Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

Rallick wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

That does not, however, excuse any of the behavior from people after she basically just shared "Oh hey, here's a thing a guy did that was awful, so if you don't want to be awful you shouldn't act that way."

That's the most repugnant thing to me. Yes, there will always be socially maladroit people (although that doesn't begin to explain the sheer volume of sh*t women have to deal with). However, the very idea that if someone complains about such behavior, even in terms of just pointing out "in case any of you were wondering, this is the kind of thing that's inappropriate", they'll receive a torrent of hate mail, rape threats, stalking threats, etc. etc. That idea is just repulsive.

+ eleventy billion. I just tweeted Rebecca thanking her for the article. I totally agree that the only way to stop this kind of behavior is to drag these people kicking and screaming into the open, to expose their ugly, reprehensible attitudes and show that this kind of thing is not acceptable in a modern, educated society. Get thee back to the stone age, troglodyte!

I'm not excusing or condoning their behavior in any way. I specifically said I think the dude was deliberately being a pig. I was glad to see a lot of likes, reblogs, and such after that story.

All my other comments about flirting and social skills are really more on the topic in general... not this one story (again, I don't consider that even a story about inappropriate flirting becoming skeavy, but a story about a guy who came into the situation looking to be obnoxious regardless of anyone's boundaries. The more depressing thing from this story was after this lady made it clear she was mad about the line of questioning, that the audience chimed in on the inappropriateness by contributing more).

I think you guys are talking past one another. It seems like some people are talking about Rebecca Watson and some people are talking about the Black Cat cosplayer.

muttonchop wrote:

I think you guys are talking past one another. It seems like some people are talking about Rebecca Watson and some people are talking about the Black Cat cosplayer.

Thank you! I've been trying to figure out the context of some of the posts (thinking they were all related to Rebecca Watson) and I was very confused.

SixteenBlue wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I think you guys are talking past one another. It seems like some people are talking about Rebecca Watson and some people are talking about the Black Cat cosplayer.

Thank you! I've been trying to figure out the context of some of the posts (thinking they were all related to Rebecca Watson) and I was very confused.

Yar, I saw posts about the appropriateness of types of flirting and went with that, I wasn't talking about any particular story posted here for that.

It's not to do with the clothes, it's about the culture. I think some women were sexually assaulted in Egypt recently because they were wearing their headscarves in a slutty way.

Give women control of their reproductive cycle; make sure boys and girls are educated equally and about equality.

In a few generations things will change.

pgroce wrote:

It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too, in which Richard Dawkins turns out to be a misogynist asshat who uses straw man arguments. (More troublingly, the latter probably offends him more.)

And to think he got to marry Romana....

(I skimmed the last few pages, sorry if it's a dupe.)

Seen rumblings of that over the last few days, but this is the first time I got to it so thanks for the link.

Holy sh*t that's depressing.

Human beings are such assholes. Whatever the ingroup they get so defensive against anything that rocks the boat, most especially if it's an uppity woman.

I've gone back and forth over Richard Dawkins the last few years. I think he is a terrible advert for atheism, he's such a colossal jerk.

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

*****

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

bombsfall wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I'm an atheist! I'm really nice, own a cat, and make cartoons! How is that NOT appealing?

You're one of my favourite in my Twitter timeline. there's more to it than that, but is a factor.

bombsfall wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I'm an atheist! I'm really nice, own a cat, and make cartoons! How is that NOT appealing?

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NnbOACoKz4Y/TeblMQaLadI/AAAAAAAABsQ/SmVmV1LG_Pg/s1600/monty_python_witch.jpg)

WITCH!

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

Any group large enough is going to have assholes. This article is mostly about one feminist who has some views the author disagrees with. Fair enough, but you know there are plenty of feminist writers who would agree with her views. For example, she mentions that Moran has issues with sex work. This is part of a larger conversation in feminism: can sex work ever be empowering, or is it always demeaning? In early feminism, the view that it was always demeaning won out (mainstream feminism was also anti-pornography), but these days the pendulum has swung back the other way and the author could easily find feminists in favor of sex work if she cared to look.

I mean, I agree fully with the points about there are infinite ways to be a woman and no woman should be excluded, and so do many other feminists. The author complains that feminism is not enough concerned with issues that affect minority women, well, we're not some monolithic movement getting our orders from a central authority. I think she'd find most feminists do care about issues affecting minority women, but may need someone to raise awareness - I doubt anyone is aware of or has time to devote to all feminism related issues at once.

If it weren't for feminism, she wouldn't even be able to write that column and put it on the website, so she could be a little grateful.

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

bombsfall wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I'm an atheist! I'm really nice, own a cat, and make cartoons! How is that NOT appealing?

Answered your own question there.

/kidding!

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

Agreed that he comes off as a collossal jerk at times. However, your beliefs are yours. Belief isn't a binary issue, no matter how often people try to turn the myriad of questions around it into a Red v. Blue toggle.

I have nothing useful to add to the topic other than to say there's a lot of work to do and conflicts to come. Dawkins might have had a valid point in that there are more overtly vicious, dangerous and anti-female groups and power structures throughout the world and individuals in much greater immediate peril, but his message got lost in his assholiness. I'm still puzzling over what he was trying to accomplish by snarking off, other than shaming his subject.

Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

Regarding Rebecca Watson: I don't really think what the guy did in the elevator was wrong. I also don't think her reaction to it was wrong. Politely declining an invitation to sex and then offering a little advice about the irony in petitioning a woman for sex after hours of listening to her make clear that she was not really interested in that all makes sense. She could have completely humiliated him.

I realize that one of the unfortunate nuances of The Internet is a race to the bottom when it comes to disagreeing, so "I don't quite agree but we can still be friends" devolves into "I'm gonna rape your dead cat's guts in your church" at lightspeed. I dunno how we're gonna change that, but I think we're seeing the very painful beginnings of that trend to change now.

Also, between this story and the puddle of human urine I stepped in on the bus to work has drained a good deal of my faith in humanity this morning.

I realize that one of the unfortunate nuances of The Internet is a race to the bottom when it comes to disagreeing, so "I don't quite agree but we can still be friends" devolves into "I'm gonna rape your dead cat's guts in your church" at lightspeed. I dunno how we're gonna change that, but I think we're seeing the very painful beginnings of that trend to change now.

Raping dead cat guts in church? I think it's time to invoke...

IMAGE(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/271/rule_34.jpg)

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I don't understand why it would make a difference? Not believing in God makes you similar to him in only that way.

DanB wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

And a trend for almost every group to be identified by the most vocal or parodied by an image of the most out there members. Not all people who support animal safety or fight against animal cruelty are PETA members, but when someone brings up animals rights, that's an image that pops into my head because that's the group most made fun of in that issue. They may be out there, but a lot of other groups like the world wildlife fund/federation (can't remember which) that do good work for this too, but most people know and think of crazy old PETA whenever this issue gets brought up because that's what they've heard about the most.

PETA doesn't actually fight for animal rights anymore; they just fight for their own ego. One of my friends is fighting one of their chapters from relocating an elephant out of a zoo because the elephant no longer is capable of living in the wild. PETA just wants it outta there. They have no plans beyond messing up the status quo. In all likelihood, if PETA gets their way, the elephant will die a slow and painful death.

It seems to me that some women who like to call themselves feminists are "fighting for women," with the exact same ulterior motives.

Demosthenes wrote:
DanB wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

And a trend for almost every group to be identified by the most vocal or parodied by an image of the most out there members. Not all people who support animal safety or fight against animal cruelty are PETA members, but when someone brings up animals rights, that's an image that pops into my head because that's the group most made fun of in that issue. They may be out there, but a lot of other groups like the world wildlife fund/federation (can't remember which) that do good work for this too, but most people know and think of crazy old PETA whenever this issue gets brought up because that's what they've heard about the most.

Well, people do love to be reactionary rather than take on board some arguments, decide for themselves and maybe change something.

Valmorian wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I don't understand why it would make a difference? Not believing in God makes you similar to him in only that way.

It's not really a factor, it was a flippant comment I shouldn't have made because it's off topic and a distraction from my point.

DanB wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
DanB wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

And a trend for almost every group to be identified by the most vocal or parodied by an image of the most out there members. Not all people who support animal safety or fight against animal cruelty are PETA members, but when someone brings up animals rights, that's an image that pops into my head because that's the group most made fun of in that issue. They may be out there, but a lot of other groups like the world wildlife fund/federation (can't remember which) that do good work for this too, but most people know and think of crazy old PETA whenever this issue gets brought up because that's what they've heard about the most.

Well, people do love to be reactionary rather than take on board some arguments, decide for themselves and maybe change something.

I would just say that their minds automatically flip to the images they see the most, which are usually the most ridiculous protrayed by the media. It's still their responsibility to look beyond that crap to the REAL people who are fighting for reasonable and good causes... but not everyone makes as much effort as we do on those kinds of things.

Rebecca Watson is an Atheist too.

That has kind of been the thrust of her problem. She is an outspoken atheist, an outspoken skeptic, proponent of science and reason.

But she is still just a silly twat to a lot of men, even in that community. And she kind of thought that community was too smart for that kind of behavior. Sadly she was wrong.

Demyx wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

Any group large enough is going to have assholes. This article is mostly about one feminist who has some views the author disagrees with. Fair enough, but you know there are plenty of feminist writers who would agree with her views. For example, she mentions that Moran has issues with sex work. This is part of a larger conversation in feminism: can sex work ever be empowering, or is it always demeaning? In early feminism, the view that it was always demeaning won out (mainstream feminism was also anti-pornography), but these days the pendulum has swung back the other way and the author could easily find feminists in favor of sex work if she cared to look.

I mean, I agree fully with the points about there are infinite ways to be a woman and no woman should be excluded, and so do many other feminists. The author complains that feminism is not enough concerned with issues that affect minority women, well, we're not some monolithic movement getting our orders from a central authority. I think she'd find most feminists do care about issues affecting minority women, but may need someone to raise awareness - I doubt anyone is aware of or has time to devote to all feminism related issues at once.

If it weren't for feminism, she wouldn't even be able to write that column and put it on the website, so she could be a little grateful.

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

Well, I think that the people who presume to speak for a movement, whether it feminism, skepticism or anything you care to name could stand to take a more inclusive stance. Particularly when it's a movement that's misunderstood and attacked.

I mentioned in another thread a movement called Black Consciousness. It's about Black people reclaiming the label and making it a subject of pride, rather than a stigma. More progressive movements, including feminism, need to reclaim the labels that have been deliberately tarnished by outsiders.

I'm a little troubled by the statement I bolded. I know it's not your intent, but that reads a lot like a 'shut up and get back in line.' It doesn't seem much different to Dawkin's comments to Watson or what many uppity women get told when they say something inconvenient.

Demyx wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

Any group large enough is going to have assholes. This article is mostly about one feminist who has some views the author disagrees with. Fair enough, but you know there are plenty of feminist writers who would agree with her views. For example, she mentions that Moran has issues with sex work. This is part of a larger conversation in feminism: can sex work ever be empowering, or is it always demeaning? In early feminism, the view that it was always demeaning won out (mainstream feminism was also anti-pornography), but these days the pendulum has swung back the other way and the author could easily find feminists in favor of sex work if she cared to look.

I mean, I agree fully with the points about there are infinite ways to be a woman and no woman should be excluded, and so do many other feminists. The author complains that feminism is not enough concerned with issues that affect minority women, well, we're not some monolithic movement getting our orders from a central authority. I think she'd find most feminists do care about issues affecting minority women, but may need someone to raise awareness - I doubt anyone is aware of or has time to devote to all feminism related issues at once.

If it weren't for feminism, she wouldn't even be able to write that column and put it on the website, so she could be a little grateful.

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

This, but in my case it wasn't just anti-feminist groups who did it. It was self-identified feminists.

The very first video game outlet I wrote for back in 1999 was run by a young lady who was, and as far as I know of still is very feminist. I made the mistake of writing something about personification in games for her outlet that brought up other issues like age. After a great deal of email aggression and angst on her part, it was agreed I wouldn't write for that outlet anymore. She was already mad at me for also starting to write for GamerDad, and this just made me a total traitor in her eyes. She questioned if I was even female, called me all sorts of names. And it wasn't just her friends who piled on me about it. It made the rounds of the then fledgling internet feminist circle, and I was roundly reviled for it.

Several years later I decided to try to describe that idea again. Yes, she (and others) are the basis of the second sentence of paragraph 2 of the new version. This time I managed to piss off another bunch of feminists (including a couple at church!?), and then also managed to kick in with some men as well. It wasn't just SexyBeast either. The associated thread here is very good, but in other places it didn't go so well.

So, I don't identify myself as "feminist" because I don't agree with the stance of the people who I have run into who do self-identify as feminists. They told me most emphatically that I wasn't one of them. I don't write them off or anything; I don't think there's a licensing board or something, so there's no hard and fast definition. But between their commentary, and the discussion-warping power other people's misunderstandings give the word, I'd rather just discuss all the issues with as little of the baggage that people hang on that name as possible.

I genuinely believe that all of this boils down to PEOPLE issues, not just women issues. PEOPLE treat other PEOPLE like crap for all sorts of reasons, and they ALL need to stop.

LarryC wrote:

PETA doesn't actually fight for animal rights anymore; they just fight for their own ego. One of my friends is fighting one of their chapters from relocating an elephant out of a zoo because the elephant no longer is capable of living in the wild. PETA just wants it outta there. They have no plans beyond messing up the status quo. In all likelihood, if PETA gets their way, the elephant will die a slow and painful death.

It seems to me that some women who like to call themselves feminists are "fighting for women," with the exact same ulterior motives.

Total derail but PETA's main goal is to get animal rights discussed. I think their approach is pretty bad and frequently offensive, but it gets people talking so they do succeed in that.

I think PETA2 was an attempt at being more sane.

momgamer wrote:
Demyx wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

Any group large enough is going to have assholes. This article is mostly about one feminist who has some views the author disagrees with. Fair enough, but you know there are plenty of feminist writers who would agree with her views. For example, she mentions that Moran has issues with sex work. This is part of a larger conversation in feminism: can sex work ever be empowering, or is it always demeaning? In early feminism, the view that it was always demeaning won out (mainstream feminism was also anti-pornography), but these days the pendulum has swung back the other way and the author could easily find feminists in favor of sex work if she cared to look.

I mean, I agree fully with the points about there are infinite ways to be a woman and no woman should be excluded, and so do many other feminists. The author complains that feminism is not enough concerned with issues that affect minority women, well, we're not some monolithic movement getting our orders from a central authority. I think she'd find most feminists do care about issues affecting minority women, but may need someone to raise awareness - I doubt anyone is aware of or has time to devote to all feminism related issues at once.

If it weren't for feminism, she wouldn't even be able to write that column and put it on the website, so she could be a little grateful.

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

This, but in my case it wasn't just anti-feminist groups who did it. It was self-identified feminists.

The very first video game outlet I wrote for back in 1999 was run by a young lady who was, and as far as I know of still is very feminist. I made the mistake of writing something about personification in games for her outlet that brought up other issues like age. After a great deal of email aggression and angst on her part, it was agreed I wouldn't write for that outlet anymore. She was already mad at me for also starting to write for GamerDad, and this just made me a total traitor in her eyes. She questioned if I was even female, called me all sorts of names. And it wasn't just her friends who piled on me about it. It made the rounds of the then fledgling internet feminist circle, and I was roundly reviled for it.

Several years later I decided to try to describe that idea again. Yes, she (and others) are the basis of the second sentence of paragraph 2 of the new version. This time I managed to piss off another bunch of feminists (including a couple at church!?), and then also managed to kick in with some men as well. It wasn't just SexyBeast either. The associated thread here is very good, but in other places it didn't go so well.

So, I don't identify myself as "feminist" because I don't agree with the stance of the people who I have run into who do self-identify as feminists. They told me most emphatically that I wasn't one of them. I don't write them off or anything; I don't think there's a licensing board or something, so there's no hard and fast definition. But between their commentary, and the discussion-warping power other people's misunderstandings give the word, I'd rather just discuss all the issues with as little of the baggage that people hang on that name as possible.

I genuinely believe that all of this boils down to PEOPLE issues, not just women issues. PEOPLE treat other PEOPLE like crap for all sorts of reasons, and they ALL need to stop.

Isn't that almost exactly the gist of the column I linked?

And this:

I genuinely believe that all of this boils down to PEOPLE issues, not just women issues. PEOPLE treat other PEOPLE like crap for all sorts of reasons, and they ALL need to stop.

I couldn't agree with more. I've taken to calling myself a liberal misanthrope. All people are so hateful, so why bother to keep anyone down?

Demyx wrote:

I mean, I agree fully with the points about there are infinite ways to be a woman and no woman should be excluded, and so do many other feminists. The author complains that feminism is not enough concerned with issues that affect minority women, well, we're not some monolithic movement getting our orders from a central authority. I think she'd find most feminists do care about issues affecting minority women, but may need someone to raise awareness - I doubt anyone is aware of or has time to devote to all feminism related issues at once.

I think there's room (and need) for subcategorization within feminism. IMO, the author has a valid beef with one type of feminism; she is actually a proponent of another.

One way to "be feminist" is to believe that gender and sex distinctions, specifically, are not normative -- that being a woman is equal in dignity to being a man, all other things being equal. Another is to believe that all (or almost all) the tribalist distinctions that people make among themselves are not normative, with gender and sex as a subset. In the middle are those who pick and choose. (For clarity in the rest of this post, I'm going to call the first belief "feminist exceptionalism" and the second belief "general feminism," and lump the third belief in with the first for now. I'm sure someone has come up with better names, and I'd love to know what they are.)

Unfortunately, the term used to describe both of these is typically "feminist." So we have situations like the author (who seems to be a general feminist) taking exception to Caitlin Moran and her supporters (who are acting like feminist exceptionalists) and generalizing it to both groups.

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

Anti-feminist groups definitely have their share of the blame in this, but I think the tension between exceptional and general feminists is also a serious issue. In particular (IMO), I think general feminists need to call out the exceptionalists on their exceptionalism more often. That's what the author is trying to do, I think, although she doesn't realize it.

After the nineteenth amendment was passed, African American women suffragists discovered that most white suffragists would not militate against Jim Crow laws that still prevented them from voting. They had won the franchise for women, they were still denied it for being black. Feminism is still fighting this battle, and this article and the controversy over Moran's comments are evidence of that. As long as general feminists are unwilling to stand up against exceptionalism they're going to have to deal with the stigma of compromise.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I'm a little troubled by the statement I bolded. I know it's not your intent, but that reads a lot like a 'shut up and get back in line.' It doesn't seem much different to Dawkin's comments to Watson or what many uppity women get told when they say something inconvenient.

I don't think it's the same. For one thing, I'm certainly not telling her that she should be quiet or quit criticizing feminism or feminists. I'm certainly not talking about the "other people have it worse" argument which is what Dawkins said.

My point is that feminism has more facets than the one she is criticizing in that column. For example, the feminists who have fought to gain women equal representation in media outlets. While she rightfully criticizes some feminists, she would do well to understand that there are some feminists who are very much fighting for her and for things that she likely considers important, such as her ability to write and publish such a column.

Momgamer, that's a really unfortunate experience you've had I've done quite a bit of feminist reading online lately and I know for a fact that there are accepting feminists who would never "question if [you're] even female" or try to shame you for your views as those people did. As you said, it's a people problem -- every important movement has its share of those who would use the movement as an excuse to act like a butt, further personal vendettas, etc.

I don't think the way forward is to shy away from the term feminist. That's why I proudly call myself a feminist, and I will define what I mean by that to anyone. And any woman who wants equality for women should be welcome in my opinion. The only way to salvage things is to take them back.

EDIT:

pgroce, you define "exceptional feminism" as this:

One way to "be feminist" is to believe that gender and sex distinctions, specifically, are not normative -- that being a woman is equal in dignity to being a man, all other things being equal.

And then later in your post you pretty much call it out on something that needs to be fought against. Why?

MrDeVil909 wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I genuinely believe that all of this boils down to PEOPLE issues, not just women issues. PEOPLE treat other PEOPLE like crap for all sorts of reasons, and they ALL need to stop.

I couldn't agree with more. I've taken to calling myself a liberal misanthrope. All people are so hateful, so why bother to keep anyone down? :)

Except are you willing to own the criticism of Feminism that implies? Are you willing to tell people who still identify with that label 'feminist' that they are doing it wrong? In other words, it just sounds like we're arguing semantics here.

CheezePavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I genuinely believe that all of this boils down to PEOPLE issues, not just women issues. PEOPLE treat other PEOPLE like crap for all sorts of reasons, and they ALL need to stop.

I couldn't agree with more. I've taken to calling myself a liberal misanthrope. All people are so hateful, so why bother to keep anyone down? :)

Except are you willing to own the criticism of Feminism that implies? Are you willing to tell people who still identify with that label 'feminist' that they are doing it wrong? In other words, it just sounds like we're arguing semantics here.

If they're just believing things, like that Caitlin person, I don't have to say anything to them. You can believe whatever you want, and if you're discussing it rationally, that's awesome.

However, if they treat someone badly, then I can, have, and will probably do more of it. If you're being hateful (or a deliberately obtuse flaming troll in the case of one gal I know), I don't care if you call yourself a fluffy bunny.

But even if they were, I wouldn't be telling them they're "doing it wrong". That's your problem there, Cheeze. They are what they are, and I'm not going to judge them for it.

This looks like a good spot for that what-you-said vs what-you-are ill doctrine video again. It's ostensibly about racism, but I find it works well with any -ism conversation.

Demyx wrote:

My point is that feminism has more facets than the one she is criticizing in that column.

Sure, yet the one she is criticising is the one that keeps 6 out of 7 women from considering themselves Feminists.

Demyx wrote:

she would do well to understand that there are some feminists who are very much fighting for her and for things that she likely considers important, such as her ability to write and publish such a column.

Does she say anything to suggest she doesn't understand this?

Could the column be more balanced? Sure, but I don't think a balanced critique of all of feminism was the point.

CheezePavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I genuinely believe that all of this boils down to PEOPLE issues, not just women issues. PEOPLE treat other PEOPLE like crap for all sorts of reasons, and they ALL need to stop.

I couldn't agree with more. I've taken to calling myself a liberal misanthrope. All people are so hateful, so why bother to keep anyone down? :)

Except are you willing to own the criticism of Feminism that implies? Are you willing to tell people who still identify with that label 'feminist' that they are doing it wrong? In other words, it just sounds like we're arguing semantics here.

*sigh*

Do you ever discuss the topic at hand? Or are the 'gotcha' games your only contribution?