[WolfCoder]

baavgai, on 16 June 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

WolfCoder, on 16 June 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

The word has been hijacked with people who chant "Check your privilege!" and who try to censor their critics..

...The loudest self appointed representatives for gender, race, religion, star wars, whatever, are usually embarrassing at best and, at worst, damaging to the cause they claim to embrace...

Then I guess I'll just have to be louder and crazier~!

[Bort]

Flukeshot, on 16 June 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

Why would you feel like it was a good idea to criticize someone who supports equality? It's not a middle ground.

Yes it is. All of equality is the middle ground. The place where all sides and come and meet without anyone getting on their high horses (not that I'm advocating giving horses drugs).

Chauvinism is basically saying 'men are great', and feminism is basically saying 'women are great', but equality is that middle ground where everyone can say 'you know what, you're all great'.

[jon.kiparsky]

Bort, on 18 June 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Flukeshot, on 16 June 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

Why would you feel like it was a good idea to criticize someone who supports equality? It's not a middle ground.

Yes it is. All of equality is the middle ground. The place where all sides and come and meet without anyone getting on their high horses (not that I'm advocating giving horses drugs).

Chauvinism is basically saying 'men are great', and feminism is basically saying 'women are great', but equality is that middle ground where everyone can say 'you know what, you're all great'.

Gah. There's a few conceptual mistakes here. First of all, "chauvanism" isn't even a thing. The word appears in my dictionary meaning "exaggerated or aggressive patriotism" or "excessive or prejudiced support or loyalty for one's cause or group". You're probably thinking of "male chauvanism", which was an insult used by feminists in the 1970s. A person would be called a "male chauvanist" if they displayed or were thought to display a bias against women or in favor of men (not necessarily the same thing), or basically if they opposed feminism. Someone who said "of course men are better at accounting, women just can't do math" would have been called a male chauvanist, for example. As far as I can tell, this usage has been obsolete at least throughout my adult lifetime - I have never heard anyone use it in earnest - and it never was a position that someone would ascribe to themselves. It's certainly not the opposite of feminism, by any stretch!

What is feminism? Well, it's a notoriously contentious matter to define it briefly, because there are many schools of thought which do not agree on all things, but to be a feminism, a school of thought must hold that it is wrong to consider someone fundamentally inferior to another on account of their sex and/or gender (and yes, we have to start making that distinction if we start talking seriously about feminism - briefly, "sex" is your bits, "gender" is how you act). Most feminists tend to agree on most of a constellation of related positions - for example, it would be wrong to discriminate against someone in hiring on the basis of their gender or sex, assuming they are competent to the task, it would be wrong to impute particular states of mind to someone on the basis of their gender or sex ("of course you think that, you're a man"), that sort of thing - but there is plenty of argument about each of these. To say that "feminism is basically saying 'women are great'" is sort of like saying that a civil rights advocate "is basically saying 'black people are great'". Well, a civil rights advocate might believe something like that, but this is not what civil rights is about, and it's not what feminism is about.

So basically, your "middle ground" fits squarely into the best and most main-stream sort of feminism, and if you think that's the correct position, then you're a feminist. Congratulations. Now go find out some stuff about what that means. It's actually pretty cool.

(As a bonus, I've found that, as a man, being a feminist is a really great way to get laid)

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 18 June 2013 - 05:37 AM

[h4nnib4l]

Does feminism really make a distinction between gender and sex though? That is to say, is feminism really concerned with gender identity, or is its main purpose "just" to drive equality for women? Feminism kicked off before gender identity was a thing, so I feel like including it into feminism is scope creep.

[Bort]

jon.kiparsky, on 18 June 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Gah. There's a few conceptual mistakes here. First of all, "chauvanism" isn't even a thing. The word appears in my dictionary meaning "exaggerated or aggressive patriotism" or "excessive or prejudiced support or loyalty for one's cause or group". You're probably thinking of "male chauvanism", which was an insult used by feminists in the 1970s. A person would be called a "male chauvanist" if they displayed or were thought to display a bias against women or in favor of men (not necessarily the same thing), or basically if they opposed feminism. Someone who said "of course men are better at accounting, women just can't do math" would have been called a male chauvanist, for example. As far as I can tell, this usage has been obsolete at least throughout my adult lifetime - I have never heard anyone use it in earnest - and it never was a position that someone would ascribe to themselves. It's certainly not the opposite of feminism, by any stretch!

What is feminism? Well, it's a notoriously contentious matter to define it briefly, because there are many schools of thought which do not agree on all things, but to be a feminism, a school of thought must hold that it is wrong to consider someone fundamentally inferior to another on account of their sex and/or gender (and yes, we have to start making that distinction if we start talking seriously about feminism - briefly, "sex" is your bits, "gender" is how you act). Most feminists tend to agree on most of a constellation of related positions - for example, it would be wrong to discriminate against someone in hiring on the basis of their gender or sex, assuming they are competent to the task, it would be wrong to impute particular states of mind to someone on the basis of their gender or sex ("of course you think that, you're a man"), that sort of thing - but there is plenty of argument about each of these. To say that "feminism is basically saying 'women are great'" is sort of like saying that a civil rights advocate "is basically saying 'black people are great'". Well, a civil rights advocate might believe something like that, but this is not what civil rights is about, and it's not what feminism is about.

So basically, your "middle ground" fits squarely into the best and most main-stream sort of feminism, and if you think that's the correct position, then you're a feminist. Congratulations. Now go find out some stuff about what that means. It's actually pretty cool.

(As a bonus, I've found that, as a man, being a feminist is a really great way to get laid)

Ok, yeah, I'm taking the more extreme views in my last post, and yes, chauvanism was meant as in male chauvanist pig, meaning leaning about as far into male supremacy as is possible without falling over, and feminism as it depicted these days - rabid women who believe men are everything that is evil in the world. If you look up a few comments, you'll see Baavgai and (I think) WolfCoder decided that 'gender equality' was a better term for what was originally feminism (and indeed, is I believe the definition of feminism you are using in this post).

I'm all for gender equality, and if that menas I am a feminist, then so be it, but I wish gender equality really was the mainstream view of feminists, but it isn't. Instead, they are all more concerned with how to make up for slights, whether imagined or not. I mean, I can get behind them saying 'There should be more women in government' for example, but I can't get behind them saying 'There should be more women in government, so we are going to change the rules to bring more women in, regardless of their qualifications, skills, ambitions, etc.'

That is what feminism means over here these days. It's the same with racism and 'positive discrimination'. Neither have anything to do with equality, otherwise everyone would be presented with the same criteria. Instead, it is all about hitting targets to try to make your company, organisation, whatever, look good.

[modi123_1]

So I read 'The Handmaid's Tale' every five years - that mean's I am cool on the misogyny issue, right?

[jon.kiparsky]

Bort, on 18 June 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

That is what feminism means over here these days. It's the same with racism and 'positive discrimination'. Neither have anything to do with equality, otherwise everyone would be presented with the same criteria. Instead, it is all about hitting targets to try to make your company, organisation, whatever, look good.

I think you may be confusing means and ends here. Quotas, targets, preferences, etc., are design patterns, not user requirements.

[Bort]

jon.kiparsky, on 18 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Bort, on 18 June 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

That is what feminism means over here these days. It's the same with racism and 'positive discrimination'. Neither have anything to do with equality, otherwise everyone would be presented with the same criteria. Instead, it is all about hitting targets to try to make your company, organisation, whatever, look good.

I think you may be confusing means and ends here. Quotas, targets, preferences, etc., are design patterns, not user requirements.

Probably, if I'm being honest. Although when I made that last comment, I was thinking more about positive discrimination than feminism. Classing your feminism definition as gender equality, I'd say feminism is more about finding a way to blame everything on a male, get as much as possible out of a male, and never admitting that there might be some things a man can do better than a woman. Even if that isn't the actual definition of feminism, that is how it is viewed these days.

[jon.kiparsky]

h4nnib4l, on 18 June 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

Does feminism really make a distinction between gender and sex though? That is to say, is feminism really concerned with gender identity, or is its main purpose "just" to drive equality for women? Feminism kicked off before gender identity was a thing, so I feel like including it into feminism is scope creep.

I first started thinking about feminism in the '90s, and in that time most feminism has found it necessary to deal with biological sex and pyschological/socialized gender.

You could call it scope creep if you like, but feminism has come a long way, baby. It's not just about getting votes for women any more.

Bort, on 18 June 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Probably, if I'm being honest. Although when I made that last comment, I was thinking more about positive discrimination than feminism. Classing your feminism definition as gender equality, I'd say feminism is more about finding a way to blame everything on a male, get as much as possible out of a male, and never admitting that there might be some things a man can do better than a woman. Even if that isn't the actual definition of feminism, that is how it is viewed these days.

That is more of a parody than anything else. It's another example of the old line - what do you call a woman who thinks she's as good as a man? An uppity bitch.

The Limbaugh "feminazi" never actually existed. If I wanted to do a little armchair psychoanalysis, I'd say it's a fever dream of the incompetent male who's afraid of a fair competition. (but of course it would be unfair of me to impute such motives to others, so I won't do that)

What feminism is "about" is a long conversation, and as I say, no two feminists will agree on all of the details.

Feminism in the workplace, if anything, is economic rationalization. Eliminating barriers to competition, so the most qualified person gets the job. For example, feminism is the reason that orchestras use blind auditions - a player performs behind a curtain, and does not speak during the audition. They even remove their shoes, so the difference in sound won't indicate the sex of the applicant. This means that the audition is solely about the candidate's ability to perform, which means the hiring committee isn't considering sex, gender, race, or anything else that's irrelevant to the performance.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 18 June 2013 - 07:27 AM

[h4nnib4l]

jon.kiparsky, on 18 June 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

You could call it scope creep if you like, but feminism has come a long way, baby. It's not just about getting votes for women any more.

That's what I mean though. It has become something else that is still using the moniker of feminism. I'm fully on board with the idea of pure neutrality (equality), but I feel like calling a push for total gender/sex equality "feminism" does a diservice to the idea. Like calling a place with really good steaks and an excellent vegetarian menu "The Sandwich Shop". I get the idea that feminists expanded their scope, but when you build an all-encompasing enterprise application around your data entry app, you generally stop calling it a data entry application...

Further, it's much easier to get people to agree on across-the-board equality than to get them to identify themselves as feminists. To use another analogy, like calling a Marine a gun-shooter. Yeah, he or she shoots guns, and that skillset is a big part of the job, but it fails to fully describe the essence of what being a Marine is.

[jon.kiparsky]

Maybe it's better to listen to what feminists are actually saying than to look at the name and assume you know what they think.

For example, if you look at the name, you'd assume that Marines have something to do with boats. And at one point, they did - but that was a while back. They've expanded their mission a little since.

[h4nnib4l]

That's true. And I do listen to what they are actually saying. I'm married to a feminist. I'm simply pointing out that perhaps feminism is not the proper term when the scope exceeds "... a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." From wikipedia. And we do still have something to do with boats.

My
Ass
Rides
In
Navy
Equipment

It's how I got everywhere I deployed to.

[supersloth]

but what does it matter if it's called feminism or anything else? you can call it almonds, who gives a fuck. it's discussing semantics over discussing ideas and purpose. there's a reason everyone who's kind of a dipshit towards women disagrees with 'feminism', because the term is an easy out that keeps them from discussing why they are treating those around them as less. it's the same game plan as 'global warming', fine, you disagree with the term, congratulations you just spent 20 minutes discussing that instead of the climate change that matters. does that make people proud of themselves? avoiding the issue like that?

[h4nnib4l]

That's not why I'm disagreeing with the term though. I don't suck to women. I'm simply saying that I think it's a misnomer. But like you said, you can call it whatever the fuck you want. I don't call it anything, I reserve names for the douchebags who are dipshits towards women.

EDIT: Just because I'm a gun owner, live in Texas, and served in the military doesn't mean I'm a sexist fuckstick, or somehow uneducated on sociopolitical matters. Three strikes in some people's eyes, I know...

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 18 June 2013 - 11:19 AM

[supersloth]

i guess i'm just tired of it is all (none of this is really directed at you, just general). it doesn't matter that it's a misnomer, it's the name. a parkway is a where you drive and a driveway is where you park! holy shit! let's all spend some time on that.