Support NeoGAF

[MarzipaNMOS]

My argument is quite simple. Arguing semantics in terms of a human rights issue is a bit senseless. It's a shameful notion to say that people are trying to force others to adopt a label. What label did blacks force upon whites during the civil rights era? It should be a badge of honor that you are a champion for women's equality. I'm sorry to see that you will never see this point.

It is as much of a political movement, as abolitionists were a political movement, and civil rights is a political movement. Catch my drift? Not wanting to associate with those "political movements" speaks loud and clear. Apathy or complacency in this society is accepted and the easy thing to do. May not be the right thing to do. That's my argument.

I think the point he's trying to make is although he agrees with ideology he does not want the broader label of "feminist" because it means different things to different people, and therefore is a mostly meaningless label except in the sense of identifying the political movement.

Examples would be: I support the rebels in Syria. That doesn't mean that I am a rebel. I am supporting the democrats. That does not mean that I am a democrat.

I understand that you're very proud of your support and that's fine, but some people like to keep their views independent of a label or movement for their own reasons.

 

[Anura]

I think the point he's trying to make is although he agrees with ideology he does not want the broader label of "feminist" because it means different things to different people, and therefore is a mostly meaningless label except in the sense of identifying the political movement.

Examples would be: I support the rebels in Syria. That doesn't mean that I am a rebel. I am supporting the democrats. That does not mean that I am a democrat.

I understand that you're very proud of your support and that's fine, but some people like to keep their views independent of a label or movement for their own reasons.

And it's veiws like his that Make me think we should stop calling it in a gendered way

I honestly think if feminist stopped calling themselves feminists they would see some more success like creationist did with intelligent design (except they want to go backwards instead of feminist wanting to go foward)

Some people don't like to learn or step outside their preconceptions. To some people all feminists are those crazy woman who want to put guys to work in the mine with shackles around their feet

Some just consider it emasculating or "gay" to call themselves feminists but otherwise support it

A blank slate and a name more palatable to the uninformed might work wonders

 

[Mumei]

I don't where exactly to start... you're telling me where I saw things, who was saying them, who was responding to them, what their core beliefs were, what I thought about them, and the mistake in my logic of this situation without actually be there and knowing any information about what was going on. Not only are you putting words in my mouth you are making up the whole context for the words said.

You argued that "some groups" hold a certain position. When questioned, you were unable to name one and reasserted that you - and others - have seen this. My speculation was simply an attempt to be charitable to you by trying to understand how you could believe that, "If you regret it the next morning, it is rape," was a position that feminists argue for. You denied the speculation - fair enough - but you still have not provided a source for groups who believe this. Unless you can provide a source for this, you will stop asserting it.

And no, one comment off a blog will not count as a "source." That is an anecdote. You can find a single person of any affiliation supporting anything if you look hard enough; this does not mean you can then argue that this viewpoint is held by groups of people and is an idea that is seriously advocated. You said groups advocate this. If you cannot name these groups, do not make the assertion.

 

[MogCakes]

One of the few arguments against feminism in this thread has been that there are fringe feminists that ruin it for everyone. I wasn't necessarily talking to you. I do wonder what stigma you are referring to when you say: "The word 'Feminist' as a label carries with it the weight of Feminism's history as a sociopolitical movement, its agenda, its reputation, and its ideologies.." Could you elaborate?

You are unaware that the term Feminist has a stigma attached to it?

http://feministclassics.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/why-is-there-a-stigma-attached-to-the-feminist-label/
http://queensjournal.ca/story/2006-11-10/postscript/feminist-stigma/
http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/10/im-not-a-feminist-but.html
http://www.healthyisthenewskinny.com/blog2/the-feminist-stigma/
http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/coming-out-as-a-feminist/
http://www.shsoutherner.net/opinion/2013/01/16/negative-stigma-hinders-feminism/
http://feministphilosophy.tribe.net/thread/34520cf1-56c2-4121-9ac3-43e37347ce1b
http://themamabee.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-stigma-of-being-a-feminist/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/nov/23/why-is-feminism-a-dirty-word
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/why-dont-some-very-powerful-woman-want-to-be-called-feminists/
http://feministing.com/2013/05/03/feminist-radicalism-isnt-a-brand-problem/
http://jezebel.com/5989012/feminism-may-be-nearing-her-expiration-date
http://www.thejanedough.com/ellen-page-why-are-people-so-reluctant-to-say-theyre-feminists/
http://hellogiggles.com/feminism-the-debate-continues
http://tigernewspaper.com/wordpress/2013/02/21/getting-rid-of-feminism%E2%80%99s-bad-name/
http://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/big-bad-f-word-feminism/
http://atheistforums.org/thread-18409.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/12/17/do_some_women_hate_feminism.html
http://www.about-face.org/tina-feys-bossypants-may-rescue-her-reputation-as-a-feminist/
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/everything-about-feminism-you-wanted-to-know-but-were-afraid-to-ask

None of these are scientific studies, but they should resonate with you - most of them are Feminists questioning why the movement has the bad rep that it does. Am I advocating that Feminism is a bad label? No. But you need to acknowledge that it does have a stigma. Other Feminists have done so already.

My argument is quite simple. Arguing semantics in terms of a human rights issue is a bit senseless. It's a shameful notion to say that people are trying to force others to adopt a label. What label did blacks force upon whites during the civil rights era? It should be a badge of honor that you are a champion for women's equality. I'm sorry to see that you will never see this point.

You cannot brush aside your blatant misuse of semantics and try to tell me that correcting it is 'senseless'. Human rights issues are sociopolitical. DO NOT try to argue otherwise. And as per the bolded, refer to my previous posts as I have already articulated WHY forcing the label on people who don't want it is a very bad thing for Feminism's image. And yes, it IS forcing, if the people who are put under the label did not want to be under that label. Calling it a badge of honor does nothing to change that.

It is as much of a political movement, as abolitionists were a political movement, and civil rights is a political movement. Catch my drift? Not wanting to associate with those "political movements" speaks loud and clear. Apathy or complacency in this society is accepted and the easy thing to do. May not be the right thing to do. That's my argument.

And they were all political movements. Feminism is no different.

I'm a man and I admit it. It is hard to be a man and come out as a feminist. I understand where you and others come from. There is shame that comes from being a man even displaying a hint of feminine qualities. If another man wants to call another man weak, he calls him a "pussy" (the essential private reproductive part of a group of humans). No matter how much you argue, THAT is part of the problem. It's ok though, I appreciate if you are vocal about your support for women, even if you deride their movement.

Where did I deride Feminism? The ONLY thing, I reiterate, that I have been saying is that people should not have the label forced upon them.

 

[Sanky Panky]

I can't believe after 22 pages, I have been reduced to defending a label, instead of ALL OF US defending women. It's not rebels in Syria or Democrats, it's about women. It's about humans that are born underprivileged because of the body they were born into.their bodies. I have been defensive before in my life, I have been bitter before in my life as a man, and I have been a coward before in my life... then I got educated, and gave women enough respect to stand beside them under whatever label they chose. I urge you all to do what I did, put my ego aside, and listen to the women in my life. I legitimize their claim, not focus on some stigma created by un-staunching bitterness.

You are unaware that the term Feminist has a stigma attached to it?

My only response to you, is read up and understand the source of the stigma.

I'm out with the following. This applies the same in the 60's as it does today.

Women’s Rights Manifesto
National Organization for Women

Because woman's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or
repetitious and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important
than what we do and if we get raped it's
our fault and if we get beaten we must have
provoked it and if we raise our voices we're
nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're
nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if
we love women it's because we can't get a
"real" man and if we ask our doctor too many
questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and
if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we
stand up for our rights we're aggressive and
"unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical
weak females and if we want to get married
we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're
unnatural and because we still can't get an
adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk
on the moon and if we can't cope or don't
want a pregnancy we're made to feel
guilty about abortion and...for lots and lots
of other reasons we are part of the
women's liberation movement.

 

[WanderingWind]

I can't believe after 22 pages, I have been reduced to defending a label, instead of ALL OF US defending women. It's not rebels in Syria or Democrats, it's about women. It's about humans that are born underprivileged because of the body they were born into.their bodies. I have been defensive before in my life, I have been bitter before in my life as a man, and I have been a coward before in my life... then I got educated, and gave women enough respect to stand beside them under whatever label they chose. I urge you all to do what I did, put my ego aside, and listen to the women in my life. I legitimize their claim, not focus on some stigma created by un-staunching bitterness.



My only response to you, is read up and understand the source of the stigma.

And I urge you to stop projecting your own insecurities based on your past on others. Not everybody that disagrees with how you act is against the tenants of equality, your precise opinion is not the only way to view the issue. You talk about setting aside your ego - seems to me that you're still carrying it about, just wielding in a different way. You only need to look at how somebody links you about a dozen studies from places like Harvard and you ignore them while telling them to "read up and understand."

 

[Mumei]

And I urge you to stop projecting your own insecurities based on your past on others. Not everybody that disagrees with how you act is against the tenants of equality, your precise opinion is not the only way to view the issue. You talk about setting aside your ego - seems to me that you're still carrying it about, just wielding in a different way. You only need to look at how somebody links you about a dozen studies from places like Harvard and you ignore them while telling them to "read up and understand."

MogCakes actually explicitly didn't link him to studies - "None of these are scientific studies" - and Sanky was not denying that feminism is stigmatized; he was suggesting that MogCakes read to see why it is stigmatized. The Harvard article actually quite appropriate:

How many times I have heard people utter the phrase, “I’m not a feminist or anything, but…*here’s what I believe.” It’s something I’ve heard far too many times, even at Harvard, and the unapologetic tone I hear people use is unacceptable.

Today, even in the twenty-first century, many Americans still shy away from identifying themselves as feminists, in fear of being judged by society. This is because many Americans view professed feminists negatively, whether consciously or subconsciously, while some Americans even go to the extreme of outright denouncing feminism and calling for the preservation of patriarchal ideals. Yet, why does such a stigma of feminism still exist?

In large part, the stigma of feminism is rooted in the common, and somewhat archaic, perception of feminism as a radical concept. People believe feminism is radical because it challenges the status quo of a patriarchal world that oppresses women and denies them of equal rights. Others, however, believe that feminism is outdated because sexism no longer exists in the modern world, at least in the United States and other developed nations. As a result, society tends to view feminists as passionate and angry bra burners, men-haters and rabble-rousers, rather than advocates for equality and social justice.

However, I would contend that feminism today is not an extremist concept. The demand that people not be stereotyped, limited in opportunities or threatened solely based on their sex is more than reasonable, especially in a country that prides itself on upholding the pillars of liberty and equality of opportunity.

This ongoing stigma of feminism parallels the stigma of abolitionism back in the nineteenth century when being an abolitionist was considered radical. In retrospect, the petitions of abolitionists were clearly not extremist. Abolitionists merely demanded the end of slavery and desired equality of all Americans, no matter skin color. Similarly, feminists simply call for equality between the sexes. And just as abolitionism did not equate to the hate of white Americans but merely signified the desire for black Americans’ rights, feminism too does not equate to the hate of men or the value of women over men but rather calls for the balance of power between and establishment of equal rights for the sexes. It’s a stark parallel to draw, but now one that will hopefully resonate with the American consciousness.

Furthermore, feminism is not outdated at all. While most people may acknowledge the existence of sexism globally in developing countries in which women are extremely oppressed and violated, many deny that sexism exists in the United States. However, sexism clearly still permeates American society, as demonstrated by the huge wage gap between women and men; the striking disparity between the number of female and male political representatives in government; the dearth of female CEOs; and the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, as well as sex trafficking in the United States.

The feminist stigma is unmistakably an important issue that needs to be addressed. By proliferating a flawed depiction of feminism and discouraging people from identifying themselves as feminists, the stigma surrounding feminism proves detrimental and hinders the progress of the women’s rights movement.

In order to break this stigma and rectify the image of feminism, more people need to proclaim that they are feminists without viewing it as a type of concession. Moreover, men must realize too that they, too, can, and should, proudly identify themselves as feminists. And while it’s easy to believe that one voice won’t matter, it is important to remember that every voice matters in breaking the stigma of feminism and helping advance the movement toward gender equality.

So I challenge you: come out today as a feminist. Identify yourself as someone who cares about equality for your friends, your family and the generation after.​

This is actually precisely what those of us who identify as feminist have been arguing in this topic, and I think Sanky would agree with it, as well.

 

[WanderingWind]

MogCakes actually explicitly didn't link him to studies - "None of these are scientific studies" - and Sanky was not denying that feminism is stigmatized; he was suggesting that MogCakes read to see why it is stigmatized. The Harvard article actually quite appropriate:

How many times I have heard people utter the phrase, “I’m not a feminist or anything, but…*here’s what I believe.” It’s something I’ve heard far too many times, even at Harvard, and the unapologetic tone I hear people use is unacceptable.

Today, even in the twenty-first century, many Americans still shy away from identifying themselves as feminists, in fear of being judged by society. This is because many Americans view professed feminists negatively, whether consciously or subconsciously, while some Americans even go to the extreme of outright denouncing feminism and calling for the preservation of patriarchal ideals. Yet, why does such a stigma of feminism still exist?

In large part, the stigma of feminism is rooted in the common, and somewhat archaic, perception of feminism as a radical concept. People believe feminism is radical because it challenges the status quo of a patriarchal world that oppresses women and denies them of equal rights. Others, however, believe that feminism is outdated because sexism no longer exists in the modern world, at least in the United States and other developed nations. As a result, society tends to view feminists as passionate and angry bra burners, men-haters and rabble-rousers, rather than advocates for equality and social justice.

However, I would contend that feminism today is not an extremist concept. The demand that people not be stereotyped, limited in opportunities or threatened solely based on their sex is more than reasonable, especially in a country that prides itself on upholding the pillars of liberty and equality of opportunity.

This ongoing stigma of feminism parallels the stigma of abolitionism back in the nineteenth century when being an abolitionist was considered radical. In retrospect, the petitions of abolitionists were clearly not extremist. Abolitionists merely demanded the end of slavery and desired equality of all Americans, no matter skin color. Similarly, feminists simply call for equality between the sexes. And just as abolitionism did not equate to the hate of white Americans but merely signified the desire for black Americans’ rights, feminism too does not equate to the hate of men or the value of women over men but rather calls for the balance of power between and establishment of equal rights for the sexes. It’s a stark parallel to draw, but now one that will hopefully resonate with the American consciousness.

Furthermore, feminism is not outdated at all. While most people may acknowledge the existence of sexism globally in developing countries in which women are extremely oppressed and violated, many deny that sexism exists in the United States. However, sexism clearly still permeates American society, as demonstrated by the huge wage gap between women and men; the striking disparity between the number of female and male political representatives in government; the dearth of female CEOs; and the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, as well as sex trafficking in the United States.

The feminist stigma is unmistakably an important issue that needs to be addressed. By proliferating a flawed depiction of feminism and discouraging people from identifying themselves as feminists, the stigma surrounding feminism proves detrimental and hinders the progress of the women’s rights movement.

In order to break this stigma and rectify the image of feminism, more people need to proclaim that they are feminists without viewing it as a type of concession. Moreover, men must realize too that they, too, can, and should, proudly identify themselves as feminists. And while it’s easy to believe that one voice won’t matter, it is important to remember that every voice matters in breaking the stigma of feminism and helping advance the movement toward gender equality.

So I challenge you: come out today as a feminist. Identify yourself as someone who cares about equality for your friends, your family and the generation after.​

This is actually precisely what those of us who identify as feminist have been arguing in this topic, and I think Sanky would agree with it, as well.

The bolded supports MogCakes post (I'm going to go back through every one of his posts to see if he changed a position). None of the rest negates the point that there is a stigma and if people choose to not want to identify as such, that's their prerogative. And no amount of others telling them that they absolutely must slap the label on themselves in order to actually support equality is going to change that.

 

[jonno394]

Most girls I know who claim they are feminists are actually female supremacists, they don't want equal rights they want men to be subservient.

 

[Mumei]

The bolded supports MogCakes post (I'm going to go back through every one of his posts to see if he changed a position). None of the rest negates the point that there is a stigma and if people choose to not want to identify as such, that's their prerogative. And no amount of others telling them that they absolutely must slap the label on themselves in order to actually support equality is going to change that.

Well, I agree that it needs to be addressed. But you don't address the stigma a label has by refusing to adopt a label that describes your views because of the stigma. When you do that, you reinforce the stigma. If you do not identify as anything - a conservative, an atheist, a humanist, a feminist, a socialist - because of the perception that there is a stigma attached to the label, you are not just responding to the stigma; you are in your own small way contributing to that stigma. I don't think it's untoward of me to suggest that people rethink their reasons for rejecting a label, and to think about the idea that rejecting stigma is a better way of dealing with it.

It is still your prerogative - or anyone else's - to decide what to call yourself, and my position isn't you must call yourself a feminist in order to support equality. You can support the same things feminists do without adopting the label. You can consider yourself an ally without adopting the label. You can have other reasons for not adopting the label - I recall one feminist who for years did not adopt the label because he felt that to be a feminist one needed the experience of that oppression, and so he called himself a feminist ally instead. I think that's perfectly respectable.

But that's different than rejecting the label because of the stigma. When the author of that piece writes in the very next sentence, "By proliferating a flawed depiction of feminism and discouraging people from identifying themselves as feminists, the stigma surrounding feminism proves detrimental and hinders the progress of the women’s rights movement," this is exactly what he's talking about.

Spoiler

Clarification: When I say "you" I don't really mean "you"; I don't actually remember your position.

 

[Agnt]

A majority of them don't know what it means to be a feminist.

 

[MogCakes]

I can't believe after 22 pages, I have been reduced to defending a label, instead of ALL OF US defending women. It's not rebels in Syria or Democrats, it's about women. It's about humans that are born underprivileged because of the body they were born into.their bodies. I have been defensive before in my life, I have been bitter before in my life as a man, and I have been a coward before in my life... then I got educated, and gave women enough respect to stand beside them under whatever label they chose. I urge you all to do what I did, put my ego aside, and listen to the women in my life. I legitimize their claim, not focus on some stigma created by un-staunching bitterness.

You don't appear to be arguing the same topic anymore. None of that applies to what I have been saying, and it seems you have gone straight to insinuating that I don't respect women, with no basis for such a claim. This is becoming absurd.

Bold: I think more people here are on the side of defending women than you think, and that you are attacking allies needlessly and rashly.

My only response to you, is read up and understand the source of the stigma.

I'm out with the following. This applies the same in the 60's as it does today.

Women’s Rights Manifesto
National Organization for Women

Because woman's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or
repetitious and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important
than what we do and if we get raped it's
our fault and if we get beaten we must have
provoked it and if we raise our voices we're
nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're
nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if
we love women it's because we can't get a
"real" man and if we ask our doctor too many
questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and
if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we
stand up for our rights we're aggressive and
"unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical
weak females and if we want to get married
we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're
unnatural and because we still can't get an
adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk
on the moon and if we can't cope or don't
want a pregnancy we're made to feel
guilty about abortion and...for lots and lots
of other reasons we are part of the
women's liberation movement.

That emotional rant doesn't do anything to support your claim of the 'source' of the stigma. Further, I haven't argued where the source of the stigma comes from, as it is another discussion entirely, and in fact is discussed in some of the links I gave you.

MogCakes actually explicitly didn't link him to studies - "None of these are scientific studies" - and Sanky was not denying that feminism is stigmatized; he was suggesting that MogCakes read to see why it is stigmatized. The Harvard article actually quite appropriate:

This is actually precisely what those of us who identify as feminist have been arguing in this topic, and I think Sanky would agree with it, as well.

I do understand (I read the article after all, well before linking them), and have never argued that Feminism is evil or bad, that it is a radical movement. Sanky did a terrible job of conveying what the Harvard article was able to articulate. However, my assertion still stands - people should not have the label forced upon them by way of changing what constitutes a Feminist to include everyone under the sun who happens to agree with women's rights and equality. They should be educated, and educating is what the Harvard article aims to do. If afterward they remain unconvinced to call themselves a Feminist while still agreeing with the goals and philosophy, then that's their prerogative. Once again, educate, not force. As for why people wouldn't want to call themselves a Feminist, I've answered that previously: the label has much weight, and not everyone wants to be associated with such weight, good or bad.

 

[casabolg]

Something just came to mind. If you want to see what weight the testimony from the prosecution carries, and since you are a fan of anecdotal evidence, I would appreciate if you watch the entirety of this video. A not so fine display of a systematic and institutionalized problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuvhnJHvHTk

Can't wait to see how you downplay this one.

I love how I'm the one who loves anecdotal evidence now.
But yes, that sort of thing is on the news because it is out of the norm. There are thousands of sexual assaults so ones that go awry are often of note and become news stories. That case is awful, no doubt, and should be fought against and I'm glad it's coming to light to get these people brought to justice.

You argued that "some groups" hold a certain position. When questioned, you were unable to name one and reasserted that you - and others - have seen this. My speculation was simply an attempt to be charitable to you by trying to understand how you could believe that, "If you regret it the next morning, it is rape," was a position that feminists argue for. You denied the speculation - fair enough - but you still have not provided a source for groups who believe this. Unless you can provide a source for this, you will stop asserting it.

And no, one comment off a blog will not count as a "source." That is an anecdote. You can find a single person of any affiliation supporting anything if you look hard enough; this does not mean you can then argue that this viewpoint is held by groups of people and is an idea that is seriously advocated. You said groups advocate this. If you cannot name these groups, do not make the assertion.

I use groups nebulously, as there is no one place where radfem ideas are, not groups as in a unified and established as their own thing. If you want anything close to that, you can look over at radfem pages and forums. You're bound to get a lot of things you'd disagree with. The issue is this idea doesn't come specifically tied to the title "radfem" so it's all around the place, as the blog and the forum post I showed you. If you give me time, I can find you more. I don't usually pursue this stuff. Would you like more?

 

[MogCakes]

Well, I agree that it needs to be addressed. But you don't address the stigma a label has by refusing to adopt a label that describes your views because of the stigma. When you do that, you reinforce the stigma. If you do not identify as anything - a conservative, an atheist, a humanist, a feminist, a socialist - because of the perception that there is a stigma attached to the label, you are not just responding to the stigma; you are in your own small way contributing to that stigma. I don't think it's untoward of me to suggest that people rethink their reasons for rejecting a label, and to think about the idea that rejecting stigma is a better way of dealing with it.

Can you support those bolded claims? Someone who agrees with Feminism's goals, but who doesn't consider themselves as part of the movement is in fact perpetuating the movement's negative stereotype? You'll have to explain that one in more detail - how does it contribute? I'd understand if they were actively telling people not to be feminists, but to make that assumption about someone just because they don't identify as a Feminist is fallacious as it is without base. And addressing the stigma is Feminism's ordeal, not the general public's. The onus is on Feminists.

It is still your prerogative - or anyone else's - to decide what to call yourself, and my position isn't you must call yourself a feminist in order to support equality. You can support the same things feminists do without adopting the label. You can consider yourself an ally without adopting the label. You can have other reasons for not adopting the label - I recall one feminist who for years did not adopt the label because he felt that to be a feminist one needed the experience of that oppression, and so he called himself a feminist ally instead. I think that's perfectly respectable.

But that's different than rejecting the label because of the stigma. When the author of that piece writes in the very next sentence, "By proliferating a flawed depiction of feminism and discouraging people from identifying themselves as feminists, the stigma surrounding feminism proves detrimental and hinders the progress of the women’s rights movement," this is exactly what he's talking about.

Bold: If that is your position then there is no cause for disagreement between us. As for rejecting Feminism solely because of the social stigma, that is where education comes in, no? So that such misconceptions are erased. However, part of the stigma is also just the sheer political weight behind the movement, and this is through no fault of anyone - Feminism is a large sociopolitical movement and many would rather not associate themselves purely so as not to be burdened by such weight. Why would it be a burden? Because many people don't want to take up the fight when someone decides to start an argument with them about it. They simply don't want to be involved, yet support the goals. They don't want it to define their lives or who they are as a person. Such labels have that power - being a Socialist, Atheist, or such, also carries the same influence.

Lastly, again, I don't recall ever having said that one shouldn't be a feminist, nor tried to claim a 'flawed' view of Feminism as the Harvard article mentions - they are talking about a different kind of person, one who has misconceptions or a bias against Feminism. People who agree with Feminist goals but don't wish to associate are NOT necessarily those kind of people, and it is imperative that this distinction is remembered.

 

[Mumei]

Can you support those bolded claims? Someone who agrees with Feminism's goals, but who doesn't consider themselves as part of the movement is in fact perpetuating the movement's negative stereotype? You'll have to explain that one in more detail - how does it contribute? I'd understand if they were actively telling people not to be feminists, but to make that assumption about someone just because they don't identify as a Feminist is fallacious as it is without base. And addressing the stigma is Feminism's ordeal, not the general public's. The onus is on Feminists.

I didn't say "Someone who agrees with feminism's goals but who doesn't support the movement"; I believe that someone supports feminism's goals axiomatically supports feminism, whatever they are actually calling themselves. I said "Someone who supports feminism's goals but rejects the label "feminist," and I specified someone who does this due to the stigma (and not some other reason) is contributing to that stigma. In other words, when a person does not adopt a label because of the stigma attached to it, it implies that they are not only aware of the stigma but have internalized the idea that it is a bad thing. If many people refuse to adopt a label because they view it as a bad thing, can you see how this might contribute to the stigma?

Bold: If that is your position then there is no cause for disagreement between us. As for rejecting Feminism solely because of the social stigma, that is where education comes in, no? So that such misconceptions are erased. However, part of the stigma is also just the sheer political weight behind the movement, and this is through no fault of anyone - Feminism is a large sociopolitical movement and many would rather not associate themselves purely so as not to be burdened by such weight. Why would it be a burden? Because many people don't want to take up the fight when someone decides to start an argument with them about it. They simply don't want to be involved, yet support the goals. They don't want it to define their lives or who they are as a person. Such labels have that power - being a Socialist, Atheist, or such, also carries the same influence.

Hooray, then. That is my position.

And I think that education is quite important. I did not identify as feminist at one point because I believed that it implied a certain amount of political engagement that didn't describe me. I didn't think it was possible to just be personally supportive of equality and call yourself a feminist unless you did something more. I no longer believe that that is necessary to call yourself a feminist; I believe it is possible to be a feminist within your personal space without having to be "political" in the sense I was thinking before.

 

[Sanky Panky]

That emotional rant doesn't do anything to support your claim of the 'source' of the stigma. Further, I haven't argued where the source of the stigma comes from, as it is another discussion entirely, and in fact is discussed in some of the links I gave you.
.

Posting the National Organization for Women's manifesto was not me trying to explain the stigma. That you called it "that emotional rant" is all the confirmation anyone needs about you. Calling a woman's plight an "emotional rant" is reflective of this entire thread and its posters. I'm out.

 

[ThaiNoodles]

Man some of the people in this thread really need to read some books.

 

[FoxSpirit]

I fully support feminism as in "demanding to be treated equal to males" because fuck, we are all people. Same pay, same rights, same respect.

But FUCK whichever wave spawned the "if you are looking at a women with pure lust you are a swine." You together with the Catholic church ruined my sexuality your frikkin imbeciles. And no, I will not still my rage. I am 35. And my sexuality is in shambles. I am in therapy. I lost some of the most exiting years in my life already. Who know how many more will be lost. Male gaze?? FUCK YOU.

 

[MogCakes]

I didn't say "Someone who agrees with feminism's goals but who doesn't support the movement"; I believe that someone supports feminism's goals axiomatically supports feminism, whatever they are actually calling themselves. I said "Someone who supports feminism's goals but rejects the label "feminist," and I specified someone who does this due to the stigma (and not some other reason) is contributing to that stigma. In other words, when a person does not adopt a label because of the stigma attached to it, it implies that they are not only aware of the stigma but have internalized the idea that it is a bad thing. If many people refuse to adopt a label because they view it as a bad thing, can you see how this might contribute to the stigma?

The people you are talking about (those who believe Feminism is bad and reject it as such, who spread the negative stigma with their misconceptions) are not the people I am referring to when I say one does not 'harm' Feminism by simply not being a part of it.

Hooray, then. That is my position.

And I think that education is quite important. I did not identify as feminist at one point because I believed that it implied a certain amount of political engagement that didn't describe me. I didn't think it was possible to just be personally supportive of equality and call yourself a feminist unless you did something more. I no longer believe that that is necessary to call yourself a feminist; I believe it is possible to be a feminist within your personal space without having to be "political" in the sense I was thinking before.

We'll agree to disagree here. I said so in my first post in this thread, but I do not view Feminism simply as a philosophy by itself.

Posting the National Organization for Women's manifesto was not me trying to explain the stigma. That you called it "that emotional rant" is all the confirmation anyone needs about you. Calling a woman's plight an "emotional rant" is reflective of this entire thread and its posters. I'm out.

I speak my mind. The manifesto reads to me as an emotional rant, and is not the source of stigma that Feminism holds like you claimed (something you have conveniently forgotten in your gleeful vilification of my person). I agree with Feminism's goals, I do not agree with NOW's manifesto.

It's become clear you never had intent of discussing anything. You've jumped from point to point in some vain attack on my posts that never amounted to much more than 'you're a bad person!' and you continue to do so. You've even gone to the point of claiming you speak for everyone in the thread, as if I've committed a mass atrocity by not thinking favorably of one organization's manifesto. I hope others reading your posts have the sense to realize you are ranting from emotion and not logic, and that people can have different opinions while still supporting the same ideals. The way you have behaved in the past few pages is quite frankly embarrassing.

 

[Sanky Panky]

I speak my mind. The manifesto reads to me as an emotional rant, and is not the source of stigma that Feminism holds like you claimed (something you have conveniently forgotten in your gleeful vilification of my person). I agree with Feminism's goals, I do not agree with NOW's manifesto.

Me "attacking you" has always been an inquisition on your intent in this debate on feminism, or simply a naive hope that you will discover by yourself the deep seated societal root of the usual arguments against the movement in these thread. I don't apologize for being forceful and frustrated.

Out of respect for that organization, and as a great exercise for you, would you please tell us what specific parts of it you don't agree with ansd WHY? Don't leave us hanging on that one.

 

[MogCakes]

Me "attacking you" has always been an inquisition on your intent in this debate on feminism, or simply a naive hope that you will discover by yourself the deep seated societal root of the usual arguments against the movement in these thread. I don't apologize for being forceful and frustrated.

Out of respect for that organization, and as a great exercise for you, would you please tell us what specific parts of it you don't agree with ansd WHY? Don't leave us hanging on that one.

So you've confirmed that you indeed never wanted discussion and were just pushing your agenda on me. Okay. You've wasted my time.

The manifesto reads as an emotional rant. I don't have much else to say about it. If you want to argue its merits you can, but I'll kindly leave that out of my own posts as I have no interest in debating it. My only purpose in this topic was to point out that people should not have Feminism forced unto them. You on the other hand seem intent on grasping at whatever straws you can to vilify me with. Currently you're at insinuating I don't know Feminism's history or its various branches, or that somehow I haven't 'awakened' to the plight of women despite none of my posts being antagonistic towards Feminism. To your dismay, I happen to know what I'm talking about and am fully educated on this subject. You can't tell friend from foe, can you?

I'm dismayed that a neutral point of argument (people shouldn't be forced into Feminism by changing definitions) was met with such hostility and vitriol. You've proven that you are not a reasonable person and personally I now think you're a zealot.

 

[Pennies & Nickels]

Let me first start out by saying that, as I believe in core feminist values, I could be considered a feminist myself (although, as that is a very exclusive label, I prefer to classify myself as an "equalist"). However, there are some notions of the general movement that are troublesome to me, among them being the classification of rape with respect to alcoholic influence.

Particularly, this definition of it:

For what reason does this crowd need to be combated? If a woman was willing to have sex with you while inebriated but would not have been willing to have sex with you while not inebriated, do you think it is appropriate to take advantage of her inebriated state? Do you think it would be wrong for her to feel violated and betrayed by that?

I would make a new topic on this, as it's probably the most troubling consensus among feminists for me, and I would really love to get some more feedback on it from other feminists. But I can't, so here goes:

I don't normally like giving out personal details about my life on an internet forum, but for the sake of this illustration, I will. According to Mumei's rhetorical questions above, as a male, I have been raped several times. As have many other men.

What I'm specifically referring to is "being taken advantage of during an inebriated state". Overweight women, older women, and/or just generally unattractive women do this the most often. You hear about so many men waking up the next day, thinking to themselves "I did that?" usually referring to sleeping with or performing some sexual act with a girl they do not find physically or mentally attractive (the most common example, but it could be any girl). It's not something they would have done if they were sober.

My question is this: I hear so much about "taking advantage" of drunk women to have sex, even if they give consensus while they're drunk, and classifying it as rape. Following the logic above, it's rape since they consent to it inebriated, but would otherwise not consent to it.

What about the men who wake up the next day regretting what they did the night before, with other unattractive women? They effectively consented to something they wouldn't otherwise consent to if sober. I have never, ever heard anyone classifying this as rape. But when it's a woman who consents to sex while drunk, but would otherwise not consent to it, it's rape. This is probably the perfect illustration of my biggest problem with many feminists, who are claiming to advocate equality, but fail to realize the double standards they're really indulging themselves in.

As previously stated, this has happened to me more than once. I've done things with other women I wouldn't have otherwise done if I were sober. To be perfectly honest, although I have regretted it and it does suck, I've never felt taken advantage of, or felt like I was "raped". My gut reaction is usually, "I really shouldn't have drank so much last night". Why should it be different for women?

I apologize that my points above might seem sloppy and hard to piece together, I'll be the first to say that I'm not very good at debate, since I'm not very good at conveying my points (I feel). Mumei, if you feel I'm putting words in your mouth, please let me know so that I can understand your position a little better.

Let me also add a disclaimer that I firmly, strongly believe there is a fine line between consenting to sexual acts while drunk, and actual rape while drunk.

To illustrate, referring to the "Bob" example given a few pages back, forcefully putting a girl's head down to your crotch (while she's crying, at that) without getting her consent first - I absolutely believe that is borderline rape. Trying to manipulate her by telling her "she's just so pretty", even though she clearly doesn't want to do it, I feel is still rape.

Another, more extreme example given a few pages back, the 15 year old girl who was gangbanged by some boys she was drinking with: I absolutely feel that is rape as well. I'm assuming she consented to it initially, but things got out of hand, and even though she no longer consented to it while the act had already begun, they continued. There's no question in my mind about it; that is rape.

What I do not believe is rape is when both parties fully consent to it, and never "unconsent" while the act is taking place, inebriated or not. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what state you're in; if you consent to it fully, I do not believe it to be rape. As previously stated, I've been in this position, but since I consented to the act(s) during the entire situation (to be blunt), I don't believe I was raped.

Again, Mumei, if I'm misconstruing your words, please let me know. This is one of the topics I'm a little fiery about as far as feminism is concerned. Further apologies for being repetitive and lengthy in my above points.

 

[rocketknight]

If you're saying things like "obviously" men wouldn't willingly sleep with "wildly unattractive girls," you're probably right that you're maybe not a feminist.

Anyway, this is a murky area, but the studies and attitudes Mumei was mostly referring to discussed people specifically engaging in predatory behavior because they know this is a murky area. Waking up and being displeased by the extent to which your beer goggles were affecting your perception of attractiveness is in a different ballpark from waking up and feeling like you think you didn't give consent but your underwear is on the floor and you feel kind of dirty but you're really hungover because that person was feeding you drinks and what is going on what happened last night fuck?

We could also get into the ideals encoded into your "obviously" remark and how they enforce really absurd, terrible aspects of How To Perform Masculinity and how this hurts men in addition to women, but bleh.

 

[maharg]

Another, more extreme example given a few pages back, the 15 year old girl who was gangbanged by some boys she was drinking with: I absolutely feel that is rape as well. I'm assuming she consented to it initially, but things got out of hand, and even though she no longer consented to it while the act had already begun, they continued. There's no question in my mind about it; that is rape.

So it's a bit of a tangent, but I feel it's important.

She was actually beaten into submission and then gang raped. There was no consent at all at any point in that case. Which is not really clear if you only read the first few pages of that thread, because nearly everyone jumped to the conclusion that she had consented to sex by joining a group of older strangers (they weren't, btw, she was invited by a friend) who were drinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape

Nearly every assumption made early in that thread turned out to be wrong. It was actually that thread that convinced me of the reality of rape culture.

 

[Betty]

My question is this: I hear so much about "taking advantage" of drunk women to have sex, even if they give consensus while they're drunk, and classifying it as rape. Following the logic above, it's rape since they consent to it inebriated, but would otherwise not consent to it.

What about the men who wake up the next day regretting what they did the night before, with other unattractive women?

Technically speaking, that would be classified as rape.

Just because you're not that upset or shocked doesn't avoid the fact someone took advantage of you when you weren't 100% in control.

Maybe your reaction would be different if a man had taken advantage of you, or multiple men for that matter, or maybe not, I don't know your sexual preferences.

Put it this way: Imagine you, in a drunken stupor, agree to hand over your wallet and it's contents to someone, a thing you otherwise would not do if sober.

Now when you wake up and realize what's happened, does the fact you consented to it while drunk mean you haven't had your wallet stolen? Of course not, you were still robbed, the person still took advantage of you, and whether you decide to get angry, hurt or unconcerned is your own decision, but it still counts as a crime.

Also regarding this paragraph;

What I do not believe is rape is when both parties fully consent to it, and never "unconsent" while the act is taking place, inebriated or not. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what state you're in; if you consent to it fully, I do not believe it to be rape. As previously stated, I've been in this position, but since I consented to the act(s) during the entire situation (to be blunt), I don't believe I was raped.

What if you seemingly consent with the other person, but are so inebriated you can't communicate your unwillingness to continue, or your desire to stop outright? What if the person decided your consent for you on any number of things you did or said? And what if they also decided you never made it clear enough you wanted them stop despite claims that you did?

Surely those instances count as rape?

In the end, I think if someone takes advantage of a drunken person and sleeps with them it technically counts as rape.

 

[User 100115]

However, there are some notions of the general movement that are troublesome to me, among them being the classification of rape with respect to alcoholic influence.

Particularly, this definition of it:

I think what most people take issue with is the mindset of 'setting out to get a girl so drunk she'll do anything'. The fratboy mind set that as long as they keep pouring drinks in someone, anything goes, while saying mostly sober themselves. Two people going and getting intoxicated and ending up having sex isn't rape. Setting out from the start to get someone drunk for the sole purpose of lowering her inhibitions, knowing that she wouldn't otherwise consent is incredibly sketchy.

 

[alexthekid]

If you're saying things like "obviously" men wouldn't willingly sleep with "wildly unattractive girls," you're probably right that you're maybe not a feminist.

Anyway, this is a murky area, but the studies and attitudes Mumei was mostly referring to discussed people specifically engaging in predatory behavior because they know this is a murky area. Waking up and being displeased by the extent to which your beer goggles were affecting your perception of attractiveness is in a different ballpark from waking up and feeling like you think you didn't give consent but your underwear is on the floor and you feel kind of dirty but you're really hungover because that person was feeding you drinks and what is going on what happened last night fuck?

We could also get into the ideals encoded into your "obviously" remark and how they enforce really absurd, terrible aspects of How To Perform Masculinity and how this hurts men in addition to women, but bleh.

Care to elaborate what the problem is?

The part with "something they wouldnt have done" seems to be coupled with the statement "I did that?". Of course it is something that they wouldnt have done if they are asking themselves that question. And usually it is because they find their partner wildly inattractive(subjective but still). What is so strange about that?

When drunk I do stuff I normally would never do, if it is just having sex with someone I wont find attractive it isnt that bad, But still it is something that I wouldnt consent to the next day.

Technically speaking, that would be classified as rape.

By technically you mean what? If you mean by law. Laws can change with time and are different in different countries, and how they look are not adding anything in a discussion about peoples mentality about what constitute an act of rape.

And also, the wallet example. Are you sure about that? It feels like I could say that I wanted it back and that it should be my right to get it back, but theft? Seems crazy

 

[Pennies & Nickels]

What if you seemingly consent with the other person, but are so inebriated you can't communicate your unwillingness to continue, or your desire to stop outright? What if the person decided your consent for you on any number of things you did or said? And what if they also decided you never made it clear enough you wanted them stop despite claims that you did?

I can answer this simply. What you just described is not consent. There is no such thing as "consenting for them". It would be rape, so I agree with you.

So it's a bit of a tangent, but I feel it's important.

She was actually beaten into submission and then gang raped. There was no consent at all at any point in that case. Which is not really clear if you only read the first few pages of that thread, because nearly everyone jumped to the conclusion that she had consented to sex by joining a group of older strangers (they weren't, btw, she was invited by a friend) who were drinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape

Nearly every assumption made early in that thread turned out to be wrong. It was actually that thread that convinced me of the reality of rape culture.

I never read the original thread (I should have), I just read the summary in this thread. That's awful. There shouldn't be any question that it was rape.

If you're saying things like "obviously" men wouldn't willingly sleep with "wildly unattractive girls," you're probably right that you're maybe not a feminist
...
We could also get into the ideals encoded into your "obviously" remark and how they enforce really absurd, terrible aspects of How To Perform Masculinity and how this hurts men in addition to women, but bleh.

Not to launch and attack on you personally or anything, but this is the reason I try to stay out of these threads. One word and my entire viewpoint is questioned.

I apologize for the confusion. I should have more clearly elaborated the fact that "if you don't find someone attractive, and you don't like their personality, you probably wouldn't consent to sex with them when sober".

 

[rocketknight]

Care to elaborate what the problem is?

It encourages the idea that people you find unattractive are unattractive to everyone and "obviously" unworthy of sex. This is just as harmful when it happens the other way around, when someone starts a thread about a conventionally attractive woman with a conventionally unattractive man and we get three pages of "lol he must have a big dick" or "lol he must have a big wallet" or whatever else, as if this isn't a whole person that someone could love as a whole person (or - gasp - even find attractive). See, our shitty culture simultaneously tells men that they have to go out and have a ton of sex, but that it's shameful to have sex with anyone who's not a supermodel. This hurts everybody, including men.

 

[Pennies & Nickels]

It encourages the idea that people you find unattractive are unattractive to everyone and "obviously" unworthy of sex. This is just as harmful when it happens the other way around, when someone starts a thread about a conventionally attractive woman with a conventionally unattractive man and we get three pages of "lol he must have a big dick" or "lol he must have a big wallet" or whatever else, as if this isn't a whole person that someone could love as a whole person (or - gasp - even find attractive). See, our shitty culture simultaneously tells men that they have to go out and have a ton of sex, but that it's shameful to have sex with anyone who's not a supermodel. This hurts everybody, including men.

Let me reiterate that I agree with your points, and that is not what I meant in my "obviously" comment. See my above post. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; if you do not find somebody attractive, and if you don't find their personality attractive, then no, you probably would not consent to sex with them when sober.

 

[Betty]

By technically you mean what? If you mean by law. Laws can change with time and are different in different countries, and how they look are not adding anything in a discussion about peoples mentality about what constitute an act of rape.

Pennies & Nickels asked if a man was taken advantage of by another person while drunk if it is rape, under the current law it is. But if you want a more moralistic point of view, I already said as much;

In the end, I think if someone takes advantage of a drunken person and sleeps with them it technically counts as rape.

And also, the wallet example. Are you sure about that? It feels like I could say that I wanted it back and that it should be my right to get it back, but theft? Seems crazy

Yeah I'm sure. If a person is in anyway mentally impaired, and that includes being drunk, they cannot give consent.

 

[Sanky Panky]

So you've confirmed that you indeed never wanted discussion and were just pushing your agenda on me. Okay. You've wasted my time.

The manifesto reads as an emotional rant. I don't have much else to say about it. If you want to argue its merits you can, but I'll kindly leave that out of my own posts as I have no interest in debating it. .

I'm pushing a question on you that you refuse to answer. You vilify yourself when you say you don't have anything to say about specific oppressive actions that women still face every day, and your only contribution is that you don't want to be associated with the label. Oh well. Feminist will continue the uphill battle against people like you.

Since you know your history, I'm sure you know that the word hysteria comes from the Greek word "hystera", which means uterus. Thankfully we are past the point when doctors used to rape women with mechanical dildos to "calm the down" from their emotional rants. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but to this day women are still accused of being whiny or dramatic simply because they want to fight for what is right. I myself will be a zealot for human rights any day.

P.s. it would still be an educational experience for you to be forced to defend what parts of that manifesto are an emotional rant. If pride doesn't let you do it in this thread, I hope you take a moment to yourself amd think about it.

 

[MogCakes]

I'm pushing a question on you that you refuse to answer. You vilify yourself when you say you don't have anything to say about specific oppressive actions that women still face every day, and your only contribution is that you don't want to be associated with the label. Oh well. Feminist will continue the uphill battle against people like you.

Since you know your history, I'm sure you know that the word hysteria comes from the Greek word "hystera", which means uterus. Thankfully we are past the point when doctors used to rape women with mechanical dildos to "calm the down" from their emotional rants. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but to this day women are still accused of being whiny or dramatic simply because they want to fight for what is right. I myself will be a zealot for human rights any day.

P.s. it would still be an educational experience for you to be forced to defend what parts of that manifesto are an emotional rant. If pride doesn't let you do it in this thread, I hope you take a moment to yourself amd think about it.

Bolded 1: Lol what? Since when does a thread post define what a person's contribution to anything is, other than a discussion? And 'against people like me'? You've got one hell of a tribe mentality going on, considering I'm not against Feminism in any way, shape, or form. Also consider I'm not the one screaming accusations at people for making a neutral statement. No, 'people like you' are the ones who do a disservice to Feminism by giving it a bad name. Your accusatory attitude and hostility towards anyone who isn't hyper supportive is a smear upon its good image. And yeah, I don't say anything about other stuff going on in the thread because that wasn't my prerogative for posting in the first place. But thanks for making assumptions about my character as usual. According to you, if I don't post about anything else I am a bad person and against Feminism. Right. You are delusional.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I said earlier as well. You are fishing for excuses to attack me. Here's my defense of calling NOW's manifesto an emotional rant: It reads like one.

EDIT: and per the bolded underlined: I've said it before and I'll say it again. Feminism entails equality, but equality is not the same as Feminism. Feminism falls under the umbrella of human rights, but is not the samme thing. You are again perpetuating that any support of human rights is feminism, which is not true - Feminism is a focused movement on improving women's rights for their equality. Human rights by itself is much more nebulous.

Because woman's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or
repetitious and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important
than what we do and if we get raped it's
our fault and if we get beaten we must have
provoked it and if we raise our voices we're
nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're
nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if
we love women it's because we can't get a
"real" man and if we ask our doctor too many
questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and
if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we
stand up for our rights we're aggressive and
"unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical
weak females and if we want to get married
we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're
unnatural and because we still can't get an
adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk
on the moon and if we can't cope or don't
want a pregnancy we're made to feel
guilty about abortion and...for lots and lots
of other reasons we are part of the
women's liberation movement.

Thankfully, Feminism as a movement does not use this massive run-on sentence as its rallying cry. It reads like an angry, emotional woman ranting away. It's the method of presentation that puts me off. You will try to push this further though, because you have nothing else to attack me with and you have already completely ignored what I was trying to get across the entire time. Here's a suggestion, how about you take a step back and ask yourself why you're so intent on attacking every one of my posts and accusing me of being an anti-feminist? Ask yourself why you jumped from tangent to tangent looking for ways to attack me that have little to do with the main idea of my posts. Ask yourself, "is my identity so entrenched with Feminism that I take any comments not obviously positive about it as a personal attack?"

 

[Sanky Panky]

Bolded 1: Lol what? Since when does a thread post define what a person's contribution to anything is, other than a discussion? And 'against people like me'? You've got one hell of a tribe mentality going on, considering I'm not against Feminism in any way, shape, or form. Also consider I'm not the one screaming accusations at people for making a neutral statement. No, 'people like you' are the ones who do a disservice to Feminism by giving it a bad name. Your accusatory attitude and hostility towards anyone who isn't hyper supportive is a smear upon its good image. And yeah, I don't say anything about other stuff going on in the thread because that wasn't my prerogative for posting in the first place. But thanks for making assumptions about my character as usual. According to you, if I don't post about anything else I am a bad person and against Feminism. Right. You are delusional.

Seems like I have struck a nerve, but know that what I meant by your contribution, I meant your contribution to this thread. Your argument is not new at all, and I and others have told you that the fault is not in the label, but on those who harp on there being extremists, policital stances, personal experiences, etc etc, to disassociate themselves from a movement about the rights of human beings. To be or not associated with a label for the rights of women is not a matter of picking one side or the other of a political issue. It's not a decree that you will have to go out to every pro-women rally in your town, but it is a decree that you have the courage to speak against every misconceptions, sexist attitudes, and misguided opinions about the historical fight from women.

Would you argue as emotionally for the rights of others to not be forced under the label of "abolitionist"? Under the historical context, was that the "sensible" thing to do?

What you need to acknowledge is that your stance is not neutral, and calling the manifesto an emotional rant simply confirms that bias. I have never once claimed you disrespect women, or that you don't see them as equal. What I will repeat for the nth and last time, is that they have a movement that is still very much needed to fight for that equality, and you'll find you will have a hard time explaining to yourself the prejudices about the label. If you want to argue that it has a negative connotation that some might or might not want to be associated with it, you better be prepared to discuss why you think this is so, and what may be causing that refusal. Don't see it as a personal attack if you are sure you yourself do not perpetuate that stigma.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I said earlier as well. You are fishing for excuses to attack me. Here's my defense of calling NOW's manifesto an emotional rant: It reads like one.

Correction: YOU read it like one. It's your own bias. If as slave in 1800's enumerated the list of abuses and grievances, would you have callled it an emotional rant?

EDIT: and per the bolded underlined: I've said it before and I'll say it again. Feminism entails equality, but equality is not the same as Feminism.

Equality entails that the main tenants of feminism are acknowledged and respected. Nothing more, nothing less. It is up to everybody to be well informed to distinguish what is fringe in any movement, and what is noble cause for basic human rights. Being labeled a feminist doesn't mean I'm picking sides. There are no sides in the absolute truth that humans regardless of sex, orientation, race etc should be treated as equal. It's an uphill battle because what you say is actually true: many people don't want to be associated with/are not interested in discussing the issues. It's unconfortable to do so. That disassociation is quite a detriment to humanity.

Thankfully, Feminism as a movement does not use this massive run-on sentence as its rallying cry. It reads like an angry, emotional woman ranting away.

I'll take back what I said, and give you props for highlighting the emotion in the manifesto. From your and my priviledged position as men, we don't know what it is to have all those things happen to us every day. It's not a single woman, but the experiences of MANY WOMEN in one single "run-off sentence". They have a right and should be angry. I hope you realize that part of that anger is that after thousands of years of civilization, people are still quick to dismiss the message as a "rant", and still do not want to associate with the cause.

Sorry if you don't want to hear it, but your reaction is part of the problem. Take solace in that you attitude has been ingrained in our society, and I am sure that you are a nice person that respects women and believes in equality. We all perpetuate the problem in our own ways, until we are able to recognize what we are doing, and actively stand against it.

We can end this by saying that no, people should not be forced to take on the label of feminist. I imagine it could be hard to explain to your buds while watching the next football game, for example. For a woman, it would be hard because you might not look like the lesbian with glasses and a crew cut that people falsely associate with the movement (this actually happened to my gf). For a celebrity like Beyonce, it would be hard to adopt the label "feminist" because she makes a career out of objectifying herself for the sake of popularity. If anybody doesn't want a label forced upon them, just know that people educated enough on current and past issues will scratch their heads and wonder what is wrong with willfully adopting a pro-woman label. It should be the right thing to do, and doesn't strip away any of my power as a man.

 

[MogCakes]

Seems like I have struck a nerve, but know that what I meant by your contribution, I meant your contribution to this thread. Your argument is not new at all, and I and others have told you that the fault is not in the label, but on those who harp on there being extremists, policital stances, personal experiences, etc etc, to disassociate themselves from a movement about the rights of human beings. To be or not associated with a label for the rights of women is not a matter of picking one side or the other of a political issue. It's not a decree that you will have to go out to every pro-women rally in your town, but it is a decree that you have the courage to speak against every misconceptions, sexist attitudes, and misguided opinions about the historical fight from women.

On the contrary, your nerve has been exposed for the latter part of the past 4 pages and your accusation here doesn't hold merit - my contribution was pointing out something that should be obvious to every decent person (in fact it is sad I had to do so), you and whoever else shares your sentiment has continued to argue that anyone who doesn't call themselves a feminist is actively fighting against it, which is not only absurd but laughable. Your comments come off as none other than those of a zealot, pressing your beliefs onto others with no regard for how they feel, only thoughts of how they should feel, and about a subject like this, wherein things are not black and white, you come off as highly presumptuous.

Would you argue as emotionally for the rights of others to not be forced under the label of "abolitionist"? Under the historical context, was that the "sensible" thing to do?

Yes, I would argue for those who agree with abolitionism but weren't actively involved in changing it. Abolitionism won the support it did because people felt strongly enough about it to become abolitionists themselves - they didn't need to be harassed into doing so. Feminism needs to appeal to people in the same way - thus far your arguments have been anything but.

What you need to acknowledge is that your stance is not neutral, and calling the manifesto an emotional rant simply confirms that bias. I have never once claimed you disrespect women, or that you don't see them as equal. What I will repeat for the nth and last time, is that they have a movement that is still very much needed to fight for that equality, and you'll find you will have a hard time explaining to yourself the prejudices about the label. If you want to argue that it has a negative connotation that some might or might not want to be associated with it, you better be prepared to discuss why you think this is so, and what may be causing that refusal. Don't see it as a personal attack if you are sure you yourself do not perpetuate that stigma.

I see YOUR comments as a personal attack on me, as you say things like 'that's all anyone needs to know about you' in attempts to vilify me. Don't try to deny it dude, you change stance like a piece of garlic in a frying pan. And that first sentence - LOL. So now apparently disagreeing with one aspect of an organization's motto of a much larger movement is anti-feminist, and saying that Feminism shouldn't force people under its name is biased and not neutral. You have once again blatantly disregarded every part of my reasoning in my previous posts to make that accusation. YOU are the biased one. Your agenda is quite clear.

Correction: YOU read it like one. It's your own bias. If as slave in 1800's enumerated the list of abuses and grievances, would you have callled it an emotional rant?

If written that way, yes. That doesn't mean the points aren't valid. For that matter, the way you used it to support your 'understand WHY the stigma exists!' was terrible as NOW's manifesto is not WHY the stigma exists.

Equality entails that the main tenants of feminism are acknowledged and respected. Nothing more, nothing less. It is up to everybody to be well informed to distinguish what is fringe in any movement, and what is noble cause for basic human rights. Being labeled a feminist doesn't mean I'm picking sides. There are no sides in the absolute truth that humans regardless of sex, orientation, race etc should be treated as equal. It's an uphill battle because what you say is actually true: many people don't want to be associated with/are not interested in discussing the issues. It's unconfortable to do so. That disassociation is quite a detriment to humanity.

Bold 1: And they are. When someone says they support equality, the main tenets (not tenants http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenant) of Feminism are respected. You can't deny it.

Bold 2: Those who are well informed and do not associate themselves with Feminists are out there as well, though you seem loathe to admit it.

Bold 3: Basic human rights can be fought for without being under the label of Feminism.

Bold 4: Ah, here we come to the crux of it all. "By not supporting us you're hurting us! If you're not with us then you're against us!" That is your assertion in a nutshell. It smacks of tribalism and is a terrible way to view anything short of murder, rape, or other life-ruining abhorrence. It is an attempt to needlessly shame people into joining you. It's pathetic.

I'll take back what I said, and give you props for highlighting the emotion in the manifesto. From your and my priviledged position as men, we don't know what it is to have all those things happen to us every day. It's not a single woman, but the experiences of MANY WOMEN in one single "run-off sentence". They have a right and should be angry. I hope you realize that part of that anger is that after thousands of years of civilization, people are still quick to dismiss the message as a "rant", and still do not want to associate with the cause.

Except the purpose of the manifesto is to promote the organization's initiative. It is very clearly aimed AT women, not men, as it is written very much for emotional effect from a woman's standpoint, so it isn't likely to get much male support, not for the points being made, but the way it is presented.

Sorry if you don't want to hear it, but your reaction is part of the problem. Take solace in that you attitude has been ingrained in our society, and I am sure that you are a nice person that respects women and believes in equality. We all perpetuate the problem in our own ways, until we are able to recognize what we are doing, and actively stand against it.

My attitude is one that agrees with Feminism's goals, but makes a distinction that people should not be FORCED into it, and has always been my stance. They need to be convinced to voluntarily take up arms, and your posts have failed in that regard spectacularly. You seem to be unable to distinguish FORCING someone from EDUCATING and CONVINCING them. "I respect your decision to not affiliate with Feminism but you should be ashamed of not affiliating and you are a bad person who is perpetuating the problem" is a stupid and terrible way to think, and that is how your posts come off. The onus is not with the people, no, it is on Feminism to convince them, with reason, respect, and education. And if they agree, are informed, yet still do not wish to call themselves Feminists, that is their right to do so and you have no reason to shame them. You need to realize this.

We can end this by saying that no, people should not be forced to take on the label of feminist. I imagine it could be hard to explain to your buds while watching the next football game, for example. For a woman, it would be hard because you might not look like the lesbian with glasses and a crew cut that people falsely associate with the movement (this actually happened to my gf). For a celebrity like Beyonce, it would be hard to adopt the label "feminist" because she makes a career out of objectifying herself for the sake of popularity. If anybody doesn't want a label forced upon them, just know that people educated enough on current and past issues will scratch their heads and wonder what is wrong with willfully adopting a pro-woman label. It should be the right thing to do, and doesn't strip away any of my power as a man.

It isn't that it 'strips power' or anything of the sort, it is that, as I have explained several times now, it has a massive weight behind it and for some it just is not their prerogative to take up arms for it. They can do so while still promoting equality. And your assertion that any educated and informed person is a feminist is also flawed - informed, educated people can still have different opinions and take up different labels or associate/not associate with what they please. This is not a black and white issue.

Lastly, on the surface you seem to agree with my point, but underneath you have a clear agenda of shaming and interrogating anyone who doesn't affiliate with Feminism. It is part of my argument that NO ONE should be shamed for not calling themselves a Feminist, just as Feminists should not be shamed for taking up their label. Get this through your head.

 

[Tacitus_]

Popping in since this seems to have veered into that territory again. When people, well, let's not generalize, when I say that I don't identify as a feminist, though I agree with the equality for all side of it, is because the first thing that comes to mind when people utter the term is people like Big Red (showing off her debate skills here ) and that's not a good mental image.

Since it's a big movement, she probably (hopefully) isn't the majority, but it sure sours the image.

 

[WanderingWind]

MogCakes, you're wasting your time here. He's just going to explain how you're unable to agree with equality because you'll be embarrassed by your football-loving bros. He's not getting it and after all this time, it's clear he has no interest in any conversation that isn't him "educating" people.

 

[Sanky Panky]

On the contrary, your nerve has been exposed for the latter part of the past 4 pages and your accusation here doesn't hold merit - my contribution was pointing out something that should be obvious to every decent person (in fact it is sad I had to do so), you and whoever else shares your sentiment has continued to argue that anyone who doesn't call themselves a feminist is actively fighting against it, which is not only absurd but laughable.

My argument is that any decent person, which I assume you are, will realize that the stigmas associated with the label are absurd or baseless when you take more than a few minutes to think about them. There are two ways to change a stigma: 1) rebranding (which I have argued that it does a disservice to the women's movement) 2) wearing the label to make others see that their prejudices are wrong.

Yes, I would argue for those who agree with abolitionism but weren't actively involved in changing it. Abolitionism won the support it did because people felt strongly enough about it to become abolitionists themselves - they didn't need to be harassed into doing so. Feminism needs to appeal to people in the same way - thus far your arguments have been anything but.

I know you have been arguing for complacency and the status quo, but thank you for verbalizing it. I have questioned you from the start as to where you think the stigma for feminism comes from. Honest question: being so educated, have you ever tried to correct others on their PREJUDICE against feminists? or is your stance to let them wallow in their prejudice as your way of not "forcing" the label on them? Everything you have posted tells me it's the latter. I WILL take issue with anybody that does the latter.

I AM biased in favor of the movement, and I don't hide my agenda to make others realize that the stigmas associated to feminism are created and perpetuated by those that want to hold on to the power (even if feminism is not even a zero-sum game). What I wish you would do is even be able to list the specific stigmas that prevent you from adopting the label. Can you even do that, or are you simply "not interested" as you say the people you ardently defend would feel?

Because you are educated and informed, and not biased, can you please cite for us in detail what is the "massive weight" of the label? Can an educated person objectively explain the validity of each preconception against feminism? You will come to see that "I once knew a feminist that..." doesn't hold much "weight" at all, and is usually not objective. That they don't agree with abortions? that's fine. If you have vagina and get pregnant, don't do it. We could go on and list the issues, but I would like to hear from you, what issues stigmatize the label for you. What are the "massive weights"? Would you actively tell a young girl that not all feminists are hairy angry lesbians? The world is full of apologists for people that don't want to correct their misconceptions.

If written that way, yes. That doesn't mean the points aren't valid. For that matter, the way you used it to support your 'understand WHY the stigma exists!' was terrible as NOW's manifesto is not WHY the stigma exists.

Again, it wasn't related to the stigma debate. It was my way to actually bow out of this thread, but I had to come back to correct you misreading it.

Except the purpose of the manifesto is to promote the organization's initiative. It is very clearly aimed AT women, not men, as it is written very much for emotional effect from a woman's standpoint, so it isn't likely to get much male support, not for the points being made, but the way it is presented.

The purpose of the manifesto is for both women AND MEN to see that the women's fight for equality is not over. That you say it "isn't likely to get much male support" in our society is true, but it is NOT because of the emotions that it evokes. It's not because it's from a woman's standpoint. It is meant to evoke empathy and rile EVERYONE up to fight those issues, both men aand women. It's not a rant.

How would you like the issues presented to us men? Do we need feminists to hold our hands and read us a bed time story on the plights of women? I admire those in this thread that have the patience to do that. Unfortunately, more than a century of that has passed, and in 2013 some still see associating themselves with the word feminism to be some sort of socio-political suicide. THAT is what letting others hold on to their prejudices does to the movement. Not only do women have to fight sexism, they fight apathy, complacency, and prejudices. It is so bad in 2013, that young girls think feminism is being able to show off your body and be sexy. Are they doing it from self-expression or because they feel that it's how their worth is measured? More young girls now are getting breast implants and suffering from food disorders because their favourite singer says that empowerment comes from being sexual and looking beautiful, when all they are doing is objectifying themselves (but hey... they do it CONFIDENTLY). The movement is reverting, but hey, let's not take an active stand to quel the misconceptions.

I know I won't change your opinion on this, because you are in correct in saying that people have to have the desire to change. I will say this once again, forecefully, and without apology, that if baffles me why people still don't have a desire to take a stand.

 

[MogCakes]

My argument is that any decent person, which I assume you are, will realize that the stigmas associated with the label are absurd or baseless when you take more than a few minutes to think about them. There are two ways to change a stigma: 1) rebranding (which I have argued that it does a disservice to the women's movement) 2) wearing the label to make others see that their prejudices are wrong.

Then wear it and be proud of it, but do NOT antagonize those who do not wear it. Not everyone has a prejudice against Feminism. The negative stigma is pretty bad yeah, given the nature of the people who perpetuate it, but it is no less real and further, isn't the only reason one might not choose to call themselves a Feminist, as Mumei outlined before. You can question it all day, but the answer will remain the same. Again, the responsibility of defeating that stigma is upon Feminists, not the average person. You can do that by disseminating the good will that the larger majority of Feminism has, being respectful, thought provoking, and educational - a decent person is not necessarily an informed person. Don't think of the public as potential enemies - think of them as potential allies.

I know you have been arguing for complacency and the status quo, but thank you for verbalizing it. I have questioned you from the start as to where you think the stigma for feminism comes from. Honest question: being so educated, have you ever tried to correct others on their PREJUDICE against feminists? or is your stance to let them wallow in their prejudice as your way of not "forcing" the label on them? Everything you have posted tells me it's the latter. I WILL take issue with anybody that does the latter.

You've misconstrued my point of not forcing Feminism upon someone with complacency in letting sexism and misconceptions of Feminism run rampant. I do argue against people who have misinformed views of Feminism, very much so, and you may well be one of them. You are insinuating again that I am anti-Feminist. You refuse to listen to anything I say and instead only look for choice quotes as ammunition to attack me with.

I AM biased in favor of the movement, and I don't hide my agenda to make others realize that the stigmas associated to feminism are created and perpetuated by those that want to hold on to the power (even if feminism is not even a zero-sum game). What I wish you would do is even be able to list the specific stigmas that prevent you from adopting the label. Can you even do that, or are you simply "not interested" as you say the people you ardently defend would feel?

I could list my own personal reason for not adopting Feminism, but that isn't relevant to the main idea of my argument (again, that Feminism should not force people under its name, that people should not be shamed for not adopting the Feminist moniker the same as Feminists should not be shamed for adopting it). You're just looking to attack me personally now. In any case, I am an ally of Feminism as I agree with its goals (as Mumei put it), so you are pointing your sword at the wrong person.

Because you are educated and informed, and not biased, can you please cite for us in detail what is the "massive weight" of the label? Can an educated person objectively explain the validity of each preconception against feminism? You will come to see that "I once knew a feminist that..." doesn't hold much "weight" at all, and is usually not objective. That they don't agree with abortions? that's fine. If you have vagina and get pregnant, don't do it. We could go on and list the issues, but I would like to hear from you, what issues stigmatize the label for you. What are the "massive weights"? Would you actively tell a young girl that not all feminists are hairy angry lesbians? The world is full of apologists for people that don't want to correct their misconceptions.

Ah, I figured you'd eventually try to attack the 'weight' remark directly. However, I already addressed it, long before your post here.

As for rejecting Feminism solely because of the social stigma, that is where education comes in, no? So that such misconceptions are erased. However, part of the stigma is also just the sheer political weight behind the movement, and this is through no fault of anyone - Feminism is a large sociopolitical movement and many would rather not associate themselves purely so as not to be burdened by such weight. Why would it be a burden? Because many people don't want to take up the fight when someone decides to start an argument with them about it. They simply don't want to be involved, yet support the goals. They don't want it to define their lives or who they are as a person. Such labels have that power - being a Socialist, Atheist, or such, also carries the same influence.

Again, it wasn't related to the stigma debate. It was my way to actually bow out of this thread, but I had to come back to correct you misreading it.

I didn't misread anything, it was quite clear:

My only response to you, is read up and understand the source of the stigma.

The purpose of the manifesto is for both women AND MEN to see that the women's fight for equality is not over. That you say it "isn't likely to get much male support" in our society is true, but it is NOT because of the emotions that it evokes. It's not because it's from a woman's standpoint. It is meant to evoke empathy and rile EVERYONE up to fight those issues, both men aand women. It's not a rant.

If that is it's purpose then it does a terrible job in my opinion. The presentation targets women solely, not everyone.

How would you like the issues presented to us men? Do we need feminists to hold our hands and read us a bed time story on the plights of women? I admire those in this thread that have the patience to do that. Unfortunately, more than a century of that has passed, and in 2013 some still see associating themselves with the word feminism to be some sort of socio-political suicide. THAT is what letting others hold on to their prejudices does to the movement. Not only do women have to fight sexism, they fight apathy, complacency, and prejudices. It is so bad in 2013, that young girls think feminism is being able to show off your body and be sexy. Are they doing it from self-expression or because they feel that it's how their worth is measured? More young girls now are getting breast implants and suffering from food disorders because their favourite singer says that empowerment comes from being sexual and looking beautiful, when all they are doing is objectifying themselves (but hey... they do it CONFIDENTLY). The movement is reverting, but hey, let's not take an active stand to quel the misconceptions.

Look at any sociopolitical movement and you'll see that, yes, you generally get more supporters when you remain reasonable and welcoming. That isn't to say Feminists should all be calm - convert that huge amount of passion into an attitude that's both friendly and assertive, convincing and passionate but not antagonizing.

Unfortunately yes, being a Feminist can be hard considering the negative stereotype one has to deal with under the moniker - the onus is on said feminists to prove the stereotypes wrong and make it into something better. The fight against apathy, complacency, and prejudice can be helped along by following the advice above. It is not easy, not even the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's had it easy. Your attention should be directed at people who actually hold misconceptions, not those who have already decided to support equality without the Feminist moniker - to vilify those people is to make unnecessary enemies. Misconceptions need to be cleaned up on both sides of the fence. Just because one happens to be in Feminism's 'favor' ("If you're not with us then you're against us!" - which really isn't helping Feminists at all who believe this), it doesn't exempt it from being called out.

I know I won't change your opinion on this, because you are in correct in saying that people have to have the desire to change. I will say this once again, forecefully, and without apology, that if baffles me why people still don't have a desire to take a stand.

Who says they don't make a stand for equal rights? They don't make a stand for Feminism. One can support equal rights without supporting Feminism. Feminism entails equal rights, but supporting equal rights is not the same as supporting Feminism. Gender equality is in fact more nebulous than Feminism, which focuses on women's issues.

 

[Gintamen]

If there is anything that Sanky achieved, it was scaring me away from feminism. A perfect textbook example for doing everything wrong as much as possible.

 

[faceless007]

Bumping because Joss Whedon was at Comic-Con doing a Q&A a few days ago, and he was asked about how he writes strong three-dimensional women and what he does to promote the idea of writing strong women, and I found part of his answer especially interesting.

"If you put it in fiction and then people internalize it, that's the only way, that's the job. Because if you say it, people get pissed. 'I'm a feminist.' 'Fuck you!' 'Buffy saves the day.' 'Cool!' They have to internalize it, because everybody has to become angry about having an opinion, and anytime you start preaching you're preaching. So it really is about worming your way into people's hearts without them actually knowing it, and for a generation to grow up with at least a few models of not only strong women, but men who respect and are attracted to their strength."

I think this gets to something that comes up a lot in discussions about feminism and specifically with regard to media representation. Issues and arguments matter of course, but they also tend to make people get defensive and put up their guard (especially as soon as someone says the word "feminism", as this thread has shown). This is why media representation is such an important facet of the debate and why feminists push so hard to get better roles and better written characters for women in fiction, because culture isn't an innocuous thing, but one of the most powerful and inescapable forces that shape the way we collectively perceive the world, especially from a young age. Exposure to a wide variety of stories with compelling and strong female characters who are not defined primarily by their sex might be one of the most effective means to get people to adapt feminist attitudes for real. That might sound kind of like some nefarious indoctrination, but all feminists want in this regard to be treated like equals--that's just such a tall order because the landscape of active, strong, compelling characters has been so overwhelmingly skewed for so long.

 

[Platy]

That is exactly what Anita Sarkeesian keep saying to justify why talking about sexism in videogames is important

 

[IWKYB]

Humanitarian's flawed sister.

Who says they don't make a stand for equal rights? They don't make a stand for Feminism. One can support equal rights without supporting Feminism. Feminism entails equal rights, but supporting equal rights is not the same as supporting Feminism. Gender equality is in fact more nebulous than Feminism, which focuses on women's issues.

I love you MogCakes.