Sexism

[Alpha1]

What defense of ""The Talk" isn't claiming to be feminist" would you like? What would be sufficient for you? Wikipedia wasn't, how about the official site: http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_talk/ Try to find anything that describes it on there.

 

It doesn't matter what the talk show is about. You agree that feminism just means supporting gender equality?

 

Well then! They're not being consistent unless you want to suggest that they don't believe in gender equality.

 

Yeah, they did laugh about it, and that was abominable. Was that your point all along? No, it was not. Your point was "Here's an example why some people might not like to be associated with feminists, they say atrocious things like this!" And that is where the argument falls apart because you used a bad example to support it. Some Christians say atrocious, hypocritical, and hyperbolic things too, but it's hardly logical to use that as a reason to think Islam is bad.

 

Nowhere did I say all feminists were like this. My observation was that people might dislike the movement because of hypocrisy and hyperbole. This is similar to how many people like to frame Christians negatively because of their experiences.

 

I gave an example supporting this idea, and you said it was poor because "The Talk" isn't a show furthering feminism (Note: arguably it IS). That's irrelevant. Do all feminists have to base their shows on feminism? What matters is if they support gender equality. Not what the show is technically about.

 

Yes, I know, you're just going to say I used an extreme analogy again. Doesn't make it any less accurate.

 

Because it was extreme. How many people think LotR is in science fiction?

 

To bolster my argument even further about perception, Barbara Walters said Santorum would be surprised to hear that she was sort of on his side regarding the second wave of feminism.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Alpha1

[Obscure_Trash]

My initial point was merely that some people might not want to be associated with the term because of hypocrisy and hyperbole, and I pointed out a double standard from that show.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that some people don't want to be associated with the term feminism. What is being said is that there is a problem with that. Ad hominem arguments are used against feminism by those who are anti-feminist a lot and feminists are painted as hairy, hateful women who just want men to die and demand every woman work and can't be stay at home. That doesn't mean that's what feminists are at all, so why should people be ashamed of that? There's a problem when feminists are painted in such a picture to shame people away from being feminist.

 

“The View” is similar to “The Talk”. From the YouTube video below, the ladies talk about Santorum’s comments on feminism. You can obviously tell they consider themselves feminists. It’s hardly a stretch to assume the ladies on “The Talk” are too.

 

Non sequitur.

 

Ironically, Barbara Walters is supposed to be the poster child of the accomplishments of feminism, and she defended Santorum’s statement (the others didn't) by saying that the second wave of feminism shamed women who decided to be stay-at-home mothers.

 

This seems like a dicto simpliciter. Fred Phelps is a hateful, spiteful, cruel man, but he does not represent all Baptists, nor should he be painted as such.

 

One person cannot speak for everyone. Calling Barbara Walters a hypocritical feminist does not make all feminists hypocritical.

 

“In the late 70s a group of lesbians in Leeds, known as revolutionary feminists (RFs), made a controversial move that resonated loudly for me and many other women. They began calling for all feminists to embrace lesbianism. Appealing to their heterosexual sisters to get rid of men "from your beds and your heads", they started a debate, which reached its height in 1981 with the publication of an infamous booklet, Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism (LYE).”

 

“Stereotyping men and the women who choose to live with them won't help the quest for equality”

 

Red herring and dicto simpliciter. Look at what feminism is and what it means rather than simply only finding groups that support your ideas.

 

It didn’t just say their strategies differed; it said they weren’t in total agreement on what is objectionable.

 

You will never find a group that agrees on absolutely everything. Feminism is no different and makes no claims to be.

 

See example of an active group above.

 

Shakesville, feministe, f-bomb, etc. All active feminist blogs which promote actively working towards equality and promote people speaking up. And those are just blogs.

 

Again, you can't just point out one group that supports your claim and then ignore others.

 

We are well aware of groups that are less than unsavory. We are also aware of the ones that aren't.

 

Why are you dismissing a conservative leaning news source outright without explaining why?

 

Are you asking about their comment on NYT? If so, they did explain: "NYT is known for being a "compromised" publication that caters to a mainstream".

 

This is a red herring. The show has zilch to do with anything.

 

If that was a red herring, then so was bringing up The View, putting the basis of this whole conversation on a logical fallacy.

 

As I’ve said, many people view them as feminists.

 

Non sequitur.

 

but the focus of the show is irrelevant.

 

The focus of the show is the whole point. How could it possibly be irrelevant?

 

No one has shown me that they claim they’re not feminists.

 

You have not shown any proof that they are.

 

We are not saying they couldn't be feminists, but they do not claim to be and neither does the show.

 

You cannot just call them feminists because they seem like it and base all arguments about feminism on that claim.

 

The women in the audience even laughed, so the likelihood that a feminist laughed goes up to 0.99~.

 

Wat.

 

???

 

The Wikipedia article for “The View” uses the word “feminism” two times. Nyuck nyuck nyuck!

 

Non secquiter. Artemis posted the link to The Talk, not The View.

 

Besides that, did you actually read the quote that contained feminism?

 

"And I'm not saying they're representative of the death of feminism, or the rebirth of feminism, or anything like that. I just like the way they don't give a ----."

 

Doesn't seem like the show has anything to do with feminism to me or the people who run it.

 

I simply posted an observation that feminists can be hypocritical and use hyperbole

 

So can anyone. I don't believe anyone is denying this.

 

I gave an example using “The Talk”, and everyone jumps on me saying “’The Talk’ isn’t feminist”.

 

Yes, because it was a non secquiter argument and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who did not understand the jump in logic.

 

Or, more eloquently said:

 

ETA: And yeah, if you had brought in an example that was actually feminists saying something hypocritical, you wouldn't be being questioned for bringing in faulty evidence. No one said no feminists evaaaaaar say anything hypocritical, they said your example was terrible. Admit you goofed, go back and find a real example and try to build an argument on top of that, it'll work better.

 

 

 

Wow. Just hilarious.

 

"True feminists” can be well-intentioned, but they might support bad legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act. *shrugs* People have different views on what equal is. Much of this is largely debated in the feminist camps themselves, since some of them think the sexes are different in a number of ways, while others think both sexes are the same at birth, but social constructs dictate everything.

 

Okay. I can agree.

 

Are you just stating facts or did you want to go somewhere from there? If not, that's cool.

 

I have never encountered a feminist who didnt dislike men, at least slightly.

 

I've never encountered a feminist who did dislike men. Plenty who dislike kyriarchy, patriarchy, sexism, and inequality and those who perpetuate those, but none who've disliked men.

 

They laughed about domestic violence. It would never fly if it was a male doing it to a female. FYI, one of the ladies on the show eventually said it was a double standard, but Osbourne basically said, “Shut up, laugh with me – it’s different”.

 

No one here stuck up for that comment.

 

???

 

Guess what? Those ladies do far more to empowering women than your average woman who claims to be a feminist.

 

How so? Says who? According to what?

Edited February 24, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Sorrowgrave]

girls are better than guys, heck when lilith demanded equality from Adam she got thrown out of Edan and her kids killed.

 

Not to mention I'd LOVE to see one of them push a baby out of their junk

[The Evil Doer]

Not to mention I'd LOVE to see one of them push a baby out of their junk

What sort of a masochist are you ? No person in their right mind would ever want to witness something as disgusting as that

[Kelkelen]

girls are better than guys, heck when lilith demanded equality from Adam she got thrown out of Edan and her kids killed.

 

Not to mention I'd LOVE to see one of them push a baby out of their junk

I'm-a jumping back in here, to state that:

 

A) I'm a feminist and I don't hate men. I love men. And women. And people who identify as both, neither, first one and then the other, something else entirely... it's all fine by me. I've had some gender-queerness in my own family that I didn't even know about until I was an adult, and it didn't change my view of that family member at all -- except to make me even prouder of them for being brave enough to make a huge change that they knew a lot of people wouldn't approve of.

 

Saying girls are better than guys is every bit as sexist as saying guys are better than girls. I'm also not sure how quoting ancient Hebrew mythology about Lilith is supposed to support feminism -- she's also an adulteress who mothered a bunch of demons, and isn't generally looked on favorably within her own mythology.

[Princess Artemis]

It doesn't matter what the talk show is about. You agree that feminism just means supporting gender equality?

 

Well then! They're not being consistent unless you want to suggest that they don't believe in gender equality.

That's a funny way to explain how I wasn't defending my statements enough. Either I was or I wasn't; the relevance of evidence you brought up in the first place is immaterial to whether or not I was defending my statement about that evidence adequately.

 

And, if the subject of the show doesn't matter, why are you trying to trap me into agreeing in a roundabout way that the show is feminist by some definition of feminism? You can't have it both ways.

 

I'm not sure what the best way to put this is, but here, straight forward seems good. There is no shame in making a mistake. I at least respect people more who admit it and make their arguments stronger by learning from their mistakes.

 

Nowhere did I say all feminists were like this. My observation was that people might dislike the movement because of hypocrisy and hyperbole. This is similar to how many people like to frame Christians negatively because of their experiences.

 

I did not say you said all, but thank you for saying so anyhow. Now go further and support that any are like "this" with real examples!

 

You used "The Talk" as an example of feminists behaving badly and I, and several others, called you out on it, and now you're trying very hard to explain why your example was not wrong.

 

Yes, it is very similar, but as I have been trying to explain, one actually has to have experiences with feminists or Christians to use for that frame. They cannot use, as you just did, some horrid thing said by someone female, call it feminist, and then expect that to stand.

 

I gave an example supporting this idea

 

No, you gave an example of a women on a TV show being horrid. It would support the idea if they were feminists being horrid. That's why it matters that the show isn't feminist. To put it another way, what you did was equivalent to taking an example of an Iraqi being horrid and using it as a reason people might distrust Muslims...and then proceeding to argue why it doesn't matter that the Iraqi in question isn't a Muslim. So yes, it is very relevant that the show is not a feminist show nor intends to be, very relevant indeed.

 

Because it was extreme. How many people think LotR is in science fiction?

 

Dunno, but they would certainly be wrong in their perception, wouldn't they? Therefore the analogy was accurate.

 

To bolster my argument even further about perception, Barbara Walters said Santorum would be surprised to hear that she was sort of on his side regarding the second wave of feminism.

 

So? I'm sure I surprise a lot of people with my politics as well. That doesn't change the facts in play much at all. What does her Walter's personal opinion on Santorum have to do with anything here? How does that bolster your argument?

[The Evil Doer]

I've been reading this thread here and there, just to see what was going on and what was being said... And I've formed a meager opinion of my own.

 

I think that sexists are wrong, either way. They may not think that they're wrong, but not many people who think they're doing something for the betterment of their sex do. I believe that, bluntly speaking, that both genders are almost equal. Almost. Why almost? Speaking on the terms of reproduction, it takes both a man and a woman to create life. But a man is only needed for the fertilization of the egg, and that's where his part ends. The rest is left to the woman's body to nurture that life that the man *helped* create. To me, this is what puts women a bit ahead of men. Men may be able to do things us women can't, but men are born of women. Too many seem to forget that, which is why I think many of the men I know think that they're better than women.

 

-shrug- That's just my view on things. I'm a woman, so my view will be biased and lean towards women, just like a man's will lean towards men. In a way, it's a tug of war where the tie just won't ever budge.

I think the obvious answer to that is - you're wrong.

[spyro76]

I think the obvious answer to that is - you're wrong.

I don't really think that was called for...

 

 

Anyway I have a similar opinion on sexism. I believe that there should be gender equality in the workplace, etc. but feminists go about it the wrong way a lot of the time. I tend to see two extremes from my personal experience. There's those who I like to call the PETA of feminism and then there's those who won't say anything unless they're engaged by someone else on the topic. The "PETA" of feminism tends to be extreme in their measures and it gets nothing but laughs from the general public, if it gets more than weird looks anyway. They stick out because they demand equality in ridiculous and ineffective, even counterproductive ways. These people are the cause of kitchen jokes, etc. Guys will say these simply to piss off feminists if they know they can get a rise out of a certain person. I'll admit to finding it funny under the right circumstances, especially if the feminist it was directed at deserved it. Being outspoken is one thing, but there is a line between outspoken and just downright ridiculous.

 

The other end of the scale won't say anything until there has been a transgression that does violate one sex's rights. Although their protest is taken more seriously and is more effective it doesn't combat the problem at its roots. From what I've seen of sexism it comes from people's upbringing in most cases. Excuse my politically incorrect terminology and generalizations, but the "rednecks" of my town and area tend to be much more sexist than those who are "middle to upper class." There are, of course, standout exceptions, but there are supposed to be outliers in any given section of society.

 

I had an argument with my ex girlfriend about this the other day. She wants gender equality, but she isn't all that active on the front. This discussion was after a particularly nasty encounter of hers with an anti-feminist teacher we have. I don't think he's really against females, I think he just likes to poke fun at those who think they're not being treated fairly when clearly they are. (He's a math teacher and the issue that came up was female scores being lower on a particular test. The answers are the answers and we all got the same education during class. More girls tend to stay after to ask questions to the teacher, so logically and literally speaking the girls have a general advantage on a level playing field. There are arguments for and against females in science and math, but I won't go into it, because frankly its another debate in and of itself within feminism and sexism.) Back to the story. She complained that the teacher is sexist and we got into the timeless debate that is this thread. We both want gender equality but we have different opinions on what that is and how it can or should be accomplished. She wants instant results like many of those in my generation; we're all about instant gratification. I'm the weird one out in my generation. I'm highly conservative in most issues, but if you have to measure me on a political scale I really don't go to liberal, conservative, statist, or libertarian. I would go off on my own, instead of left right, up down I would go into the page or out of it if that makes sense. I believe in moderation when it comes to change. I accept that there are gender equality problems and that they need to be addressed. I do not believe that there should be instant change, because it would upset the balance of the economy, among other things. It may be a terrible example, but there is the example set by slavery in the United States. Revolutionaries like John Brown caused huge problems. He may have been a martyr, but he also caused as much harm (if not more) than good. For those of you unfamiliar with John Brown he led a slave revolt (a violent one). He wanted instant change and he was put down just as roughly as he handled it himself. Those who called for the gradual end to slavery and gradual transition into treating black humans like every other human got results. They came too slowly, but they did come. It's a similar issue with feminism. People don't like radical change, even if they say they do. We like slow change if we change at all. It took a long time for the US to elect a black president and we have yet to see a female president. Along with that there's the issue of religion. We haven't had many denominations, much less other than Christian leaders. Gender equality will only truly come with moderation and slow change. The ideal world would have never created these problems to begin with, but we have to deal with them and this seems to the most efficient way to me and with the least conflict between multiple parties and viewpoints.

 

Beyond the point of moderation I would like to see a united front for gender equality. If there is a public face for equality I don't see it in the media and that needs to change.

[The Evil Doer]

I don't really think that was called for...

 

 

Anyway I have a similar opinion on sexism.

Like I said, she is wrong and if you just like her think that you are better just because you're a man than you are wrong as well.

 

This is not a contest, there is no better or worse, definitely not based on something as silly as gender.

Men and women are different, we have certain advantages and girls have other advantages, there's no comparing oranges and apples and the concept of one is better than the other is just silly.

[Princess Artemis]

spyro76, I get you on the instant change not being necessarily a good thing front. Change needs to happen, but sometimes it has to happen slowly, but mostly that's in corner cases like having women as US combat troops. It'd be nice to overhaul the whole military and rearrange it to suck less, but that's not going to happen, so slow change is better.

 

Buuuuuut............the cause of 'kitchen jokes' is the jerks who make them, not the people they are trying to demean. That's how personal responsibility works.

[Obscure_Trash]

I believe that there should be gender equality in the workplace, etc. but feminists go about it the wrong way a lot of the time. I tend to see two extremes from my personal experience. There's those who I like to call the PETA of feminism and then there's those who won't say anything unless they're engaged by someone else on the topic.

 

The thing is, this can be said of any group where anything slightly emotional is involved. There are extremes in anything and everything. We work like a bell curve for a lot of things. There's a medium where most people are and there will always be people scattered at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

 

Animal rights, for instance (first thing that came to mind since you brought up PETA). On one hand you have PETA, whom many consider dangerous and crazy at worst and extreme and wrong at best. On the other hand you have people who...do facebook posts about animal abuse being wrong, but that's about it. Is either method particularly right?

 

Gay rights. People are all over the place from WBC to 'hate the sin, not the sinner' to neutral to frowning when people make gay bashing remarks to ACLU to whatever else.

 

However, and this is just my experience, feminism is one of the only things where I see people thinking it's right to 'put radical feminists in their place' by making sexist jokes or remarks and finding it funny when these feminists get offended. =\

 

I believe that, bluntly speaking, that both genders are almost equal. Almost. Why almost? Speaking on the terms of reproduction, it takes both a man and a woman to create life. But a man is only needed for the fertilization of the egg, and that's where his part ends. The rest is left to the woman's body to nurture that life that the man *helped* create. To me, this is what puts women a bit ahead of men. Men may be able to do things us women can't, but men are born of women.

 

I think the point should be that we're both human. I'm not really sure where you're going with this almost equal thing. o.o

[TikindiDragon]

I've never encountered a feminist who did dislike men. Plenty who dislike kyriarchy, patriarchy, sexism, and inequality and those who perpetuate those, but none who've disliked men.

I've met a couple, it must be said. Although that's broadly been in the lesbian community. Most I've met seem to think gender is a societal construct. Which, of course, is where their issues with me come in.

[Obscure_Trash]

I've met a couple, it must be said. Although that's broadly been in the lesbian community. Most I've met seem to think gender is a societal construct. Which, of course, is where their issues with me come in.

Well that's just sad. =\

Glad I've managed to avoid them. >_<

[Alpha1]

What is being said is that there is a problem with that.

 

I understand.

 

But why can't I be a masculinist that supports gender equality?

 

Ad hominem arguments are used against feminism by those who are anti-feminist a lot and feminists are painted as hairy, hateful women who just want men to die and demand every woman work and can't be stay at home.

 

 

Non sequitur.

 

Argument from fallacy. The shows are similar. "The View" is about current events, and they can sometimes make conversation of topics related to feminism.

 

http://womensissues.about.com/b/2011/11/17...sues-or-not.htm

 

Here, Hasselbeck, the conservative ranter, says she's speaking on behalf of women. In there is another article about Hasslebeck defending herself from Joy Behar on if women are dressing inappropriately by showing a lot of skin. Topics in feminism!

 

No wonder why there's that perception.

 

This seems like a dicto simpliciter. Fred Phelps is a hateful, spiteful, cruel man, but he does not represent all Baptists, nor should he be painted as such.

 

I wasn't arguing that all feminists are bad, but some members are adamant in turning it into that.

 

One person cannot speak for everyone. Calling Barbara Walters a hypocritical feminist does not make all feminists hypocritical.

 

Again -- wasn't arguing all feminists are hypocritical.

 

Red herring and dicto simpliciter. Look at what feminism is and what it means rather than simply only finding groups that support your ideas.

 

Same as above, but I'll note that "equality" isn't the same for everyone. Some legislation can be well-intentioned, but it's actually bad. Some think the genders are exactly the same at birth. Some think there's significant differences.

 

You will never find a group that agrees on absolutely everything. Feminism is no different and makes no claims to be.

 

Agreed, but I'd like to emphasis that "equality"varies from people, and people have legitimate concerns about what is considered equal.

 

Shakesville, feministe, f-bomb, etc. All active feminist blogs which promote actively working towards equality and promote people speaking up. And those are just blogs.

 

Again, you can't just point out one group that supports your claim and then ignore others.

 

We are well aware of groups that are less than unsavory. We are also aware of the ones that aren't.

 

Again, I'm not saying they're all bad apples.

 

Are you asking about their comment on NYT. If so, they did explain: "NYT is known for being a "compromised" publication that caters to a mainstream".

 

It's a poor explanation. Liberals don't have a vast majority, nor are they always right. They get pinocchios, too.

 

If that was a red herring, then so was bringing up The View, putting the basis of this whole conversation on a logical fallacy.

 

"The View" is technically about current events. That's irrelevant if someone lashes out "They're not feminists then because the program's description doesn't mention feminism!". In contrast, I brought up a segment where the ladies do bring up feminism. That's relevant. Similarly, it was relevant to the topic of sexism when the ladies on "The Talk" laughed at domestic violence because the victim was a man.

 

Non sequitur.

 

Non-sequitur means that there is an apparent lack of meaning in what followed. This is about perception. I'm supporting the notion that they're feminists. I gave an example of Barbara Walters acknowledging that people will perceive them as supporters of feminism.

 

The focus of the show is the whole point. How could it possibly be irrelevant?

 

The description is irrelevant. A few members claim that my argument is nonsense simply by quoting a few descriptive sentences about the talk show. That's fallacious. What is relevant is what is being said on the show.

 

You have not shown any proof that they are.

 

We are not saying they couldn't be feminists, but they do not claim to be and neither does the show.

 

You cannot just call them feminists because they seem like it and base all arguments about feminism on that claim.

 

Support your claim that they aren't. Even Sarah Palin eventually came to terms with it and dropped the f-bomb.

 

Non secquiter. Artemis posted the link to The Talk, not The View.

 

The argument was fallacious. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia has "feminism" in the description of the show. My comment on it was just a jab at it.

 

Besides that, did you actually read the quote that contained feminism?

 

"And I'm not saying they're representative of the death of feminism, or the rebirth of feminism, or anything like that. I just like the way they don't give a ----."

 

Doesn't seem like the show has anything to do with feminism to me or the people who run it.

 

Full quote:

 

"The View has caught on with viewers because it gives expression to feelings more complicated, and real, than its detractors realize. Like the Rat Pack, it's all about freedom in an uptight world. Vieira, Walters, et al., have confessed to a lot of things on the show that women are supposed to feel guilty about: forgetting to vote, being too lazy to exercise, hating skinny models, letting the kids watch too much TV, admiring Hollywood's latest hunk. And, apparently, they don't care what people think. Look, I'm not holding them up as role models. And I'm not saying they're representative of the death of feminism, or the rebirth of feminism, or anything like that. I just like the way they don't give a damn. If the Rat Pack was Everyman's id, The View is Everywoman's."

 

Hey, feminism topics! Decades ago this would have been big for feminists to get women on a talk show to talk about issues women have.

 

So can anyone. I don't believe anyone is denying this.

 

Well, it's not about that then, but you're still denying that I used an example that shows this, and I'm baffled why.

 

Yes, because it was a non secquiter argument and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who did not understand the jump in logic.

 

It's not a jump in logic. Just because you girls agree with each other doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

Are you just stating facts or did you want to go somewhere from there? If not, that's cool.

 

What do you think are the biggest issues now due to sexism that need to be fixed? If you can think solutions, what would they be?

 

I've never encountered a feminist who did dislike men. Plenty who dislike kyriarchy, patriarchy, sexism, and inequality and those who perpetuate those, but none who've disliked men.

 

Eh, a real dislike? I haven't either.

 

No one here stuck up for that comment.

 

???

 

That wasn't the point. It was a double standard. You can keep denying that they don't support gender equality, but that doesn't make it so.

 

How so? Says who? According to what?

 

Go look at the full quote from Wikipedia.

 

It's ironic because many feminists claim men "have power" by being CEOs, partners for accounting and law, or anything job that makes more than the median wage of women. [sarcasm] Look at their job description. Nothing about sexism. [/sarcasm]

 

That's a funny way to explain how I wasn't defending my statements enough. Either I was or I wasn't; the relevance of evidence you brought up in the first place is immaterial to whether or not I was defending my statement about that evidence adequately.

 

You weren't because you gave a one liner simply saying, "So why did you bring it up?" You then edited it to basically say "I goofed". You said to get "real examples" -- I did, Go back to see. You twist my words as if I'm saying the whole show was irrelevant when I clearly have been arguing that it wasn't.

 

"The show has zilch to do with anything" was in reference to your post with a sentence or two describing what it was about, and the Wikipedia article you showed.

 

And, if the subject of the show doesn't matter, why are you trying to trap me into agreeing in a roundabout way that the show is feminist by some definition of feminism? You can't have it both ways.

 

The description of the show you gave doesn't matter. What was said on the show matters.

 

I'm not sure what the best way to put this is, but here, straight forward seems good. There is no shame in making a mistake. I at least respect people more who admit it and make their arguments stronger by learning from their mistakes.

 

I've said I was wrong before on here.

 

I did not say you said all, but thank you for saying so anyhow. Now go further and support that any are like "this" with real examples!

 

Part of your quote: "Some Christians say atrocious, hypocritical, and hyperbolic things too, but it's hardly logical to use that as a reason to think Islam is bad."

 

You're suggesting that I think feminism is bad. I don't think all of it is bad.

 

As for "real examples", I gave them, but apparently you didn't want to read the whole post again.

 

Yes, it is very similar, but as I have been trying to explain, one actually has to have experiences with feminists or Christians to use for that frame. They cannot use, as you just did, some horrid thing said by someone female, call it feminist, and then expect that to stand.

 

Call it feminist? Of course, not all people who claim to be feminist will agree to it. I'd lump supporting that in with "radical feminism" (mind you -- not the movement called radical feminism).

 

But that wasn't the point. The point is that they laughed heartily about it on TV, and if they support gender equality, they're being hypocritical. No one has given me a shred of evidence that they're not feminists. People have said feminism is about gender equality. Of course I'll call anyone out who decides to skirt this by saying you have to "actively support" feminism.

 

No, you gave an example of a women on a TV show being horrid. It would support the idea if they were feminists being horrid. That's why it matters that the show isn't feminist. To put it another way, what you did was equivalent to taking an example of an Iraqi being horrid and using it as a reason people might distrust Muslims...and then proceeding to argue why it doesn't matter that the Iraqi in question isn't a Muslim. So yes, it is very relevant that the show is not a feminist show nor intends to be, very relevant indeed.

 

Your argument is fallacious. The show's description isn't what counts. What is said on the show is relevant.

 

Dunno, but they would certainly be wrong in their perception, wouldn't they? Therefore the analogy was accurate.

 

As I pointed out in the post, the analogy isn't even applicable because I'm not saying perception is proof.

 

How does that bolster your argument?

 

Because Walters notices that she's perceived as a supporter of feminism.

 

It's ironic because Walters presence as a journalist was seen as big progress for feminism, yet we have members on here claiming a show with women talking to each other about issues women have isn't.

[Alpha Gryph]

I've met a couple, it must be said. Although that's broadly been in the lesbian community. Most I've met seem to think gender is a societal construct. Which, of course, is where their issues with me come in.

Sadly enough, I have known several lesbians to be like that too. Sucks, since it doesn't really help our cause much. And I've heard quite enough of "lesbians are only lesbians because they hate men and haven't tried anything with them".

[Kelkelen]

...Alpha1, I seriously don't understand your point any more. If you think people don't want to be associated with the "hypocrisy and hyperbole" of feminism, then you need to give actual examples of actual feminists who demonstrate this hypocrisy and hyperbole, not just women who you assume are feminists on a talk show geared towards "women today," which to me smacks of reenforcing contemporary gender stereotypes.

 

And the bottom line is, every group has extremists, and those extremists shouldn't be permitted to dictate the general perception of the group. With most groups, the extremists don't, or else there is a conscious effort to fight back against the perception. For example, most Christians don't hesitate to identify as Christian, despite the existence of extreme fundamentalists who picket at the funerals of gay soldiers and announce that the deceased are going to Hell.

 

However, in the case of feminism, people often hesitate to identify as feminist. Why? Because the mainstream media portrayal of feminism is SO negative, so shaming and mocking and misrepresented, that people realize there will be a strong, often un-thought-out prejudice against them if they adopt the term. Women don't want to be perceived as "man-haters," "feminazis," "annoying *s," etc. Men often hesitate because they don't want to be thought of as "un-masculine" in any way, and don't want to seem as if they are siding too strongly with feminine ideology -- which is a shame, as it's the idea at the root of feminism itself: female and male are equal, so a man shouldn't feel "emasculated" by supporting women's equality. However, some still do.

 

The point, here, is that mainstream media portrayal of feminism is NOT accurate. And we would do better to question that portrayal, investigate it, fight it, and look to actual feminist sources (colleges, books, scholarly articles, other publications, active feminist groups) to form our perception of feminism on a whole. I feel like a lot of people have this *concept* of "the hair-trigger-offended, belligerent, man-hating feminist," but they GET that concept from the portrayal of feminists in movies and TV, and not from actual feminists. In which case, I think the solution isn't for true feminists to shun the term, but to own it.

 

~Please censor the whole word~ --oops, sorry! Fixed now?

Edited February 24, 2012 by Kelkelen

[Princess Artemis]

But why can't I be a masculinist that supports gender equality?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinist might explain why that would be tough, unless you have another definition of the word.

 

If your definition is one in which you have the same goals as feminism but pay more attention to the male side of things, then there is no reason you cannot be thus. In which case, you are also a feminist and I am a masculinist. If you're comfortable with that, then OK, cool. If you want to reject being a feminist because of what a woman said on TV who was not speaking as a feminist, then we have a problem.

 

Anyhow, onto the rest...but not point by point because it's pretty much the same thing over and over again. You know where this quote came from, so I don't feel any need to link to it again:

 

"The panel expands to five when Walters joined in. The subsequent opening credits for the show, featuring voice-over from Walters, explain the show's premise:

 

I've always wanted to do a show with women of different generations, backgrounds and views: a working mother; a professional in her 30s; a young woman just starting out; and then somebody who's done almost everything and will say almost anything. And in a perfect world, I'd get to join the group whenever I wanted....[5] "

 

Everything you just said about "The View" being a feminist show or a show that intends to portray feminism is null and void according to the creator of the show, given that as should be abundantly obvious, not all women are feminists and the whole point of it was to show various views. And it does matter, because no matter how often you say that some women laughed at a horrible statement, you cannot show that it was feminists laughing or saying it, nor can you show that it was said by someone intending to speaking from a feminist perspective. ("Topics in feminism!" you proudly say...well, yeah, feminism does cover a lot of topics that women are concerned with, but just because a woman talks about it doesn't mean she's talking about it as a feminist, now does it. Seriously, women talking about how much skin is acceptable to expose is not an OMGIFOUNDIT THEY MUST BE FEMINISTS!!! topic!)

 

I mean, hell, when a man says something horrible, I don't get to pick and choose what group to apply that to and paint with that horrid brush, you don't get to do that with women. Stop assuming the people who said it hold any politics you wish them to for convenience without a shred of proof, it's bad form.

 

Until you prove that horrible thing was said by feminists, it is lousy evidence of feminists behaving badly. I think you know this, so I'm going to drop this stupid argument for now.

 

On other issues, thank you for finally attempting to back up your assertion that I wasn't defending my statements, though given how often you've said the show doesn't matter, I'm going to stand by my question, not statement, as not needing any defense. Questions do not require defense.

 

Glad to hear you have admitted you were wrong in the past.

 

And hey, this time I did read your post and found it quite thrashy and flaily in its attempts to justify why your original post was A-OK, so this will cover it well enough. Respond if you want the last word; I'm through with this particular train of argument.

[Obscure_Trash]

Respond if you want the last word; I'm through with this particular train of argument.

 

Me as well. I don't have the time or energy to interpret great leaps of logic right now.

For anyone continuing the conversation - I hope you get to take something away from it. :3

 

~

 

Random article of the moment: France drops mademoiselle from official use

 

Heard about it a while back and a little surprised anything came of it.

 

Just to share something that isn't completely depressing. x3

[The Evil Doer]

However, in the case of feminism, people often hesitate to identify as feminist.  Why?  Because the mainstream media portrayal of feminism is SO negative, so shaming and mocking and misrepresented, that people realize there will be a strong, often un-thought-out prejudice against them if they adopt the term.  Women don't want to be perceived as "man-haters," "feminazis," "annoying *s," etc.  Men often hesitate because they don't want to be thought of as "un-masculine" in any way, and don't want to seem as if they are siding too strongly with feminine ideology -- which is a shame, as it's the idea at the root of feminism itself: female and male are equal, so a man shouldn't feel "emasculated" by supporting women's equality.  However, some still do. 

Of course its negative, mainly becuase it was turned into such, the root was equality but that kind of got lost in the translation over the years, if its about equality of all people why is it called Feminism at all ?

If its representing the noble idea of all humans are equal why does it preach "girl power" ? How is it different from "white power" "black power" or any other movement ?

I believe in equality of all human beings, of all religions/colors/genders however I am not a feminist/ a black panther/nor a member of any other movement that places one group above others coz if a movement places women in its center its not really discussing equality to all but is instead concentrating on women hence by default losing the so called "root" which claims equality for all, otherwise why call it feminism at all...

Edited February 24, 2012 by The Evil Doer

[Kelkelen]

I'd like to offer up this video --

-- in slight rebuttal. It's also by FeministFrequency, the source of the second Bechdel Test video I linked to above. She has a lot of great vids that discuss various female-related tropes in detail (with loads of fun movie clip examples!).

 

In this video, she discusses the "straw feminist" -- the feminist character that's thrown into a show solely for the purpose of portraying feminism as extremist, silly, threatening, and unnecessary. I think that influences like these, today, are making people feel embarrassed or reluctant to label themselves as feminists, lest they end up "lumped in" with some kind of insane radical fringe. But being an equal-opportunist woman and yet rejecting the idea of calling yourself a feminist serves to discredit all legitimate feminists as well, who form the bulk of the movement/mindset/presence. "Rabid" anyone does damage -- rabid Christians, rabid Civil Rights groups, rabid Democrats, etc. -- but that doesn't mean it should be a stigma to identify yourself as Christian, pro-Civil-Rights, or Democrat, just because some small fringe of said group has behaved horribly. *You* are just as much an ambassador of that group as any other! And more so, if you're a reasonable, level-headed, fair person who can communicate to others outside the group, clarifying what it's about and setting a positive example!

 

I get worried and upset any time an independent woman in support of equal rights states that she is *not* a feminist (and really, saying you don't want to call yourself one pretty much comes off as saying you're not one). I mean, what *is* a feminist? It's someone who acknowledges that women and men do not have equal political, economic, or social rights or treatment, in a way which is largely to women's deficit. While feminism strives for equal rights, removing the concept of "female" from the movement's (or point-of-view's) name would be drawing attention away from the face that women are a minority (they're a minority in the societal sense; I do realize that humans are about 50% female!) which is still being marginalized in many ways today. Even a term such as "equalist," used with the best of intentions, implicitly suggests that men and women are being discriminated against in more or less comparable ways. The reality is that even in modern, first-world countries, women are paid less, given less benefits, socially pressured to adhere to certain appearances, performance levels, and behaviors, and the laws are constantly trying to enforce some kind of power over all women's reproductive choices, while courts are still blaming rape victims for 'inviting' their rapes.

 

Yes, men are sometimes harmed by sexism and gender roles. But compared to the worldwide epidemic of women being treated as property, sold into slavery, relegated to domestic life and reproduction, not earning as much (if any income at all), not being respected as leaders, not defended adequately in court, denied education, denied careers (often ANY careers) and thus denied independence (without one's own income or marketable skills, how does one have any agency apart from a husband?), being pressured to conform to very narrow and often physically-damaging ideals of beauty, sexuality, being "female castrated" (which is not comparable to male castration; it's the cutting off and scarring of the exterior genitals, kind of the equivalent of cutting off half a man's...yeah), denied the right to attend schools while menstruating, etc... in light of all that, I believe the focus still needs to be on bringing women up to a level of equality.

 

In closing, I feel as if modern women distancing themselves from the term "feminism" tends to imply that the problem is mostly solved, when in reality, it has a long way to go.

 

(Whew! That was so much longer than I thought it would be. If you actually read all of it, I commend you!)

I'm being totally lame and quoting myself from two pages back. But really, The Evil Doer, this is my answer to your question.

 

Also, "girl power!" is something I recall hearing most often in things like The He-Man Movie... it's generally related to female action heroes (frequently being lauded for behaving in a way stereotypically thought of as male, which is another whole can of worms...).

 

The phrase "girl power" isn't used in the same semantic sense as white or black power, though. It isn't proclaiming one group being 'superior.' Rather, it is commonly used in reference to a long-thought-of-as-weaker group proving that they, too, can run/jump/fight/fly/win/play sports or whatever -- that they have personal power and agency and can rise to a challenge.

[Princess Artemis]

I believe in equality of all human beings, of all religions/colors/genders however I am not a feminist/ a black panther/nor a member of any other movement that places one group above others coz if a movement places women in its center its not really discussing equality to all but is instead concentrating on women hence by default losing the so called "root" which claims equality for all, otherwise why call it feminism at all...

Does this mean you believe a disability rights group must fight for the rights of all people everywhere and not concentrate on, for instance, disability rights, in order to be considered by you a movement which has the proper perspective on equality for all?

 

Do gay rights movements have to carefully ignore concentrating on gay rights for fear of being seen to place one group above another?

[The Evil Doer]

I'm being totally lame and quoting myself from two pages back.  But really, The Evil Doer, this is my answer to your question.

 

Also, "girl power!" is something I recall hearing most often in things like The He-Man Movie... it's generally related to female action heroes (frequently being lauded for behaving in a way stereotypically thought of as male, which is another whole can of worms...).

 

The phrase "girl power" isn't used in the same semantic sense as white or black power, though.  It isn't proclaiming one group being 'superior.'  Rather, it is commonly used in reference to a long-thought-of-as-weaker group proving that they, too, can run/jump/fight/fly/win/play sports or whatever -- that they have personal power and agency and can rise to a challenge.

Cool, but your answer doesn't disagree with what I said, I asked if being a feminist is all about equality of all people then why call it feminism (placing femme in the middle of it) ?

Your answer pretty much states that it is about pushing female agendas forward, why portray it somethign it isnt, thats all Im saying.

 

Does this mean you believe a disability rights group must fight for the rights of all people everywhere and not concentrate on, for instance, disability rights, in order to be considered by you a movement which has the proper perspective on equality for all?

 

Im sorry, did you just claim that being born a woman is the same as being a disabled person ?

Last I checked people fighting for disablitiy rights, werent biased towards other disabled people based on their color/religion/gender nor did they ever claim that they are fighting for equality of all, matter of fact they are asking for more rights because of the fact that they are not equal as others due to their disabilities

 

Do gay rights movements have to carefully ignore concentrating on gay rights for fear of being seen to place one group above another?

 

Again, they fight for gay rights, nowhere did the homosexual community claim that they are fighting for some noble idea of all people are equal, they concentrate on gays, thats all....

 

Feminists fight for female rights, not for equality of pay for black men, so lets call it what it is, this is not about some noble idea of all people are equal, its about women only...

 

So when someone like me does believe all should be equals, you cant call me a feminist coz two parts of the equation are simply not the one and the same...

Edited February 24, 2012 by The Evil Doer

[WereJace]

Again, they fight for gay rights, nowhere did the homosexual community claim that they are fighting for some noble idea of all people are equal, they concentrate on gays, thats all....

...that's exactly what queer rights activists are fighting for, equality of all persons regardless of orientation of gender or sexuality. Their specific slant just happens to prioritize queer issues.

 

Since the vast majority (though not all) of gender inequality is focused on women, feminism is the name of the movement. By breaking down anti-female societal structures, feminists intend to level the playing field for everyone.

[The Evil Doer]

...that's exactly what queer rights activists are fighting for, equality of all persons regardless of orientation of gender or sexuality. Their specific slant just happens to prioritize queer issues.

 

Since the vast majority (though not all) of gender inequality is focused on women, feminism is the name of the movement. By breaking down anti-female societal structures, feminists intend to level the playing field for everyone.

Happens to prioritize queer issues ? Come on now, thats what the movement was created for, in order to deal with queer issues period.

If there is a hate crime against a homosexual person the community will be all over it, if it's a hate crime against an asian/black/jew the community wont do a damn thing, will say its wrong but thats about it.

Gay community just like feminists is there to push their personal agenda, the idea of equality for all is not because they are fighting for equality of all but instead because the idea of equality for all will indeed mean equal rights for homosexuals/women thats all, so lets call it what it is actually instead of painting this lovely picture of feminists fighting for all humans rights...

 

As I said before a few times, I believe all humans should be equal yet it doesnt make me a feminist, a black panther, someone who is fighting for gay rights, because unlike all those groups Im actually talking about everybody (those groups included) and not about a specific group of people...

[Princess Artemis]

Im sorry, did you just claim that being born a woman is the same as being a disabled person ?

Last I checked people fighting for disablitiy rights, werent biased towards other disabled people based on their color/religion/gender nor did they ever claim that they are fighting for equality of all, matter of fact they are asking for more rights because of the fact that they are not equal as others due to their disabilities

I'm trying to parse this in a way that's not having you suggest that disabled people are looking for more rights than able bodied people enjoy because we are inherently lesser beings. It's not looking good. Please explain.

 

Anyhow, no, I didn't claim being born female is the same as being born disabled, and I'd like for you to point out where you got the idea that I did.

 

And yeah, that was kind of my point about the gay community. They really do have this noble idea that all people are equal, but they concentrate on gay rights. That doesn't mean in doing that they are trying to raise gays above anyone else. Much like feminists aren't trying to raise women above anyone else.