Worst of Social Justice

[Ultimate Paragon]

If we shouldn't care about her than how can she possibly be the example that  you wanted to make? Why try to draw some tenuous link between her and Meryl Streep, on one occasion, not immediately affirming that she's a feminist.

There is as much relevance as trying to draw a link between that red haired woman and Beyonce Knowles declaring that she's a feminist.

By the way - each of the things I mentioned are central to feminism. Is there one of them you don't agree with?

What I'm saying is that people like her are a major reason why so many are reluctant to call themselves feminists.

[davedan]

Given how incredibly inconsequential she is to feminism what is the basis for your saying that?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Given how incredibly inconsequential she is to feminism what is the basis for your saying that?

Because she's not alone.  You have other, more prominent and influential people like Rebecca Watson, Julie Bindel, Bahar Mustafa, Jessica Valenti, and a number of others.  I only chose her because of her distinctive appearance and obnoxiousness.

[davedan]

How are other feminists meant to be doing anything about this. Your only requirement is that they self ascribe as feminists and want to advance women. By your standard if the most misogynistic MRA self ascribed as a feminists (so long as he thought he was advancing women - which he would think as he thinks women were better off before they had all the hardships like working and voting thrust upon them) they would be a feminist.

None of the people you mentioned I would consider Prominent Feminist Thinkers and activists.

Which comes the question of would more people be happy to describe themselves as Christians if it weren't for the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the Quakers.

[Ultimate Paragon]

How are other feminists meant to be doing anything about this. Your only requirement is that they self ascribe as feminists and want to advance women. By your standard if the most misogynistic MRA self ascribed as a feminists (so long as he thought he was advancing women - which he would think as he thinks women were better off before they had all the hardships like working and voting thrust upon them) they would be a feminist.

Simple: denounce and discredit them.  I know feminism's not an organized body, so you can't throw somebody out, but you can make it clear that they don't represent you, and that their arguments are objectively wrong.

None of the people you mentioned I would consider Prominent Feminist Thinkers and activists.

You don't, but other people have different opinions.

Which comes the question of would more people be happy to describe themselves as Christians if it weren't for the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the Quakers.

...What do you have against the Quakers?

[davedan]

I don't do well with the quote things so I'll just break it down:

1. Why should they? It's not their job description to go and denounce every other person who has a different idea of feminism. Also did you ever think that they might have better things to do with their time (such as actually opposing existing inequality) rather than spending all their time denouncing people who share the same self-identification who they disagree with? I am prepared to trust that they manage their time well.

2. Who are these people who have different opinions? Are they anybody I should give a fuck about or are they youtube commentators? Where are the academic dissertations on Rebecca Watson and her adverse impact on Feminism?

3. Nice way to avoid the point. I included the quakers, partly as a joke but also partly because they tend to act in a way that most Christians don't (you know in emulation of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels)

Finally why do you care so much about PR. You seem to be obsessed with people giving bad PR to groups like feminists and trans people. One of the things I've noticed is when doing it you always refer to the people whose PR you are concerned about (Feminists/ Trans) as 'them' - although later you will claim either to be part of the group or an ally of it. 

Also please let me know which of the points I consider central to feminism you disagree with? Is it that women are people?

[Ultimate Paragon]

I don't do well with the quote things so I'll just break it down:

1. Why should they? It's not their job description to go and denounce every other person who has a different idea of feminism. Also did you ever think that they might have better things to do with their time (such as actually opposing existing inequality) rather than spending all their time denouncing people who share the same self-identification who they disagree with? I am prepared to trust that they manage their time well.

It doesn't take long to release a statement saying "these people don't represent us."

2. Who are these people who have different opinions? Are they anybody I should give a fuck about or are they youtube commentators? Where are the academic dissertations on Rebecca Watson and her adverse impact on Feminism?

Atheism+, for one.  I may not like PZ Meyers, but I'm not going to deny his influence.

3. Nice way to avoid the point. I included the quakers, partly as a joke but also partly because they tend to act in a way that most Christians don't (you know in emulation of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels)

I'm sorry, but how do Quakers not act in emulation of Jesus?

Anyway, other than them, you're talking about groups with very little influence or popularity.  Nobody likes the WBC, and the Klan hasn't been a serious threat since the 1970s.  If you'd brought up Pat Robertson or the Crouch family, that would've been a decent comparison.

Finally why do you care so much about PR. You seem to be obsessed with people giving bad PR to groups like feminists and trans people. One of the things I've noticed is when doing it you always refer to the people whose PR you are concerned about (Feminists/ Trans) as 'them' - although later you will claim either to be part of the group or an ally of it. 

Because, like it or not, PR is important.  And when I say "them," I'm referring to the leadership and/or prominent members.

Also please let me know which of the points I consider central to feminism you disagree with? Is it that women are people?

None of them.  What I disagree with are some modern feminist talking points, such as prominence of "rape culture," the idea that misogyny in the third world has impact on the first world, or the idea that the media should change for the benefit of the pearl-clutchers.

[Even Then]

I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that misogyny in the "third world" directly affects misogyny in the "first world"? I mean, sure, places of the world can communicate with each other, but still.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that misogyny in the "third world" directly affects misogyny in the "first world"? I mean, sure, places of the world can communicate with each other, but still.

Actually, what I meant to say is that some feminists use misogyny in the third world to say why we need feminism in the first world, thus implying that it has an impact.  My bad.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that misogyny in the "third world" directly affects misogyny in the "first world"? I mean, sure, places of the world can communicate with each other, but still.

Actually, what I meant to say is that some feminists use misogyny in the third world to say why we need feminism in the first world, thus implying that it has an impact.  My bad.

I got the impression that they're comparing places with and without strong feminist movements. It's basically saying "we need feminism because without it, this is what happens".

[Ultimate Paragon]

I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that misogyny in the "third world" directly affects misogyny in the "first world"? I mean, sure, places of the world can communicate with each other, but still.

Actually, what I meant to say is that some feminists use misogyny in the third world to say why we need feminism in the first world, thus implying that it has an impact.  My bad.

I got the impression that they're comparing places with and without strong feminist movements. It's basically saying "we need feminism because without it, this is what happens".

Which is still flawed rhetoric.  Japan's never had a strong feminist movement, and while it does have some legitimate problems with sexism, it's nowhere near as bad as in, say Sudan.

Speaking of which, maybe more feminists should use Japan as an example.  It might let them come off as less paranoid and fanatical.

[Art Vandelay]

Which is still flawed rhetoric.  Japan's never had a strong feminist movement, and while it does have some legitimate problems with sexism, it's nowhere near as bad as in, say Sudan.

Speaking of which, maybe more feminists should use Japan as an example.  It might let them come off as less paranoid and fanatical.

Maybe not directly, but their culture nowadays is very heavily influenced by western culture, American in particular, which itself has (or possibly had) a strong feminist influence. Not quite the same as having their own substantial feminism movement, as you pointed out, but it's likely the reason they're not even more backwards on that front.

[guizonde]

Which is still flawed rhetoric.  Japan's never had a strong feminist movement, and while it does have some legitimate problems with sexism, it's nowhere near as bad as in, say Sudan.

Speaking of which, maybe more feminists should use Japan as an example.  It might let them come off as less paranoid and fanatical.

Maybe not directly, but their culture nowadays is very heavily influenced by western culture, American in particular, which itself has (or possibly had) a strong feminist influence. Not quite the same as having their own substantial feminism movement, as you pointed out, but it's likely the reason they're not even more backwards on that front.

japan's my go-to example for culture shock. tea-time, the way they sit (explicitely uncomfortable so as to learn humility and stoicism), workaholic culture, ritual suicide, censored wangs and tentacle rape, sexuality in general, and of course, the crazy amounts of xenophobia written off as "those wacky japanese"...

everything about japan is weird, but it makes sense in context. although i really don't get the insistence on school uniforms when they get twisted by loopholes, but hey. whatever.

[mellenORL]

Quote from: davedan on October 08, 2015, 11:38:09 pm

3. Nice way to avoid the point. I included the quakers, partly as a joke but also partly because they tend to act in a way that most Christians don't (you know in emulation of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels)



I'm sorry, but how do Quakers not act in emulation of Jesus?

Davedan meant that Quakers in fact do act like Christians as depicted in the gospels, unlike a lot of modern day, self-described Christians. And the Quakers are disliked by a lot of self-described Christians because of it, I might add. They are seen as too liberal by many, and weird and "anarchic" because they don't have ordained pastors.

[Svata]

3. Nice way to avoid the point. I included the quakers, partly as a joke but also partly because they tend to act in a way that most Christians don't (you know in emulation of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels)

I'm sorry, but how do Quakers not act in emulation of Jesus?

Pretty sure he was saying that they do, unlike most other groups.