"feminazi"

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Who is "they?"  Anyone who does not call themself a feminist, or anyone who says they do not believe in equality?   And not allowing someone free speech because they do not believe the same thing is inherently anti-equality.  Why do you get to decide who can talk and who can't?  

The latter. "they" in this case refers to those who don't believe in equality.

And that argument is the one I see most. And it's ridiculously flawed. They are allowed free speech but free speech is NOT a pass to do whatever you like, as many people think it is.

It's not anti-equality. Only in the basic, most general idea of equality is it. It is not against equality to defend equality against people who do not want equality. Obviously if you want the equality movement to go anywhere you need to be against people who are against it. That's so obvious I don't even get why I have to defend it.

[Tentacruel]

The latter. "they" in this case refers to those who don't believe in equality.

And that argument is the one I see most. And it's ridiculously flawed. They are allowed free speech but free speech is NOT a pass to do whatever you like, as many people think it is.

It's not anti-equality. Only in the basic, most general idea of equality is it. It is not against equality to defend equality against people who do not want equality. Obviously if you want the equality movement to go anywhere you need to be against people who are against it. That's so obvious I don't even get why I have to defend it.

No, you don't need to be against people.  If you believe in equality, and someone else does not, then you disagree in that person's non-belief in equality.  

 

Defending equality and actually making active efforts against people who don't are two different things.   

 

And I did not say free speech is a pass to do anything, merely to express anything.  

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

That, although we are all granted the same protections, rights, etc, our individual pursuits of happiness are not equal.

 

Hold up, you're speaking on this as if it's something we currently have. This is a hypothetical scenario, this is not reality. 

 

Point C: Referring back to point B, labels can only get you so far. We need to openly discuss and explore different ideas. To answer your question "then what are you" my answer is simple - I am a collection of my own ideas, thoughts, emotions etc. I share similar ideas of feminism and egalitarianism, but to be honest, im not 100% versed in all their dogmas and belief systems to label myself, not that I would anyway.

 

You just labeled yourself as "a collection of my own ideas, thoughts, emotions etc." Perhaps your ideas, thoughts, emotions, etc aren't as exclusive to you as you might think. Words that help you define common idealogical ground are nothing to be afraid of. Whether you are a feminist or not depends on your answer to the yes or no question of "Do women deserve equal rights to men?" That's all feminism is at root base, one could be more specific by identifying their particular approach to feminism, but that's all that decides whether you're a feminist in general. I don't think it's dogma, but stigma, that you're speaking of. Stigma seems like the thing that this thread is really objecting to, not the word "feminazi" alone but the attitudes that come with it.

 

 

tl;dr Be wary of your views, make sure you are effectively communicating your view, and be sure to listen to the other side. You may not see eye to eye, but you can speak heart to heart.

 

Fights for freedom doesn't always entail a mutual, open-ended and mature discussion. The problem of what to do when it gets to that point has been played out over and over and over again and has led to a whole lot of bloodshed. That hasn't stopped people from returning to that point and more blood being shed. Heart to hearts, when they work, are ideal. They are the best course of action for any disagreement. That is, when they work.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

No, you don't need to be against people.  If you believe in equality, and someone else does not, then you disagree in that person's non-belief in equality.  

 

Defending equality and actually making active efforts against people who don't are two different things.   

 

And I did not say free speech is a pass to do anything, merely to express anything.  

This is the last post I will make in reply to this line of argument.

You have to be against people who don't want equality in order to make equality work. That much is blatantly obvious. Logically and emotionally obvious.

And okay, and I said the same. You can say what you want sure. I'm against the people who are preventing equality. I've said that multiple times.

Hence why I am checking out of this, my point has been made.

[BehindTheMask]

Let's not. I really dislike this argument and don't see much validity to it. Don't compare two different things to explain why the other is wrong. I see your point, but you have to take things case-by-case. Not lump them all in one pot as the same idea. You're basically saying "Oh well we'd have to look at other things too so don't bother fixing this."

Again. I won't agree ever with the idea that it's okay to be against equality, simple as that.

 

You miss the point of what I wrote. I was making a comparison to show you that harm in and of itself is not a good enough basis to limit things. If harming others is always wrong, then we have an obligation to prevent as much harm as possible. These leads to ridiculous scenarios where we have to ban cars, and other useful things that help up. My point was for you to redefine what is necessary harm and what isn't.

 

The latter. "they" in this case refers to those who don't believe in equality.

And that argument is the one I see most. And it's ridiculously flawed. They are allowed free speech but free speech is NOT a pass to do whatever you like, as many people think it is.

It's not anti-equality. Only in the basic, most general idea of equality is it. It is not against equality to defend equality against people who do not want equality. Obviously if you want the equality movement to go anywhere you need to be against people who are against it. That's so obvious I don't even get why I have to defend it.

 

You are correct is saying it is not against equality to defend equality against anti-equality people. However, you there is a difference in defending equality, and then preventing people from expressing their view points. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.

 

Hold up, you're speaking on this as if it's something we currently have. This is a hypothetical scenario, this is not reality. 

 

You just labeled yourself as "a collection of my own ideas, thoughts, emotions etc." Perhaps your ideas, thoughts, emotions, etc aren't as exclusive to you as you might think. Words that help you define common idealogical ground are nothing to be afraid of. Whether you are a feminist or not depends on your answer to the yes or no question of "Do women deserve equal rights to men?" That's all feminism is at root base, one could be more specific by identifying their particular approach to feminism, but that's all that decides whether you're a feminist in general. I don't think it's dogma, but stigma, that you're speaking of. Stigma seems like the thing that this thread is really objecting to, not the word "feminazi" alone but the attitudes that come with it.

 

Fights for freedom doesn't always entail a mutual, open-ended and mature discussion. The problem of what to do when it gets to that point has been played out over and over and over again and has led to a whole lot of bloodshed. That hasn't stopped people from returning to that point and more blood being shed. Heart to hearts, when they work, are ideal. They are the best course of action for any disagreement. That is, when they work.

1) You're right.

2) In the most purest form, I am a feminist, but beyond that, I am unaware of any specifics of feminism.

3) They don't. I understand there is a lot of blood being shed, and it hurts. I encourage these open discussions because thats all I really can/want to do.

 

This is the last post I will make in reply to this line of argument.

You have to be against people who don't want equality in order to make equality work. That much is blatantly obvious. Logically and emotionally obvious.

And okay, and I said the same. You can say what you want sure. I'm against the people who are preventing equality. I've said that multiple times.

Hence why I am checking out of this, my point has been made.

 

You've been missing the point, no one is saying you are wrong about being pro-equality, or even disliking anti-equality people. However, you still must give them the same rights you would want for any other person. People have different world views, so although they may be anti-equality, in their mind they are justified in saying what they want. If you want to progress against anti-equality, you have to be able to understand their core beliefs and prove how they are wrong. People have cognitive dissonance, and the more firm they are in their believe, the strong they cling to it.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I have said it again and again, and you are not understanding it.

I am fine with people having their opinion.

I still think that opinion is harmful and shouldn't be allowed to affect things as much as they do.

 

You're basically an armchair theorist. The things you are saying sounds good, logically, to a point. But practically they just don't work. We have to put a limit somewhere for things to change for the better.

Yes, opinions are allowed to express.

No, I don't think those opinions should be allowed to affect the world, because being anti-equality is a bad thing and shouldn't exist. Sure that's my opinion but I see no reason for it to be considered the wrong opinion in this case.

 

And keep in mind that people like to express their negative opinions in ways that can trick others into seeing their point. Maybe you'll argue that if they see the point it can't be all bad. And many cases that's true.

However anti-equality will never be one of those cases. People can be easily convinced to follow flawed logic after all. Which is why we need to regulate just what kind of free speech is allowed.

 

I find it frustrating that you're saying I'm missing the point. When I perfectly understand your point. And yet you blatantly missed mine. Especially the number of times I said that having an opinion is okay. Yes, I say I think it's wrong. But people are allowed to be wrong if it's their choice.

 

And so ends my posting in this thread. I've said all I wanted, explained everything. If you don't understand then oh well, I've said it clearly many times. Thank you for being civil.

[OMEGAcat]

Honestly freedom of speech is overhyped. Germany seems to function just fine and has not devolved into a totalitarian dystopia, despite not protecting hate speech as a part of free speech

 

also

 

You miss the point of what I wrote. I was making a comparison to show you that harm in and of itself is not a good enough basis to limit things. If harming others is always wrong, then we have an obligation to prevent as much harm as possible. These leads to ridiculous scenarios where we have to ban cars, and other useful things that help up. My point was for you to redefine what is necessary harm and what isn't.

 

 

This is such an incomparable and slippery slope analogy. Cars provide a clear benefit which can be matched to potential harm. Sexism....does not? There is literally no benefit to sexism. Somehow you've boiled this down to banning free speech. idk. I'm more concerned with the rape epidemic personally

[BehindTheMask]

Honestly freedom of speech is overhyped. Germany seems to function just fine and has not devolved into a totalitarian dystopia, despite not protecting hate speech as a part of free speech

 

also

 

 

This is such an incomparable and slippery slope analogy. Cars provide a clear benefit which can be matched to potential harm. Sexism....does not? There is literally no benefit to sexism. Somehow you've boiled this down to banning free speech. idk. I'm more concerned with the rape epidemic personally

 

Ah yes...Freedom of speech...is so "overhyped." Of course, I remember sitting back when the Declaration of Independence was being written, and having T-Jeffs(Thomas Jefferson for you non-cool, this century living people) talking about this low-key new freedom called "free speech." At first, I was a hater, because nothing could be cooler than being ruled by a monarch. But after peeping it, I got on the hype squad for free speech...unless you meant "overrated." But even then, thats still almost as stupid. Censoring things you don't agree with on the basis that you don't agree with it is terrible.

 

Taking things to their logical extreme and making comparable arguments =/= a slippery slope. My point to LordCowCow was that harm itself is not a clear indicator of what should be stopped. By making such an absurd argument, using his same logic, was meant to show that there is a flaw in his logic. But forgive me, I assume people actually knew how to critically and analytically think about their own arguments.

 

Secondly, I have no qualms about stopping sexism, and I've that I agree with some of feminism. Yet again, if people actually read what I wrote, maybe they realized that. I had issues with how OP, and others, phrased their arguments, and with their arguments in general. If people really want to stop sexism, there needs to be open conversations with both sides willing to listen to each other.

 

1) I agree with feminism in its base form

2) I think they best way to increase social equality is to discuss it with both like-minded, and unlike-minded people

3) Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean that they dont have the right to express themselves.

[.Rooster]

What do feminists do nowadays anyway when they have enough rights? Do they protest about things in other countries?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Some of them do, but it depends on the feminist.

 

There are certainly still issues in first-world countries as there's more to sexism than a refusal of legislative rights. Social issues like sexualization of women to a greater degree than men in pop culture, the unequal representation and opportunities for athletes based on sex, slutshaming (the stigmatization of female promiscuity), and rape culture (general attitudes that rationalize and normalize rape) are very relevant examples. 

[.Rooster]

Some of them do, but it depends on the feminist.

 

There are certainly still issues in first-world countries as there's more to sexism than a refusal of legislative rights. Social issues like sexualization of women to a greater degree than men in pop culture, the unequal representation and opportunities for athletes based on sex, slutshaming (the stigmatization of female promiscuity), and rape culture (general attitudes that rationalize and normalize rape) are very relevant examples. 

 

None of those things are sexist.

[Phantom Roxas]

Actually, all of those are. All of Polaris' points are examples of women being discriminated against, if not outright victimized.

[.Rooster]

Actually, all of those are. All of Polaris' points are examples of women being discriminated against, if not outright victimized.

 

Promiscuity is a bad thing in general. I just think that sexism is more openly stating your gender is better. Still these are things the law can do little to change so I guess the people who cause these problems in general need to change themselves, something that will be unbelievably hard.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Promiscuity is a bad thing in general. I just think that sexism is more openly stating your gender is better. Still these are things the law can do little to change so I guess the people who cause these problems in general need to change themselves, something that will be unbelievably hard.

One. Promiscuity isn't really bad.

Two. The point is how different males/females are treated for promiscuity.

Three. That's one kind of sexism but it encompasses multiple things.

[Rapidfire]

oKAY: Who ever pointed out the tags, dude I was joking. I wasn't actually serious when I said that. 

 

As for the homophobic thing:

You can't pick who is equal and who is not, and by saying that someone is wrong/gross/a disgrace to the human race because of things they can't even control, well that's not feminism. If that was the case would that mean my rights wouldn't be worth fighting for? 

 

As for the freedom of speech: I will fight for you to be able to say whatever you want until the day I die, but in no means does it mean I agree with it. But there comes a time when you have to rethink about what you're preaching.

 

Believe it or not, we're all human. We get angry, sad, happy, etc. And I'm not gonna lie, I hesitated making this topic because the amount of hate I see happening on this site. But what I've read makes me incredibly sad, so this is the last post I'll be making on this topic. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

But what I've read makes me incredibly sad, so this is the last post I'll be making on this topic.

 

I'm saddened that you're incredibly saddened, but I thought that as a whole we did pretty well here and there's no evidence to suggest that anyone here holds homophobic or sexist attitudes.

 

You can't pick who is equal and who is not, and by saying that someone is wrong/gross/a disgrace to the human race because of things they can't even control, well that's not feminism.

 

It's not egalitarianism, it can be within the freedoms of a feminist by definition. You seem to associate feminism with general egalitarianism, but that's as solipsistic a definition as Noober's definition of sexism, that "only open statements that your gender is better" constitute sexism. For future reference to you and to him, the Oxford English Dictionary defines feminism as "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men and sexism as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." 

 

If you want to promote LGBT rights or general human rights, please do so, but to put advocacy for those things under the umbrella of feminism is a misuse of language that holds feminists as a group responsible for duties that aren't there's by definition so long as they aren't also egalitarians. The substitution of the word egalitarianism with feminism undermines egalitarianism specifically because feminism is only a part of egalitarianism.

 

 

As for the freedom of speech: I will fight for you to be able to say whatever you want until the day I die

 

And that's all well and good, but as I was saying earlier, fighting for both equal rights and freedom of speech means fighting for powerless words which undermines the point of freedom of speech. For if words have power (and they inherently do), as soon as a person says "we're better than you", it's impossible to fight for both equality and freedom of speech. The two are often in conflict.

 

 

And I did not say free speech is a pass to do anything, merely to express anything.

 

This is from Tentacruel and I think many would agree with this, but the reason I don't is because a pass to express anything, if words have value, has the potential to seriously compromise others' basic human rights as has happened before and will happen again. And words *do* have power. Before there was the Rwandan genocide, there was Hutu Power Radio. 

 

 

Believe it or not, we're all human. We get angry, sad, happy, etc. And I'm not gonna lie, I hesitated making this topic because the amount of hate I see happening on this site.

 

Have you never hated? Do you not hate instances of someone employing the word "feminazi" to disparage feminism? Why shouldn't you? As you said, "we're all human. We get angry, sad, happy, etc." It's not human to have never hated. What has been said here that exempts us YCMers from such benefit of the doubt in being human? I like this thread. I like the responses to this thread. If I were you and I'd had the idea to post this topic, I would not have hesitated to do so. But you were never sincere in what you expected of us from the start, and I can prove that.

 

 

It's gonna be an argument Rapid. You forgot what forum you're on.

 

With an immediate "Like This" from Rapidfire. You approved of this, the second post, long before this thread got going. Why did you post this thread and ask that there be no arguments if you expected the reverse? What could be accomplished in the first place without further arguments when your initial post was so argumentative to begin with? Was this entire thread just intended to be your own personal rant or performance? It's fine if it was, I liked your original post as I feel you made good points as a whole. But just say so if that's what you intend the topic to be so that others don't get the mistaken impression that the content of their posts matter. 

 

 

But what I've read makes me incredibly sad, so this is the last post I'll be making on this topic.

 

I hope you change your mind about your fellow members and that you're generous enough to actually respond to what you've read as opposed to your self-concocted dismissive summaries that in no way represent anything that's been posted here.  

[Tentacruel]

I would like to point out that we're really just arguing semantics for the most part. 

 

For me, equality means equal opportunity.  I'm not particularly keen on the idea that we need to get more people of XY demographic just for the sake of numerical balance.  What I do think, is that if, for example, a woman wants to go into some male dominated field, or some game designer wants the main character of their game to be a black lesbian Taoist or whatever, they should be able to.  

 

Out of curiosity, there's obviously a lot push for more access to STEM fields to females (comp sci, engineering etc), does anyone talk about women going into construction or fields like that?  Genuinely curious.  A lot of people try to point out hypocrisy by saying that feminists don't want women to be able to be drafted, which isn't necessarily the case. 

[Smear]

i feel like people just get way too offended way too easily nowadays

[Thar]

i feel like people just get way too offended way too easily nowadays

 

Extremism is the most convenient as it's ever been. You have the technology to make it, the world to see it, and yourself to not be seen.