Anti-feminist anger, p2

[Mya Stone]

Is anybody else a tiny bit bored with the canadian bloody national anthem?

That was three threads back, people!

*sigh* get back to it, then.

:lol:

Love you, Fee. Nice to see you posting. (Carry on, Feminism posters!)

[Ser Reptitious]

Tempra,

Persistent bugger. See, e.g., MinDonner's and Peggy Leaf's posts in response to mine on the first page. I don't know whether I should be flattered or not that you hang on my every word (or lack thereof).

MinDonner specifically stated that the feminist in the article you linked was an extremist (I believe she used the term "wingnut"). I fail to see how that proves your point.

Political correctness is not per se wrong. That is why people usually say X is political correctness run amok.

Sure, but that's subjective, isn't it?

Do you have a point? Issues get fixed when certain groups scream loud enough. In the case of the O Canada, it was feminists who screamed foul. Not pacificists or atheists (though they were most vocal on CBC's message board).

I'll try to address that here:

The idea behind the argument that the anthem should be changed is that the word 'sons' is insensitive and it makes a small percentage of Canadians feel excluded. The proposed fix is to make it gender neutral so that the language changes from exclusive to inclusive.

This is political correctness.

This logic however is only applied from a very narrow perspective. All the other ways in which the song could be defined as exclusive to a small percentage of Canadians are ignored. I mean come on, what about all the people who don't want their nation to command anything in them?

Thus the political correctness is applied selectively.

Okay, sure, from a technical perspective you are correct, but what is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to say that, to use Tempra's phrase, that it is political correctness run amok?

If so, that is your prerogative, I suppose, and we would just have to agree to disagree. :dunno:

[Ser Reptitious]

The real question should be why Canada has a national anthem. It's like Kentucky having a national anthem.

Did you just compare us to Kentucky? :stunned:

Them's fightin' words! Pistols at dawn! :pirate:

[Kalbear]

Fortunately, dueling in Kentucky is part of their pledge to service in the government. So that should be okay - at least as long as I don't plan on serving there.

And I really shouldn't have compared Canada to Kentucky. At least by population, Canada's way closer to California or Texas.

[potsherds]

I actually dislike this idea that feminism should try to have some coherent agenda made only of what is deemed 'important' to someone or other. Partly because I'm suspicious of just who we're trying to tailor this agenda to, and particularly because I have a hard time grasping how a movement largely based on the idea of choice, free and uninhibited choice, would not be partially crippled by narrowing and concentrating focus.

Sure, I understand how much more palatable or acceptable this movement would then be to the majority, and I get the whole shpeel about messaging, but it just seems counter to the movement itself. And I really dislike that the point here, or at least my interpretation of it, is that the reason these things should be done is because we (feminists) have to sell the idea of equality to the general public. I don't know where to begin with how that idea personally offends me. (Doesn't it offend the 'general public', too?)

[Lady Blackfish]

I agree - and it's part of the sexism that it's actually fighting that causes this, sadly or amusingly enough.

Both, if you have the right sense of humor.

What I think kills feminists is that they get very angry at this - that people can't see the obvious dismissal of feminist viewpoints as sexism - and don't anticipate it. They fight even harder, which makes it even more easy to dismiss them due to various cultural stereotypes. And that causes even further issues.

You're right that this happens, but then we have to be careful in the way we recommend another tactic. Because if you acquiesce it's possible that this is taken as confirmation of the sexism as well.

Which is a noble thing to do, but it's not as effective as it could be.

I'm a big believer in the practical, but the other reason I think feminists might protect their anger is because anger is denied to women (who are most feminists, though of course not all) as natural. If I believe that women have been unfairly stereotyped and caricatured for having normal angry responses, it's a little strange for me to come out and decry anger in feminists, do you see what I mean? I'm contributing to the idea that it's unseemly.

Anger happens whenever people talk about, say, conservative vs liberal, but while we can all agree that sometimes it's good to just cool down for practical purposes, it doesn't seem to invalidate those groups. So if it's me, I would try to lead by example, instead of actively decrying anger in feminists. That seems like the best solution, to me, as well as directly engaging in the points I may disagree on with those other feminists.

There aren't many women, much less men, that will support statements like "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire" or "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage".

It could be a generation gap here, but I don't find the radical feminist view of rape to be mainstream among young feminists. And at least among young feminists there's the sex positivity identity to balance it out. I know you're giving an example to be illustrative, but I'm thinking there's so much diversity in current feminism that it's not simply a matter of leadership not disowning extremists, it's this idea coming from the inside that we need to not be expected to, because the diversity should speak for itself, I guess. Because then you get into "No True Feminist" arguments and those are messy.

I disagree on a number of radical feminist positions, but it just seems to me like there's nothing stopping me from disagreeing with them as a feminist (I certainly am not the only feminist who would). People could dismiss me, but then it seems to me like you're ultimately legitimizing an uninformed and unknowledgable mainstream if that is your main consideration in all of this. If I was a bystander on the sidelines, it would seem like the strongest way to achieve goals I would want is to disagree with those stances I disagree with and do it as a self identifying feminist. Because then you add to the visibility of feminists that espouse more mainstream views. If you wait for the reputation to be cleared first, well, it's just ironic, if you see what I mean, because if that's going to happen it'd only happen if people self identify as feminists.

In short, yes it's a self propagating problem, but it isn't helped by ceding ground to people who view feminism incorrectly.

And I think Canada's cute, leave it alone.

[Kalbear]

I get that, pots, I do. At the same time that's one of the central reasons why feminism has had a harder time of actually getting its messages across. I mean - how many people actually understand that the overriding message behind feminism is equality between the sexes and freedom for EVERYONE to do what they want regardless of sex?

I think that a movement centered around equality, freedom and choice can still decide in a meaningful way how to fight the battles and be more proactive in political judo.

And sadly no, I think it's abundantly clear that you do have to sell the idea of equality to the general public. I think there are certainly enough people out there that think equality isn't correct and shouldn't be correct, and outright resent what gains feminism has had.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

MinDonner specifically stated that the feminist in the article you linked was an extremist (I believe she used the term "wingnut"). I fail to see how that proves your point.

MinDonner tried to deny feminist responsibility for women choosing to foresake the feminist label by blaming non-feminists (who espouse the stereotypical shrill, anti-male view of feminists).

I do not plan to rehash the conversation any further.

Sure, but that's subjective, isn't it?

Of course. Conservatives cry foul when "happy holidays" replaces "merry christmas." The NCAA tried to prohibit Florida State from using the "Seminole" as its mascot, despite the fact that local Seminole Indians approved its use. Atheists are hysterical over "under God" in the pledge. Feminists, at least feminists on this board, had a shit fit over "sons" in the Canadian anthem. Every group has their own agenda, their own pet peeves. Of course whether political correctness has run amok is subjective.

edit: clarity

[TheKassi]

Okay, sure, from a technical perspective you are correct, but what is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to say that, to use Tempra's phrase, that it is political correctness run amok?

If so, that is your prerogative, I suppose, and we would just have to agree to disagree. :dunno:

It isn't technically correct, it is the definition of the words in question. If you really dislike the term so much and can not come to grips with it, I will 56try selective inclusiveness.

As for my point, I am not sure what part you do not understand. I do not believe the selective application of inclusiveness is a source of justice or equality. In fact it is pretty much the antithesis of both. At best, making a big deal about selective inclusiveness is nothing more then pandering.

[Kalbear]

'm a big believer in the practical, but the other reason I think feminists might protect their anger is because anger is denied to women (who are most feminists, though of course not all) as natural. If I believe that women have been unfairly stereotyped and caricatured for having normal angry responses, it's a little strange for me to come out and decry anger in feminists, do you see what I mean? I'm contributing to the idea that it's unseemly.

Yep, that's the other part. And it goes into that self-fulfilling prophecy crap. If you're a woman and you get angry you're being unseemly, but if you don't you're just playing into the tropes that you're wanting to fight against. And if you want to dismiss the radicals who get angry enough to hate all men, you're now stopping women from having a right to be angry.

I think that feminists getting angry should happen more often; more accurately, I think that women getting angry should happen more often. But I think that the emotional response should not be the same as taking a radical agenda, and too often the two are conflated. Women should still be angry about not getting the same pay, or being discriminated for having kids or being able to have kids. But too often the feminists that get the most angry are also the ones that have the most extreme agenda.

And at least among young feminists there's the sex positivity identity to balance it out. I know you're giving an example to be illustrative, but I'm thinking there's so much diversity in current feminism that it's not simply a matter of leadership not disowning extremists, it's this idea coming from the inside that we need to not be expected to, because the diversity should speak for itself, I guess. Because then you get into "No True Feminist" arguments and those are messy.

Yeah, the diversity is...very unique, I think, in terms of political and social agendas. I'm not aware of anything close to it that has the kind of diversity it does. This is good from a social perspective but much harder in terms of actually getting process done.

[Ser Reptitious]

TheKassi,

It isn't technically correct, it is the definition of the words in question. If you really dislike the term so much and can not come to grips with it, I will 56try selective inclusiveness.

As for my point, I am not sure what part you do not understand. I do not believe the selective application of inclusiveness is a source of justice or equality. In fact it is pretty much the antithesis of both. At best, making a big deal about selective inclusiveness is nothing more then pandering.

Maybe it's simply getting too late in the night for me (it's 1:00 a.m. here). I need to get some sleep. I'll try to come up with an appropriate response tomorrow. Cheers!

[Lady Blackfish]

But too often the feminists that get the most angry are also the ones that have the most extreme agenda.

I see, maybe I just don't know but I never thought that radical or extremist positions were that prevalent, but that they got the most attention, and the onus is supposed to be on me to denounce them. I think it's better to disagree with their points individually than worry about their label as feminists, because that opens up a really scary can of worms, doesn't it?

[Kelli Fury]

The reason the extremists get the most attention is because people would rather be outraged someone cares about what they do than address real issues like equal pay. It isn't in feminism the problem lies, but media sensationalism and apathy (not on the part of feminists) over larger issues.

[Kalbear]

It isn't in feminism the problem lies, but media sensationalism and apathy (not on the part of feminists) over larger issues.

I disagree somewhat. I do think that the "I hate cock" aspect of feminism gets overplayed because it outrages 50% of the general viewing audience by default - and that's a problem with the media. However, that's not going to change any time soon. Feminism isn't going to be able to beat the media patterns of society.

Why not use it?

I think it's better to disagree with their points individually than worry about their label as feminists, because that opens up a really scary can of worms, doesn't it?

Agreed. By the same token though - there's not a lot of denouncing of those kinds of feminist ideals, at least not in a way that's media friendly. I think a lot of feminists are scared to denounce anything said in that way for that reason (and because you get into the 'a woman said it, so all women think it' garbage. Hell, we see that in this very thread where tempra lumps all feminists into one giant gestalty goodness.

[TrueMetis]

Fortunately, dueling in Kentucky is part of their pledge to service in the government. So that should be okay - at least as long as I don't plan on serving there.

And I really shouldn't have compared Canada to Kentucky. At least by population, Canada's way closer to California or Texas.

You ever seen someone beaten to death with a hockey stick? Keep this up and you might see it up close. :P

[Kalbear]

You ever seen someone beaten to death with a hockey stick? Keep this up and you might see it up close

I'm not advocating taking your beer away or telling you that hockey isn't a real sport (though it isn't).

To be especially ironic in this thread, don't get your panties in a bunch.

[Ser Reptitious]

TheKassi,

Ok, let me try another go at this:

It isn't technically correct, it is the definition of the words in question. If you really dislike the term so much and can not come to grips with it, I will 56try selective inclusiveness.

As for my point, I am not sure what part you do not understand. I do not believe the selective application of inclusiveness is a source of justice or equality. In fact it is pretty much the antithesis of both. At best, making a big deal about selective inclusiveness is nothing more then pandering.

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?

And sorry Needle for continuing to talk about the anthem. I admit I'm starting to get sick of it as well, but it just seems to be the most obvious example to use in this context, since it's an issue that, depending on your point of view, is either minor and irrelevant or symbolically representative of a larger problem.

[Guest Raidne]

I actually dislike this idea that feminism should try to have some coherent agenda made only of what is deemed 'important' to someone or other. Partly because I'm suspicious of just who we're trying to tailor this agenda to, and particularly because I have a hard time grasping how a movement largely based on the idea of choice, free and uninhibited choice, would not be partially crippled by narrowing and concentrating focus.

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.

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.

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.

[a wooden chair]

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.

Jews? I'm serious.

[Guest Raidne]

Jews? I'm serious.

Seeing as they are the chosen people of God, I don't think that's a fair comparison. :P