"
He began to climb.
"Cousin Lachie, I understand that we have different opinions despite being fully informed, but are you sure you don't want to just sleep on it?!"

Such was the short life of my Cousin Lachie, who now exists as a werepossum.


The other time I thought that was last week. My friend, a very good fencer, said that perhaps they should fence with 4kg weapons to slow it down for spectators. I disagreed, believing instead that the sport should keep its current weapons and speed.

Whilst it's not my place to define feminism, and defining things like feminism, the law, novels etc is close to impossible, the definition of feminism I personally take is: A political philosophy that criticises explicit and implicit power structures and societal/political/economic/cultural norms within society that arise from patriarchal sociocultural beliefs (whether conscious or unconscious).

[The Usual Student]

Please do everyone a favour and stop posting your rubbish until you actually learn what feminism stands for, cheers

This is why feminism has such a bad name on the internet, rather then rebutting his statement, you come back to him not understanding what feminism is. This is not simply internet culture, this is feminist culture. I am for feminism, just not the type we see today. This is not even a legitimate debate strategy, in fact what we said previously is a common criticism of feminism. A lot of the time, feminism does push only one sides problems whilst pretending to stand for both. Technically, I am a feminist but I am also a Male Right Activist. I pride myself on scrutinising and critiquing both sides of this incredibly immature gender debate. ( not this debate specifically but all gender debates seem immature to me)!

[The Usual Student]

I'm unsurprised that I was corrected for personal remarks (which are accurate as I know certain individuals personally), while Sense's long paragraphs weren't despite the fact I am a female and that is directly derogatory. It's the same as pi calling me aggressive because I make sarcastic remarks, when the thread started with Travis' mocking and demeaning statements. But he's male, so he's probably just being assertive.

I think it's pretty obvious the females are discriminated against equally, but avoid my citations and go for your anecdotal data. Very few people would know of the room without knowing what happens it. I very quickly explained the support groups after Travis' first mocking interjection. People will either pass it on University of Melbourne campus and see all the pamphlets and activities, or will know from word of mouth. And yes, they do plan activities that are carried outside, from fundraising awareness that I've already mentioned, to support to speak to domestic partners, which I've already said. And no, it's not behind sealed doors. We do fundraising booths, but you've inferred incorrect without knowing because you don't even attend our university.

Already refuted Travis' same repetitive points, all good~

Ugh, I tend to avoid debates because it really is just repeating the same things to the same individuals in new ways to help them understand. It's so boring.

You cannot make these types of allegations about people with such little evidence.
Calling out someone for being sexist without any evidence is the same type of judgemental attitude as being sexist.
This type of attitude is what hampers feminism itself. You need to supply logical evidence to why they are sexist rather then preach your own theory that really just attempts to relate everything back to your gender. If anything, your are using your gender to victimise yourself and protect yourself from the criticisms brought up against you. Regardless if these critiques are legitimate, you cannot bring up gender unless you have actual evidence to suggest sexisms. Essentially you are saying they can't rebut you as you are a girl and that would be sexist.

I am for feminism but this actually hampers it's growth as a movement. As for the dorm thing, I don't go to uni so I can really debate that.

[Ballerina]

 

You cannot make these types of allegations about people with such little evidence.
Calling out someone for being sexist without any evidence is the same type of judgemental attitude as being sexist.
This type of attitude is what hampers feminism itself. You need to supply logical evidence to why they are sexist rather then preach your own theory that really just attempts to relate everything back to your gender. If anything, your are using your gender to victimise yourself and protect yourself from the criticisms brought up against you. Regardless if these critiques are legitimate, you cannot bring up gender unless you have actual evidence to suggest sexisms. Essentially you are saying they can't rebut you as you are a girl and that would be sexist.

I am for feminism but this actually hampers it's growth as a movement. As for the dorm thing, I don't go to uni so I can really debate that.

Fantastic non-sequitur, please refer to previous posts to find examples that deny your allegations that rely on no examples.

I know you don't as you graduate in 2016.

[The Usual Student]

Fantastic non-sequitur, please refer to previous posts to find examples that deny your allegations that rely on no examples.

I know you don't as you graduate in 2016.

The very start of your latest post. The first one on page 6
You compared the treatment you were getting to the treatment others were and linked it to your gender. I replied to the comment directly.
" but he is male, so he is probably just being assertive " - reference to Pi

[vox nihili]

It's the same as pi calling me aggressive because I make sarcastic remarks, when the thread started with Travis' mocking and demeaning statements. But he's male, so he's probably just being assertive.

And the legitimacy of any point you made about sexism just went out the door...

Don't tell us that sexism is such a bad thing (and it absolutely is) and then partake in it.

My statements were certainly not intended to be mocking nor were they intended to be demeaning. I don't think that the women's room is a good idea and have provided a number of reasons for it. I also think that feminism is weakened when it seeks to segregate men and women.

I hate sexism no matter which way it's directed. It really upsets me when people try to stand against sexism but then feel that a reasonable way to deal with it is to reverse it around. It's not. It completely delegitimises the good work that feminists have done to get people talking about and actively involved in issues of gender equality. It provides a confusing argument "sexism is bad, sexism is terrible, but our answer to it is to be sexist". That does no favours for people who believe in gender equality.

It really is incredible. Anything offered by a man that is contrary to feminism appears to be immediately shut down as being sexist and that man subsequently characterised as a sexist.

[Sense]

Also, you seem to interpret "I'm all for feminism", as "I am a horrible person who believes that women are inferior to men". Maybe you should re-read what Sense said and stop interpreting everything we say as an attack.

Thank you :')

Their idea of proving a point:

Please do everyone a favour and stop posting your rubbish

you have no idea what you're talking about.

you don't understand feminism

Don't tell us that sexism is such a bad thing (and it absolutely is) and then partake in it.

Haven't you heard? If you don't agree with every 'feminist's' views you are just a misogynistic asshole and everything you say is irrelevant.

Whilst it's not my place to define feminism, and defining things like feminism, the law, novels etc is close to impossible, the definition of feminism I personally take is: A political philosophy that criticises explicit and implicit power structures and societal/political/economic/cultural norms within society that arise from patriarchal sociocultural beliefs (whether conscious or unconscious).

Wait, so it's 'close to impossible' to define it, yet you and all your buddies already have it down pat, so your argument is completely plausible and mine isn't? All you did was complicate the simple definition (the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes).

I don't even know why definitions matter, because either way I will agree because I already know what it means and I am all for it!

>I don't like the way certain feminists are pushing their views and jeopardising other groups rights to get their own way.
>I agree with the definitive version of feminism, that women should have equal rights.
>I understand that there are reasonable 'feminists'.
>*MY* opinion is that the feminist movement as a whole is causing more hate than there originally was and trying to advocate social justice and equality by degrading men. Yes, that's my opinion, and contrary to popular belief in this thread, I am allowed one.

I really can't process through my head what most of you are still so angry at this. All i'm doing is criticising people who're practicing something in a non-productive and bullying way, but it's either black or white for you people, I have to either hate every single feminist or love them, I can't choose anything in between.

[thushan]

Can everyone please stop mudslinging and mouthing off at each other? I've already posted here once beseeching you guys to talk constructively. You are young adults, please behave as such.

If this keeps up, I'm locking this thread.

[Special At Specialist]

When I look up feminism in the dictionary, I get:

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

Going by the dictionary definition, I am totally in support of feminism. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything the extremists say, especially the ones who wholeheartedly believe that women are inherently better people than men.

[brenden]

Wait, so it's 'close to impossible' to define it, yet you and all your buddies already have it down pat, so your argument is completely plausible and mine isn't? All you did was complicate the simple definition (the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes).

Yes, we have it down pat, the same way that people can point out a novel and say it's a novel without being able to >>100%<< write down a definition of a novel that will include every novel and exclude every non-novel. However, no one needs a definition of a novel to point to a rock album and say it isn't one

I didn't complicate a simple definition, I made a pretty valiant attempt at defining a complex political philosophy in one sentence. You've vastly over simplified it. Firstly, advocating for the deconstruction of implicit social norms isn't in the realm of rights, largely because women's rights are formally recognised. Secondly, women excludes gay males and trans people, which almost necessarily come under the banner of feminism as a philosophy that deconstructs power in society among other things. Moreover, my definition includes negative patriarchal influences on men, which doesn't necessary follow from feminism but happens anyway. So, "women's" is extremely narrow, and so is "rights". You could even say advocacy is too narrow.

jeopardising other groups rights to get their own way.

Citation needed.

*MY* opinion is that the feminist movement as a whole is causing more hate than there originally was and trying to advocate social justice and equality by degrading men. Yes, that's my opinion, and contrary to popular belief in this thread, I am allowed one.

Being allowed an opinion doesn't make it more correct.

I really can't process through my head what most of you are still so angry at this. All i'm doing is criticising people who're practicing something in a non-productive and bullying way, but it's either black or white for you people, I have to either hate every single feminist or love them, I can't choose anything in between.

You literally just said the feminist movement as a whole degrades men. Who is it black and white for? Not one person in this thread has chosen anything in between. Multiple people have said that some feminists are demented and abnormal - which would pretty heavily imply that they don't represent the philosophy.

especially the ones who wholeheartedly believe that women are inherently better people than men

So basically the minority that belong in a pre-school.

[vox nihili]

Can everyone please stop mudslinging and mouthing off at each other? I've already posted here once beseeching you guys to talk constructively. You are young adults, please behave as such.

If this keeps up, I'm locking this thread.

Hear, hear!

[The Usual Student]

Yes, we have it down pat, the same way that people can point out a novel and say it's a novel without being able to >>100%<< write down a definition of a novel that will include every novel and exclude every non-novel. However, no one needs a definition of a novel to point to a rock album and say it isn't one

I didn't complicate a simple definition, I made a pretty valiant attempt at defining a complex political philosophy in one sentence. You've vastly over simplified it. Firstly, advocating for the deconstruction of implicit social norms isn't in the realm of rights, largely because women's rights are formally recognised. Secondly, women excludes gay males and trans people, which almost necessarily come under the banner of feminism as a philosophy that deconstructs power in society among other things. Moreover, my definition includes negative patriarchal influences on men, which doesn't necessary follow from feminism but happens anyway. So, "women's" is extremely narrow, and so is "rights". You could even say advocacy is too narrow.
Citation needed.
Being allowed an opinion doesn't make it more correct.
You literally just said the feminist movement as a whole degrades men. Who is it black and white for? Not one person in this thread has chosen anything in between. Multiple people have said that some feminists are demented and abnormal - which would pretty heavily imply that they don't represent the philosophy.

So basically the minority that belong in a pre-school.

No point in debating a definition such as feminism, oxfords definition

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.


We need solid to be able to debate.

[brenden]

No point in debating a definition such as feminism, oxfords definition

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.


We need solid to be able to debate.

Well, there's actually a whole lot of point in debating a sub-par definition. It's clearly inadequate. I pointed that out before I knew it was from a dictionary, and I maintain that unequivocally. Dictionaries definition are literally worth 10c if you're looking for a philosophical or legal definition.

Edit: Actually, legally dictionaries are maybe worth 15c, depending on the jurisdiction and the particularities of a given case.

[Russ]

I really can't process through my head what most of you are still so angry at this. All i'm doing is criticising people who're practicing something in a non-productive and bullying way, but it's either black or white for you people, I have to either hate every single feminist or love them, I can't choose anything in between.

People are kind of annoyed at unintelligent statements like

I'm all for feminism, but let's face it, the majority of 'feminists' want superiority not equality. They face NO legal inequality, the pay gap can be easily explained by surveys and statistics that show they don't pursue higher paying jobs and money is lower on their priorities when it comes to career choices at a younger age. They still complain whilst men actually face legal inequality such as not being able to see their children and being charged with sexual related crimes with absolutely no evidence. Yes, they face inequality in society, I realise that there are dick heads who shout at them from their car and use their gender as a way to attack them, but 99% of people face the same thing in someway, whether it be for weight, sexuality, race, mental state etc.

I would ask for evidence for all the claims, but then you'll probably link me avoiceformen. Or ignore me, as you did when Nina asked for it before.

The general vibe of the thread has been "yeah we totally understand that women have problems but men have problems TOO. and it'd totally be unfair to address women's problems without addressing men's problems to the same extent. also, women mostly have attitude problems".

I know it's hard to imagine, but when the social balance is tilted so far in one direction (yours), tilting it a little bit back in the other direction isn't actually discrimination in any relevant or important sense. Nobody here disagrees that men don't have issues or face discrimination. Men's issues are quite literally irrelevant to a discussion of whether or there needs to be social change to support women and it's maybe time to let go and not make things about men /every/ time. Everybody agrees that radical opinions that seek to marginalize men are bad. Apparently some people include "a support service for women" in that definition.

nb people portraying the discrimination against women as less significant to the 'discrimination' against mature age students is absurd and disgusting.

[Hancock]

I've actually done extensive reading on both sides of this (MRA and Fem), and the majority of posts in this thread show the stereotypical nature each group.

Reading through your posts, it's seems that if someone doesn't agree with a feminist viewpoint, the way an INDIVIDUAL poster interprets it, they are misogynistic. Never mind their view point, he (and let's be honest, in this thread it's always been a he) is automatically shut down by both females and white knights about not being as "informed" as they are. On the other hand, you can't come into a discussion saying you're pro-feminist and they mouth off about their extremist minority.

If feminists want true equality between the two sexes, then things like affirmative action, bake sales were the price for women is lower and the idea of creating "women only" lanes in the UK [1] needs to stop now. The reason that people are discussing this "women's room" at UoM is because the idea of segregation on the basis of sex is not equality at all. Imagine if UoM created a "men's room" before a "women's room". I guarantee there would be SJW banging down on the administration.

Discriminating on the basis of past discrimination and then proclaiming that "women are oppressed!" as a validating statement gets you no where.

[1] - http://www.newstalk.ie/reader/47.339.355/29973/0/