Anti-feminist anger, p2

[Mentat]

Jews? I'm serious.

African-americans too: remember Obama pwnd Hilary.

[Guest Raidne]

African-americans too: remember Obama pwnd Hilary.

No way. Only mere hundreds of years of systematic oppression, and lacking the biological essentialism that feminism is saddled with.

[Tempra]

I agree with this. Besides, I like the wacky extremist feminists. I don't agree with them, but I'm happy to have them as members of the same club. And what's the deal with so many people thinking otherwise? Every movement has it's extremists, and they're just as necessary as the moderates. Really, any political group needs a full spectrum. I mean, do you feel the same way about the Black Panthers? Extremists are often the most interesting part of a movement's history, but everyone understands that the Black Panthers were only one small aspect of the Civil Rights movement in total. Everyone understands this about feminism too, they just pretend not to in order to diminish the movement.

No, not really. The Black Panther comparison is odd. Everyone (even the black panthers themselves) would recognize that they were an extremist organization who advocated ARMED resistance. People don't discredit the Civil Rights movement because of the Black Panthers because we all realize that the black panthers were one organization fighting (illegally in many instances) for civil rights.

There is a problem defining who and what makes a feminist. You welcome extremists into the same group of people as you. You can hardly complain when people attack your association with them when you freely and voluntary choose to associate with them. Martin Luther King was against violence. The Black Panthers walked around brandishing rifles shouting "OFF THE PIGS." See the difference?

And I find it truly odd that you find the black panthers, an organization whose leader advocated the rape of women as a means of insurrection, to be "interesting."

And good luck with that. From 2,000, hell, probably 10,000, years of crippling inequality to the rights we've achieved today in 100 years? Congratulations to feminists - everyone else should be taking freaking notes.

10,000? Why sell women short? MILLIONS! Of course, for 99% of history, both men and women faced "crippling inequality" at the hands of kings, tyrants, and aristocrats. Congratulations to all free people!

So, IMO, people, ahem, men, who want to tell us how we can do it better can take a number. Get back to me when you can show me some other group that's accomplished so much.

Pickup a history book and read about the thousands of years of struggle that took place before the women's rights movement. Women's rights didn't happen in a vacuum.

[TheKassi]

Except that it was YOU that started throwing around the term "political correctness" with regards to this issue, not the feminists. The feminists have a (legitimate, IMO) concern that half of the Canadian population is not properly included in the anthem. Your beef seems to be that they are not addressing other instances of political incorrectness that are in there as well. Why should they? It's not their battle, and if no one comes forward and complains about the other parts, who's to say whether there is a problem at all?

First, and once again, political correctness is the correct term here. If you do not like it, I am more then happy to use selective inclusiveness, but beyond I can do no more to deal with your vocabulary discomfort.

Second, half of Canada's population is not excluded by the contested word in this song. Only a small minority of Canadian women have a problem with it. You might think all women should feel excluded, but from all accounts Canadian women seem to disagree with your assessment.

Third and most important this in particular:

Why should they? It's not their battle

Is flatly absurd. I think it is probable not even you believe it. By this logic, assuming your profile is accurate, you have no reason to be in this debate and it isn't your fight.

Besides, to argue that something is a form of injustice and then argue that only those who feel victimized by that injustice have a reason to stand up against it, and only so far as it effects them and no farther, is extremely freaking disgusting and in my opinion the antithesis of justice.

[Ser Reptitious]

TheKassi,

First, and once again, political correctness is the correct term here. If you do not like it, I am more then happy to use selective inclusiveness, but beyond I can do no more to deal with your vocabulary discomfort.

I don't have a vocabulary discomfort towards the term, but my problem with it is that the dictionary definition of it is so broad that it could apply to anything to do with equality struggles. As I mentioned before, giving women and ethnic minorities the right to vote was politically correct as well.

But on the flip side the term is today in the vernacular often used in such a way as to mean "political correctness gone overboard". You still haven't clarified if that is in fact what you really meant to say when you first brought up the term in this thread.

However, to bring this distracting side issue to a close, I can tell you that I don't really care what term(s) you use so long as it's clear what your position is. I'm still not completely certain on that. Do you agree that the wording in the anthem is sexist?

Second, half of Canada's population is not excluded by the contested word in this song. Only a small minority of Canadian women have a problem with it. You might think all women should feel excluded, but from all accounts Canadian women seem to disagree with your assessment.

I haven't seen any polls, but I suspect that many women haven't really thought about it until now (but you probably also noticed that most women in these threads do consider it to be problematic?). That doesn't mean that the song isn't exclusive. It clearly and obviously is.

This is just a guess, but I suspect that the Canadian population probably breaks down along the following lines on this issue:

- some women care strongly about getting this changed,

- some women would like to see this changed, but don't have too much emotional investment in it,

- some women don't care at all

- most men don't care at all

Now, if changing the anthem required a constitutional amendment or overcoming some other huge procedural obstacles that would require redirecting critical resources and energy from other important matters, I'd be inclined to agree that it might not be worth it, particularly in a time of economic recession. But that is not the case. All that is required is a simple bill that needs to gradually wind through Parliament, just like hundreds of other bills do every year. Since the proposal (supposedly) isn't really controversial (only irrelevant, according to detractors) there shouldn't much opposition. A few months down the road, our Governor General (who just happens to be a woman) would sign the bill into law and henceforth we'd be signing "all of us" (or something along those lines) instead of "all thy sons". Boom. Done. Problem solved.

Is flatly absurd. I think it is probable not even you believe it. By this logic, assuming your profile is accurate, you have no reason to be in this debate and it isn't your fight.

Besides, to argue that something is a form of injustice and then argue that only those who feel victimized by that injustice have a reason to stand up against it, and only so far as it effects them and no farther, is extremely freaking disgusting and in my opinion the antithesis of justice.

You're right, this isn't my fight, but that doesn't mean I can't voice support for those whose fight it is.

After all, how would it look it men had been the ones to first raise this issue, with nary a peep coming from a woman? It would look like men were trying to tell women what they should feel offended about! That in itself would be offensive and we clearly therefore have no right to do that!

However, once women raise the issue, I don't see a problem at all with expressing my support.

The same goes for any other group that takes issue with things in the anthem (or anything else, for that matter). If atheists object to the God reference, for example, it is up to them to start voicing their concerns. If non-atheists want to voice their support afterwards that's fine, but it's not their place to start the battle!

[Guest Raidne]

No, not really. The Black Panther comparison is odd.

I don't get it. My contentions are:

(1) The Black Panthers are extremists who are civil rights activists.

(2) Extremist feminists, e.g. The Furies Collective, are extremists who are feminsts.

You must believe that feminism is more definitive label than civil rights activist? They don't give out membership cards. You can belong to N.O.W., or something, sure, but we're not all "The Feminists" like the Southern Leadership Conference or something.

Martin Luther King was against violence. The Black Panthers walked around brandishing rifles shouting "OFF THE PIGS." See the difference?

Yeah, MLK didn't advocate violence and I sure as hell don't advocate separatism. So, no, I don't see the flaw in my analogy. Actually, to me, it's looking better all the time.

And I find it truly odd that you find the black panthers, an organization whose leader advocated the rape of women as a means of insurrection, to be "interesting."

And yeah, no matter what they advocate, I always think extremist ideas are, if nothing else, interesting. What the hell was that? Don't you? Whatever you're advocating here, it seems kind of thought-police-y and scary.

Pickup a history book and read about the thousands of years of struggle that took place before the women's rights movement. Women's rights didn't happen in a vacuum.

Funny enough, I got a whole degree in it, but thanks for the recommendation. Marie de Gournay might have published some philosophy back in the 1600s, but she was ridiculed publicly and her mentor, even, published on why women shouldn't be allowed to study philosophy. But she was a remarkable woman. There are a lot of remarkable women before the late 19th century early 20th century, but there just isn't a remarkable movement until around that time. I'd love to say otherwise, spent years trying to be to say otherwise, and it's just not there.

I'd be happy to recommend some reading for you if it's something you're really interested - I have a lengthy bibliography on the subject at home.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't get it. My contentions are:

(1) The Black Panthers are extremists who are civil rights activists.

(2) Extremist feminists, e.g. The Furies Collective, are extremists who are feminsts.

You must believe that feminism is more definitive label than civil rights activist? They don't give out membership cards. You can belong to N.O.W., or something, sure, but we're not all "The Feminists" like the Southern Leadership Conference or something.

Actually, I think that may be the point. The term "Black Panthers" acquired a very specific meaning all its own, which meant that it was easy to linguistically separate the freaky radicals from civil rights activists in general. If you said you were a "civil rights activist", people pictured MLK. If you said you were a "Black Panther", they pictured something else entirely.

The problem for "feminism" is that no comparable linguistic separation has arisen. The label "feminist" runs the gamut from ordinary women who want equal pay, to man-hating harridans who use "womyn". The moderates get lumped in with the radicals, which affects the perception of the term in the minds of a lot of people.

Or that's the way it seems to me, anyway.

[Kalbear]

Exactly. Linguistically and socially, the Black Panthers weren't associated with civil rights specifically; they gained their own name, their own connotations, etc. They didn't try to associate with the civil rights movements or their leadership much either.

But radical feminists don't call themselves that. They're just...feminists, and they feel that their message is as useful and as effective as anyone else's. Heck, a lot of them think the Steinem feminists aren't real feminists.

[Alexia]

The moderates get lumped in with the radicals, which affects the perception of the term in the minds of a lot of people.

Well said indeed.

[Guest Raidne]

The problem for "feminism" is that no comparable linguistic separation has arisen. The label "feminist" runs the gamut from ordinary women who want equal pay, to man-hating harridans who use "womyn". The moderates get lumped in with the radicals, which affects the perception of the term in the minds of a lot of people.

Well, it has, actually, but somehow it hasn't translated into the general public. For instance, isn't N.O.W pretty well known? They're pretty moderate. Don't people think of them when they think feminism like you'd think of MLK? Maybe not outside of feminist circles. But when I think extremism I think "radical separatist."

Why this hasn't translated into the larger culture is an interesting question. I think a lot of it is just that there aren't really any high-profile gender issues getting a lot of attention right now. If we were fighting out, say, paid parental leave on an equal basis for men and women, it would be in the popular press and we'd be a little more familiar with the leaders.

And also, it seems pretty clear to me that it's not being adequately covered in textbooks. People seem to know about first wave feminism and Susan B. Anthony, but we clearly aren't taught about second-wave feminism to the extent that we all learned about the civil rights movement. I'm not clear on why that is either - thoughts?

Because overall, that's a pretty fundamental disconnect. Anyone who actually interacts in the feminist community knows all these distinctions.

[Kalbear]

And also, it seems pretty clear to me that it's not being adequately covered in textbooks. People seem to know about first wave feminism and Susan B. Anthony, but we clearly aren't taught about second-wave feminism to the extent that we all learned about the civil rights movement. I'm not clear on why that is either - thoughts?

Probably because not a lot of concrete law changed at that point, especially in comparison to civil rights. I mean...the biggest 'accomplishment' was ALMOST getting the ERA passed. Equal pay rules and antidiscrimination laws were important - but they also haven't affected things like civil rights have. Probably because for whatever reason all it did was displace the most blatant problems, and hasn't really solved a lot.

Guess the same could be said for some of the civil rights, too.

[Tempra]

I don't get it. My contentions are:

(1) The Black Panthers are extremists who are civil rights activists.

(2) Extremist feminists, e.g. The Furies Collective, are extremists who are feminsts.

You must believe that feminism is more definitive label than civil rights activist? They don't give out membership cards. You can belong to N.O.W., or something, sure, but we're not all "The Feminists" like the Southern Leadership Conference or something.

The difference between you and the womyn/herstory feminists is a difference in degree. The difference between Martin Luther King and the Black Panthers is a difference in kind.

Yeah, MLK didn't advocate violence and I sure as hell don't advocate separatism. So, no, I don't see the flaw in my analogy. Actually, to me, it's looking better all the time.

see above

And yeah, no matter what they advocate, I always think extremist ideas are, if nothing else, interesting. What the hell was that? Don't you? Whatever you're advocating here, it seems kind of thought-police-y and scary.

Revolting is my choice of adjective.

I find your choice to analogize extreme feminists to black panthers ironic because a leader of the black panthers advocated RAPING WOMEN. And, as stated above, a poor analogy.

I must admit that I am clueless where your "thought-police-y and scary" comment comes from.

Funny enough, I got a whole degree in it, but thanks for the recommendation. Marie de Gournay might have published some philosophy back in the 1600s, but she was ridiculed publicly and her mentor, even, published on why women shouldn't be allowed to study philosophy. But she was a remarkable woman. There are a lot of remarkable women before the late 19th century early 20th century, but there just isn't a remarkable movement until around that time. I'd love to say otherwise, spent years trying to be to say otherwise, and it's just not there.

I'm not sure how this refutes my point. You made a bold claim (through your challenge) that no other group has achieved as much as women. It is rather silly, self-trumpeting propaganda. The women's rights movement has been SO successful BECAUSE of the thousands of years of struggle of man (yes, women are included in that man). Look at where women's rights movements have been successful: US, Canada, Europe, OZ, NZ, and a few other places. That's about it. So if you want me to point to groups that have been "more successful," look to the people of these countries whose fight for enlightenment made everything you hold dear possible. The women's rights movement doesn't happen without all that history.

[Guest Raidne]

Probably because not a lot of concrete law changed at that point....

?????? Really, there aren't enough question marks in the world. Plus, didn't a lot happen in other countries around that time?

The difference between you and the womyn/herstory feminists is a difference in degree.

Well no, because I am a womyn/herstory feminist. In fact, I propose right here and now that we call all people Wym, and we'll denote the male aspect of the species with the term "Menwym."

That's not radical feminism. I can only guess that you don't really know what I'm talking about when I keep saying separatist, do you? And, also, you know how society could continue to exist as long as there is one man around for every god knows how many women, I'm sorry, Wyms? There are some people who want that. Those are radical feminists.

Still think they're so different from the Black Panthers?

I find your choice to analogize extreme feminists to black panthers ironic because a leader of the black panthers advocated RAPING WOMEN. And, as stated above, a poor analogy.

Yep, [cue Butters voice] I sure don't agree with that. I mean, come on. I don't agree that we should cull the male population down to a fraction of its current state either. Or that we should hang the leaders of capitalism from lampposts. But all those extreme viewpoints are necessary - someone has to be at the fringe.

I can see what's happened to feminism now - the real fringe isn't even represented, and instead you're pretending that people who say "womyn" are fringe feminists, when they are actually just past mainstream, like maybe not quite halfway between total moderates and radical feminists. I find that to be really...patronizing. Like we're a sewing circle who couldn't come up with anything truly radical.

The women's rights movement has been SO successful BECAUSE of the thousands of years of struggle of man (yes, women are included in that man).

First, :ack: Second, okay, if you say so, what did the Wyms do in, say, the 14th century to advance the cause of women's rights in the West?

[TerraPrime]

Re: Kalbear

That's another issue; for whatever reason feminism has attracted a lot people more attracted to the extremist viewpoint.

You said this, but gave no indication of numbers. What's the scale here? What percentage of the over all feminist movement do people who qualify as "extremists" represent?

Re: TheKassi

Second, half of Canada's population is not excluded by the contested word in this song. Only a small minority of Canadian women have a problem with it. You might think all women should feel excluded, but from all accounts Canadian women seem to disagree with your assessment.

What a bizarre piece of illogic.

Say I witness my neighbor beating on his wife. I call the police. The police arrived, and do they now have to obtain agreement from the beaten wife that there is abuse going on before they can arrest the guy?

The word "sons" refers to men, or do you dispute this? It is by definition exclusive of women. The fact that most Canadian women choose to interpret the word as inclusive of women is a remnant of sexism wherein women are forced to commit these linguistic justifications.

Re: Feminism

I don't see the benefits of dissociating the movement from groups that are deemed "embarrassing." They are, whether we like it or not, part of the family. It'd be hypocritical of a movement that rests on promulgating respect for each person's choices regardless of whether these choices conform to nominal social structures or not to then turn around and establish a strict and exclusive membership litmus-tests, telling one woman that she is a feminist and the other that she is not. The proper strategy is not to dissociate oneself from the "embarrassing" segments of the movement, because whence comes this "embarrassment" if not the very same systemic anti-woman attitude, consciously manifested or unconsciously existing by default, trying to silence them? The dissociation will only embolden the attempts to silence the pro-equity side.

Also, in a battle, one does not cede ground that one has gained. Being able to say that men are not necessary for a happy life for women is a battle won, and it is not something we should give up, even on account of the discomfort of some men.

This pointing to unlikable portions of a movement is a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, you know. It happens to all social movements. LBGT are asked to hide their drag-queens and their bull-dykes, too, and thank Dog only the dimwits in the Log Cabin believe that they can achieve equality by marginalizing members of their own group.

Re: This thread

I'll repeat my observation of irony enacted here when those who believe that the word "sons" should be changed to be gender-neutral are told that we are obsessing over trivial matter when in the same thread, we are having a discussion on whether the term "feminist" is too broad.

If we say that over-sensitivity is the cause of people's discomfort of feeling excluded by the word "sons", even though the word does mean only male offspring, then why not level the same criticism against people hand-wringing over the term "feminist?" You feel uncomfortable and/or excluded from the label "feminist"? Why, you must have an overly sensitive disposition. You should really worry about things that are more important than a mere word. Try saving starving children of the world.

[Guest Raidne]

Re: This thread

I'll repeat my observation of irony enacted here when those who believe that the word "sons" should be changed to be gender-neutral are told that we are obsessing over trivial matter when in the same thread, we are having a discussion on whether the term "feminist" is too broad.

Oh, snap. I miss the + -

[potsherds]

If we say that over-sensitivity is the cause of people's discomfort of feeling excluded by the word "sons", even though the word does mean only male offspring, then why not level the same criticism against people hand-wringing over the term "feminist?"

Heh. One reason I hardly respond to any particular thing said in these threads is the hypocritical nature of so many negative comments about the movement or feminism. So much of it is so very patronizing as well, to say the least.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

?????? Really, there aren't enough question marks in the world. Plus, didn't a lot happen in other countries around that time?

Well no, because I am a womyn/herstory feminist. In fact, I propose right here and now that we call all people Wym, and we'll denote the male aspect of the species with the term "Menwym."

That's not radical feminism.

I think that's a matter of perspective and definition, not fact. It may be less radical than even more extreme views, but that doesn't mean it isn't radical.

[potsherds]

I think that's a matter of perspective and definition, not fact. It may be less radical than even more extreme views, but that doesn't mean it isn't radical.

Whut? It's just using different wordz, dude. Stop over-reacting. It's a "fucking stupid' issue.

[Guest Raidne]

I think that's a matter of perspective and definition, not fact. It may be less radical than even more extreme views, but that doesn't mean it isn't radical.

Uh huh. Survey: how many self-identified feminists agree with this statement:

"The use of gender-specific language often implies male superiority or reflects an unequal state of society"

Do you really think it's not the vast majority? How else would you define non-extremism?

Between reading that "feminism" has nothing to do with "femininity" as if feminists would, like, care about that (it's like someone trying to insult me by telling me I'm not fat), and this idea that the desire for gender neutral language is radical, this is like some kind of Twilight Zone.

[Tempra]

?????? Really, there aren't enough question marks in the world. Plus, didn't a lot happen in other countries around that time?

Well no, because I am a womyn/herstory feminist. In fact, I propose right here and now that we call all people Wym, and we'll denote the male aspect of the species with the term "Menwym."

That's not radical feminism. I can only guess that you don't really know what I'm talking about when I keep saying separatist, do you? And, also, you know how society could continue to exist as long as there is one man around for every god knows how many women, I'm sorry, Wyms? There are some people who want that. Those are radical feminists.

Still think they're so different from the Black Panthers?

Let me be clear: we are not going to agree on definitions. Despite that, I feel quite confident that most of society would side with me on this issue that women who refuse to spell "women" properly are radical. Sheesh, the fringe elements can sure get caught up in their own self delusion.

Yep, [cue Butters voice] I sure don't agree with that. I mean, come on. I don't agree that we should cull the male population down to a fraction of its current state either. Or that we should hang the leaders of capitalism from lampposts. But all those extreme viewpoints are necessary - someone has to be at the fringe.

Sure, they push the edge too far and everyone else ropes them back in. They may be useful, but rarely are they admirable.

I can see what's happened to feminism now - the real fringe isn't even represented, and instead you're pretending that people who say "womyn" are fringe feminists, when they are actually just past mainstream, like maybe not quite halfway between total moderates and radical feminists. I find that to be really...patronizing. Like we're a sewing circle who couldn't come up with anything truly radical.

See my self-delusion comment above.

First, :ack: Second, okay, if you say so, what did the Wyms do in, say, the 14th century to advance the cause of women's rights in the West?

What in the world does this have to do with anything?