Feminism something something... Anyway we need more of it

[Kolantero]

Why do I feel that Kolantero is a first year D student trying to get us all to do his homework?

No consistent definition of terms, fallacious logic, no academic rigour or process, imaginary unsubstantiated evidence, and the claim that his conclusion is foregone because he feels it should be that way.

I salute you boarders discoursing from a genuine place of exploration and debate. If he were to take anything from the discussion, he might be a C- student by the end of the semester!

Bullshit, you just don't understand what we are talking about.

Want to prove me wrong? Write a 1500 words (10% up or down) essay with the subject "What are the advantages and the disadvantages of taking a social constructivist approach to gender studies?" by 02/08/2013 Friday 12:00 and send it to me, complete with references, as a word file.

[Lyanna Stark]

To comment some on the imaginary feminist establishment (because I find it an absolutely fascinating thought, on the same level as

):

This seems to be something that crops up more and more often, that somehow, the establishment is somehow overtaking by feminists, and there is a political feminist agenda that the politicians are eager to follow and "speaking out" against it is somehow not done because it offends the women feminists.

However, this makes no sense for several reasons and creates more questions than it answers at a closer look.

As far as I have been able to find, there is no parliament or government on the planet were women are in majority. There are also no governments where there are feminists in majority among the politicians. In a majority of countries, the politicians trend towards men from priviliged backgrounds. Prime ministers and presidents are overwhelmingly male.

It then follows that either these politicians are secret brainwashed feminazis (aliens did it?) and just hide it very well, or they let themselves be steamrolled by omg their wives some sort of secret feminazi illuminati.

Otherwise, how is it possible with the politicians we have that we are at the same time in the frenzy of some sort of feminist estalishment thought police? It makes absolutely no logical sense. Why are these priviliged men suddenly radical feminists?

I live in the country that wanted to prosecute Julian Assange for rape. Purchasing sex from a prostitute is criminalised. We are among the most progressive countries when it comes to incorporating feminist viewpoints in politics.

Yet even considering that, there are some extremely disturbing things that happen here all the time, which makes you wonder where the feminist establishment really is?

In a country of 9 million, 168 women have been murdered by their partners since the year 2000. In several of these cases, the couple had children, and in some, the mother was murdered in front of the children. What is worse, in many of these cases, the husband/partner remains as the custodian for the child/children.

So called "import brides", i.e. often Thai, Ukrainan, Romanian or Russian women who are brought into the country after having married a Swedish man dare not go to the police if they get abused since they are afraid of being sent back. Which is also correct as that is the default "solution". There are also no checks on men who import several "import brides" only to abuse them. The immigration authority has admitted as much and it's nothing they think they can do much about. These women (and often their children too) will continue to be subjugated to violence and fear, with no way out, while society isn't really interested in stopping the perpetrators.

Trafficked women from Eastern Europe face the same problem, as instead of getting help, they just get put on a plane with a one way ticket.

Women's safe houses are constantly facing cuts in financing. Restraining orders are difficult to get in Sweden, especially for people living together. (70% get rejected according to the press).

A lot of women with public jobs (journalists, TV presenters, writers, politicians) have stepped forward and let people see some of the absolutely atrocious hate mail they get, where they, their families and their children get threatened with violence, murder and rape. While men in similar positions get threats as well, the threats against women are much higher in frequency, include more threats of sexual violence and also more threats to children.

If we raise our eyes away from our little local fishpoint, WHO reports that they estimate 35% of women worldwide to be abuse by their partner or a family member at some point in their lives. (In Europe the numbers are 27%.)

Also according to WHO, 38% of all murdered women die due to violence and abuse from their partner/husband.

So in light of this, where is the feminist establishment?

This is not even touching on stuff like unequal salaries, objectifying of women in media, Disney channel pandering of horrifying gender stereoypes to small children, sexualised children's clothing for small girls, women taking the brunt of the sickdays needed to care for children (i.e. women take the hit to income and career possibilities) and a number of other issues.

These things all point in one direction and in one direction only: there is no feminist establishment. If there truly were one, then the world would look different.

[Lyanna Stark]

Actually I've said in my first post in this thread (reply to Lyanna) that I don't reject every single thing advocated by feminism, also said the same thing numerous times in the past. Anyway, you want to jump to conclusions who just happen to fit what suits your own worldview (that an anti-feminist is against gender equality) go ahead, just don't expect me to accept them as valid.

Your reply to me means one thing: you are contradicting yourself. That is all it means. You claim not to be against certain parts of feminism, yet refuse to state which they are. You claim that feminists are whiners and complainers, but refuse to state about what.

So state it. Make a bullet pointed list. Which bits do you support, and which bits do you not? Out with it, once and for all. And no "I have written about it before" please. Then link to where you have written about it before.

Otherwise, a simple bullet pointed list is ideal. Short, quick, to the point.

It doesn't really matter if you think that an anti-feminist is entitled to any benefit of the doubt. What matters is that an "anti-feminist" ideology does not necessarily rejects all the things brought forward by feminism and that's a fact, not an opinion.

Wrong. Feminists disagree all the time. Does that make them anti-feminists? No.

Instead, the Oxford Dictionary defines anti feminist as: one opposed to women or to feminism; a person (usu. a man) who is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights.

You CANNOT make up your own definitions just because you feel like it. Or perhaps you should write the editors of the Oxford Dictionary and tell them that they are wrong?

[Kolantero]

You're confusing cause with effect.

A biased term can be both. It can be used to "guide" people to certain viewpoints and a t the same time be the result of a group of people with those viewpoints.

Language is a powerful tool. A simple change in generally accepted language - executive over businessman, African-American over Black - can have a significant effect in changing or removing preconceptions, in reducing othering, in promoting respect - or vice versa.

But it is not an end in itself. It is not an injustice on its own.

I didn't claim that it is an injustice of its own I said that it is linguistic evidence of injustice (and even if you disagree with injustice you cannot disagree that it is evidence for discrimination.)

Using 'executive' instead of 'businessman' is a remedy (though not, obviously, a complete one) to the injustice of male overrepresentation in executive positions. More directly, it is a remedy to the default assumption that a businessman/executive is male - something that would be immeasurably harder to fix without changing the term. But the term itself is, at most, a signifier or symbol of injustice.

And so is the term feminism, a signifier of injustice regarding the way injustices are dealt with.

The term 'feminism' is not without its problems, but changing to a more male-inclusive term would probably have more negative effects than positive ones. We still - all of us, yes, even you - and you too - are trained to pay more attention to men's opinions than women's. The current environment encourages those men who take up gender studies to do so in full awareness of the privilege they possess. Without that requirement of self-reflection, without that extra and, yes, discriminatory barrier, it would be all too easy for the privileged to come in and derail the conversation until it settles on an equilibrium that looks nice and fair, as long as you're standing on the top side of it.

So you are basically admitting that the term feminism is discriminatory, you just believe that it is a good or at least necessary discrimination. Funny thing, when I first said the first half of that sentence myself, you laughed at it. Then I pointed out that my logic was also used by feminists as well and it suddenly became valid.

Anyway as a more general response to what you were saying earlier, spare me the BS about how modern feminism has abandoned gynocentricism. Just because masculinities have become a footnote in feminist research doesn't change the core tenants of feminism, especially if you consider that 90% of the work done regarding men is to accommodate gay/trans issues so they can whine together about big bad straight males. Hey, just add "white" in the mix and you'll get whino-trifecta. Even when it's not related to that, secondary masculinities are always put against primary (ideal) masculinity, never against primary (ideal) femininity. And no, the non-essentialist approach of modern feminists doesn't stop the movement from being gynocentric. It's the same tune, accommodated to include gay/trans.

The term "feminism" and its discrimination is just a small, simple example I used when sci asked me to explain what I meant. The problem of gynocentricism is evident in every aspect of feminism, ranging from feminist actions to feminist opinions.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Go back to the question asked earlier - do you have an example of a movement set up to address (perceived) inequality/inequity that doesn't focus on the marginalised group?

About the closest that comes to my mind is MRAs, because the focus tends to be less on addressing men's interests and more about putting down women, and feminism in particular. Everything else I can think of addresses inequality by trying to empower & bring focus to the disadvantaged group.

[Kolantero]

I just find the whole ''oh I don't like feminism because of the fem'' pretty weak to be honest.

That is not what I said.

The same tired, old shit that MRA's spew all the time. Yes, you will certainly find people who identify as feminists who are still very much in the mindset of the 70s with the Sisterhood and enforcing gender binaries and transphobia, but those people are a pretty small minority in feminism as a whole today. Feminism is NOT a monolith, you can't just say shit like ''feminists think....'' to encapsulate every single person who identifies as a feminist.

I'm pretty sure that I can say "feminists think..." to encapsulate every single feminist provided that what follows applies to all feminists, e.g. gynocentricism, Now if you want to argue that feminism is actually not, in its entirety, gynocentricist go ahead but that's another story.

On an unrelated note and not talking about this particular conversation, you should stop believing the myth that "not every feminist believes X" is a valid defense to any criticism against feminism. As long as the "accuser" does not generalize across all feminists (unlike what I did earlier - but with a reason) and as long as there is a feminist sub-group who adheres to that belief then that is a valid criticism against feminism. Otherwise, feminism would be above any sort of criticism since - with the exception of some very basic stuff - there are always differences between feminist strands.

So, quite frankly, if you don't like feminism, or if you go so ridiculously far as to smugly proclaim you are anti-feminism then it's gonna be for a damn side more reasons than simply disliking it's supposed sole focus on women's issues.

Nothing more than speculation about what you think I believe here

And Kolantero, you really need to sort out this paranoia you have that apparently all studies including women are being influenced by the shady Feminist overlords with their evil feminist agenda. Give me a bloody break.

This again. You know, if you are trolling I will give you a 7/10 because its a good one. In case you are not: I never claimed that all studies about gender are influenced by "shady" Feminists. What I said is that in a specific field (Gender studies - not the same as "studies about gender" which can be from any field), the vast majority of the researchers promote opinions in line with feminism. You disagree with that? Go ask anyone who has done any Gender studies.

And no, i'm not being entirely polite, or eloquent, but really - I just fail to see why someone who titles themselves Anti-feminist would continue to write their crap in the feminism threads If that's what gives you your kicks, then whatever, but you aren't entitled to anyone actually taking you seriously, especially

No one is entitled to be taken seriously by default

when you always reply with vague comments like ''feminism isn't correct'' ''all feminists whine about things that have no importance'' and whatever else you've deigned to post.

I reply with vague comments? My comments in the feminist threads could probably fill a book. Just look at the current thread.

I could actually understand a reluctance to call oneself feminism if they believed feminism has its place alongside the broader sphere of all gender issues, therefore closer to this ''equalism'' that some people like to repeatedly mention, but to call oneself anti-feminist is something I don't understand as it implies you think men are either a) equally discriminated against or B) women aren't discriminated against or c) more discriminated against than women which is quite frankly, pretty damn silly.

or d) I reject any notion that gender discrimination works as a "total sum", that is "women are discriminated more on average therefore we should focus on them". A discrimination against an individual man is just as serious as a discrimination against an individual woman.

But that's reluctance, not a complete hatred of, enough to call oneself 'Anti-feminist'

I never claimed any hate (not to mention complete hatred) against feminists, that's your own speculation.

so I am asking you simply what are some of the main issues within feminism that you feel are not worth ''whining about''

Well if you want a specific example, one from this forum would be when some members felt entitled to whine that Cercei should have being portrayed more sympathetically because she expresses feminist concerns (the implication here is that an author can be criticized for not shoving feminist agenda in a specific way -since ASOIAF contains many feminist-friendly messages -down the readers' throat)

More generally, usually real issues are getting exaggerated such as definitions of words

Heteronormativity is usually more whining than valid complains

Any claim about "sexism unless 50%-50% ratio" in any context is also a whine

Objectification is a term very often used with hyperbole for a whine, although theoretically it can be used as a valid complain

Many of the comments I have seen about sexism in computer games in this forum are also whines, although again there are some issues.

I can't really speak of validity of issues, most of the issues do have some credit I guess, it's usually exaggeration and hyperbole which turns them into whine which is why I ask for something specific to comment on.

and what exactly makes you think that all feminists think exactly the same way, enough to constantly use sentences implying feminism is a monolith and also,

Answered already.

what are some issues concerning discriminating against men that are completely ignored within the realms of all feminism ?

Off the top of my head: women seen as less valid targets of violence, obligatory male-only army services, priority of women in child custody to name a few.

Keep in mind that even in other issues where women are mostly discriminated against, men can also be discriminated. Also, while some of these issues might be addressed by feminism (such as child custody by fathers) they will only be done to the extent that it suits women's interest (for example they will definitely push for more involvement of fathers in child raising because that benefits women who want more free time but a feminist organization would never actively take the position of a man against a woman on a similar case, such as when both fight for custody and she has the upper hand simply because of her gender)

[Kolantero]

Go back to the question asked earlier - do you have an example of a movement set up to address (perceived) inequality/inequity that doesn't focus on the marginalised group?

Nope. Do I need to have one? Most of these groups however operate in far worse conditions regarding their targets. An example would be feminism during the early 20th century or movements for racial equality in U.S. in the sixties (fifties?). Unless you find today's gender issues (in western context) comparable with these contexts I don't think that is a valid comparison.

I could maybe (maybe) accept (to a point) that argument for transgenders since at least they are probably receiving injustice in many contexts and at the same time they would probably never be in a privileged position because they are trans in any context. But for women in 2013? Hell no.

So are women the marginalized group and feminism is set up to address women issues? I asked that earlier and my co-conversationalist insisted that it was not so according to the modern approach of feminists.

[Eyron]

I don't get what's wrong with feminism being gynocentric in the first place. Is it also wrong that movements like anti-apartheid focused on apartheid and not all injustices done to all people on the planet? Is it also wrong that freedom fighters in China focus on the political oppression in China and not everywhere else? Are they objectively wrong too?

Are you looking for some sort of Anti-Injustice league of the World, Kolantero? How would such a cause prevent to not fall into internal injustice, since all participants are not all the same and do not prioritize the same sub-causes, and they are not all in equal position to enforce their favored causes, just like in society as a whole?

[Kolantero]

Oh ffs, not this again. Why is it so hard to understand that feminism has a history and that history is important since it is the basis for where we are today. Why do you want to force a name change on a movement just because you don't like the name? Tough?

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? I don't want to change the name of your movement, I don't care what the name of your movement is, I reject your movement. I don't know how I can be more clear on this. I simply pointed out the bias evidenced by the name of your movement as a small example.

What, you think that the problem is the name? Maybe if there were 10 000 similar changes in feminism (and not just to the language used but to fundamental things about feminism) it would maybe come close to be about equality.

Right, so what are the objective truths? List some please. Beauty? Truth?

Where have I claimed that there are objective (regarding ideologies) truths?

[Seli]

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? I don't want to change the name of your movement, I don't care what the name of your movement is, I reject your movement. I don't know how I can be more clear on this. I simply pointed out the bias evidenced by the name of your movement as a small example.

What, you think that the problem is the name? Maybe if there were 10 000 similar changes in feminism (and not just to the language used but to fundamental things about feminism) it would maybe come close to be about equality.

...

The problem is that you don't seem to understand -or even want to understand- what the fundamental principles behind feminism are. And blinded by that name are so busy projecting things that hundreds of patient posts so far have not managed to bypass your prejudice.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm still confused what it is about the women's movement that you reject, so let me start by asking some basic questions.

1. Do you reject a woman's right to own property in her own name?

2. Do you reject a woman's right to vote?

3. Do you reject a woman's right to work in general?

4. Do you reject a woman's right to be paid an equivalent amount to a man for the same work?

5. Do you reject a woman's ability to enter into a private contract, enforcable under law?

6. Do you reject a woman's right to access to the legal system for recourse for a tort?

7. For the items above, is your answer any different if the woman is married?

8. Do you reject a woman's right to sit upon a jury?

9. Do you reject a woman's right to be free from violence (whether third party or domestic)?

10. Do you deny a woman's ability to be a successful scientist, mathemetician, lawyer, doctor or businessperson? If you do not deny this, do you believe that the number of women who do have this ability is limited (and that any woman in such a position is by definition exceptional)?

11. Do you reject that women with children should be paid the same amount as women without children for the same work (assuming you accept that women should be entitled to work)?

12. Do you deny that women should be free of unwanted sexual advances or other quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace?

13. Do you reject the notion that women currently have a disproportionate less power vis a vis men throughout the world? If so, please give specific examples.

14. Do you reject that women should have control over the reproductive functions of their bodies?

15. Do you reject that female children are as valuable as male children?

There are obviously more nuanced questions that follow from these, but I thought I'd start here.

[Kalbear]

A feminado would be a pretty horrifying thing. Especially when Ian ziering has to chainsaw his way out of the stomach of an enraged Gloria Steinem.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Just imagine the analysis after that all happens, too. Man destroys woman violently, using vaguely phallis-shaped object, oh god the horrors.

[emberling]

I didn't claim that it is an injustice of its own I said that it is linguistic evidence of injustice (and even if you disagree with injustice you cannot disagree that it is evidence for discrimination.)

The distinction is immaterial. Your proposed scenario is that an imbalanced term proves injustice or discrimination, whether or not other evidence for said injustice exists. If that is true, then e.g. woman is an unjust term, being a modified man rather than its own distinct entity. There are, of course, a tiny minority of super-radical feminists who believe this, but since we don't actually associate the word woman with its roots wife+man it is not a problematic word.

So you are basically admitting that the term feminism is discriminatory, you just believe that it is a good or at least necessary discrimination. Funny thing, when I first said the first half of that sentence myself, you laughed at it. Then I pointed out that my logic was also used by feminists as well and it suddenly became valid.

Pretty sure the only thing you've posted that I laughed at was the "write an essay" joke in post 61.

My argument, from the beginning, has been that initial bias does not invalidate results. The only person chasing this myth of complete freedom from bias is you. You even quoted someone saying "all ideology is biased" with a "ha, you admit feminism is biased!" (top of post 60).

Anyway as a more general response to what you were saying earlier, spare me the BS about how modern feminism has abandoned gynocentricism. Just because masculinities have become a footnote in feminist research doesn't change the core tenants of feminism, especially if you consider that 90% of the work done regarding men is to accommodate gay/trans issues so they can whine together about big bad straight males. Hey, just add "white" in the mix and you'll get whino-trifecta. Even when it's not related to that, secondary masculinities are always put against primary (ideal) masculinity, never against primary (ideal) femininity. And no, the non-essentialist approach of modern feminists doesn't stop the movement from being gynocentric. It's the same tune, accommodated to include gay/trans.

So when you say gynocentric what you really mean is oh no, the rights movement is focused on the marginalized group!!!! They should focus on ME instead!!!!. Which is not news, but it's nice that you admit it.

Gay and trans rights are an important component to male-centered feminism. But it's also about challenging the neanderthalic assumption that having certain feminine-coded behaviors or preferences kicks you out of the 'real man' club and probably means you're gay or trans. It's also about de-coding certain behaviors that men are heavily pushed toward (or away from) because of the constant pressure to 'be a man', and about lessening that pressure.

What the heck is 'putting secondary masculinities against ideal femininity' supposed to mean? I can only assume that by 'secondary masculinities' you mean people with male bodies and mostly masculine-coded traits but some feminine-coded traits, e.g. gay men - so you mean a situation like gay men being discriminated against by straight women? So your claim is that feminism always takes the side of the straight woman over the gay man? Guess what: it doesn't. Generally, it sides against both male privilege and hetero privilege, so it depends on whichever of those is more in play.

[Kolantero]

The distinction is immaterial. Your proposed scenario is that an imbalanced term proves injustice or discrimination, whether or not other evidence for said injustice exists. If that is true, then e.g. woman is an unjust term, being a modified man rather than its own distinct entity. There are, of course, a tiny minority of super-radical feminists who believe this, but since we don't actually associate the word woman with its roots wife+man it is not a problematic word.

Putting the counter-argument in the same paragraph with your argument is kinda self-defeating...unless you somehow believe that feminism isn't associated with "female" and women in the minds of people.

Pretty sure the only thing you've posted that I laughed at was the "write an essay" joke in post 61.

I meant "didn't take seriously" not literally laughed at it.

My argument, from the beginning, has been that initial bias does not invalidate results. The only person chasing this myth of complete freedom from bias is you. You even quoted someone saying "all ideology is biased" with a "ha, you admit feminism is biased!" (top of post 60).

If that's your argument then you are really off-topic. I made a specific (counter)-argument against sologdin's post for a specific reason, I never claimed that bias equals necessarily faulty results.

So when you say gynocentric what you really mean is oh no, the rights movement is focused on the marginalized group!!!! They should focus on ME instead!!!!. Which is not news, but it's nice that you admit it.

Well I had this crazy idea that an ideology for equality would cover anyone

So, when you claim that feminism covers everything and its not gynocentric what you actually meant is that it covers anyone except big bad straight males? In that case we agree on what feminism is doing.

Gay and trans rights are an important component to male-centered feminism. But it's also about challenging the neanderthalic assumption that having certain feminine-coded behaviors or preferences kicks you out of the 'real man' club and probably means you're gay or trans. It's also about de-coding certain behaviors that men are heavily pushed toward (or away from) because of the constant pressure to 'be a man', and about lessening that pressure.

What the heck is 'putting secondary masculinities against ideal femininity' supposed to mean? I can only assume that by 'secondary masculinities' you mean people with male bodies and mostly masculine-coded traits but some feminine-coded traits, e.g. gay men - so you mean a situation like gay men being discriminated against by straight women? So your claim is that feminism always takes the side of the straight woman over the gay man? Guess what: it doesn't. Generally, it sides against both male privilege and hetero privilege, so it depends on whichever of those is more in play.

Nevermind

[Kolantero]

I'm still confused what it is about the women's movement that you reject, so let me start by asking some basic questions.

10. Do you deny a woman's ability to be a successful scientist, mathemetician, lawyer, doctor or businessperson? If you do not deny this, do you believe that the number of women who do have this ability is limited (and that any woman in such a position is by definition exceptional)?

13. Do you reject the notion that women currently have a disproportionate less power vis a vis men throughout the world? If so, please give specific examples.

15. Do you reject that female children are as valuable as male children?

There are obviously more nuanced questions that follow from these, but I thought I'd start here.

1-9, 11, 12, 14 Nope

10a) Nope 10b) I don't know, also depends on the definition of "limited" 10c) Nope

13) Depends on what you mean. If disproportionate less power vis a vis men throughout the world refers to "on average" then no. If not then I reject the validity of the question.

15) Depends on what you mean valuable. If you mean inherent worth then no

[emberling]

Putting the counter-argument in the same paragraph with your argument is kinda self-defeating...unless you somehow believe that feminism isn't associated with "female" and women in the minds of people.

This tangent isn't about the word feminism at all. It's about your claim that feminists decried the word businessman solely because it hurt their fee-fees (so you are therefore justified in hating feminism because it hurts yours). I have already agreed that the word feminism is to some extent problematic in this way, with the caveat that changing it would be more harmful than not changing it.

If that's your argument then you are really off-topic. I made a specific (counter)-argument against sologdin's post for a specific reason, I never claimed that bias equals necessarily faulty results.

You have repeatedly expounded variations on this theme: feminism is objectively incorrect because it is gynocentric. It has since become clear that you have no fucking idea what 'objectively incorrect' means, but I'm not off-topic for replying to the words you actually posted instead of the imaginary fairy-script that you thought you were posting.

Well I had this crazy idea that an ideology for equality would cover anyone

It makes logical sense, yeah? But only if you don't think it through. Yeah, bring everyone to the town hall to discuss our problems! And now there's a thousand people in a room and everyone's talking at once. But one of them has a megaphone, and he passes it around to his cronies, and everyone can hear them. Only a few people can make out what anyone else is saying. And the deaf mute guy? Nobody can hear him at all. But it's fair, right? Everyone had a chance to be heard.

So, when you claim that feminism covers everything and its not gynocentric what you actually meant is that it covers anyone except big bad straight males? In that case we agree on what feminism is doing.

Ideally and generally, it covers anyone. What it does not cover is systematic oppressions that do not exist. You cannot float a coherent theory of a 'matriarchy' because reality does not conform to that fantasy (and reality is all too able to conform to the idea that most 'femininity positive' contexts are patriarchal). But if you're worried about being discriminated against as an isolated, outlying incident - such as a theoretical gay company firing you for being straight - then since the feminist position is that no person should be discriminated against for their sexual orientation then you're covered.

[TerraPrime]

means "people whose gender politics disagree with mine.

were you able to pin that down?

Near as I can tell it's a run-of-the-mill knee-jerk reactionary stance to feminism by victimizing men and minimizing the effects of sexism on women. Can't say it's terribly original. I think he's actually doing a fair decent job in explaining himself so far. It's not a lack of communication skill that makes things look so confusing - I think that his underlying philosophy is just poorly hinged together and not entirely constructed out of rational examination of reality, hence the oddness of it all. But he does got one trick down, which is to rebrand a word to suit his own needs. Carroll was ever so right when he wrote about the twins.

[Kolantero]

This tangent isn't about the word feminism at all. It's about your claim that feminists decried the word businessman solely because it hurt their fee-fees (so you are therefore justified in hating feminism because it hurts yours).

- You commented on something I said as "hurting my manly fee-fees" (what the hell is a "fee-fee" anyway?)

- I pointed out that the same criticism must be true for feminists since they used the exact same logic as mine and I did that by using your own words sarcastically. Feminists' thoughts on the word "businessman" were absolutely correct (although their actions were linguistic prescriptivism but that's another story)

In any case you admitted that the term "feminism" is problematic, that feminism is discriminatory against (straight) males and that feminism is about """marginalized""" groups so I guess you are at least semi-honest, unlike most feminists I usually debate. We are not disagreeing on what feminism is, only whether it is acceptable as a movement for equalty or not.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1-9, 11, 12, 14 Nope

10a) Nope 10b) I don't know, also depends on the definition of "limited" 10c) Nope

13) Depends on what you mean. If disproportionate less power vis a vis men throughout the world refers to "on average" then no. If not then I reject the validity of the question.

15) Depends on what you mean valuable. If you mean inherent worth then no

So, as best as I can tell, you agree with some basic core feminist thoughts, but, to turn this around to the positive, do you believe that women and men in general are in equivalent positions of power vis a vis each other? If so, can we tease that out for a moment (focusing on the Western world for the moment)? Do you believe that to be true in each economic realm? In each social realm? In each legal realm? In each academic realm? IN the political realm? If you do believe it is true, focusing on economics for a moment, how do you explain the statistics that show a persistent pay gap between men and women for the same work? The dearth of women in high ranking executive positions? Law firm partnerships? Leaving aside the label for a moment, is your issue with "Feminism" (assuming that feminists and feminist thought can be reduced to a single strand of ideology, thought and action (which it cannot)) that you believe that the movement has nothing left to achieve? If so, why? If not, what is your issue?