The F Word

lollygag said:

Maybe in the US, but a lot of places still really need it.

Click to expand...

Just make sure to make a distinction.

For instance, the Muslim world is much different in their culture and ideation. Many women choose to wear a hijab or veil for religious purposes, or even to conceal themselves from men to avoid being harassed or pestered. Any woman wearing a bikini, might be asking to get pestered, or a man wearing a speedo similarly. Though the veil is often symbolized as a an article of oppression, it is not always the case, though some Middles Eastern cultures are more coercive. Generally, women choose to veil or unveil, often their choice is to create an identify separate from western women, many women in the Middle East don't want to be like US women. That is the issue with some sects of feminism, it's often a conversion to be modernized and assimilated to self-proclaimed dignified behavior.

Here's a great example to help reinforce this new perspective. Can you think of any group of women that wear heavy cloth over their heads, deprive themselves of sexual freedom, deprive themselves of pleasure in other respects, such as alcohol or certain foods, cannot decide if they can have children or marry, serve under men, may not work to acquire their own income or possessions, and do so in the name of religion? Sounds awful, right? They must not have chosen to live such a restrictive life? Yes, this is happening right here in the US of A too! We must certainly liberate these poor women!

Well, this group I refer to are the Catholic Nuns of the US. Yes, they do choose to live this life and understand the restrictions they place on themselves. Though, they believe that there is a benefit to living a modest lifestyle, and that benefit, to them, is more valuable than the pleasures and freedoms afforded to women who are not nuns.

Often feminism is fueled by a need to exert control over another societies cultures and customs, though this pressure is often perpetuated as a movement of liberation.

That is not to say women in the middle east are not negatively affected by misogynistic institutions. Rather, these women should be able to choose to wear a veil or not, rather than advocating that they should not wear a veil. And, in many areas of the world, modest dress is a choice made by women, due to true cultural or religious ideation.

No one is ever "asking for it", Fenneking. That's a terrible and harmful mindset to take on anything, ever. Also you don't really understand the various forms of feminism.

I'm noticing that a lot on this thread. People either not understand what feminism actually is, or choosing not to understand to attack it. For example:

1. We just want all women to be Western - Choice feminism is a very popular form of feminism. It argues that it is feminist to be free to make your choice, whether you choose to be submissive SAHM or choose to be a go-getter CEO. Those that do not believe this believe that when women make the choice to become submissive, taking on the roles that women were traditionally forced into, they weaken the cause of women everywhere because they add fuel to the "women just want to do this so we don't need to offer opportunity everywhere" fire.

2. Feminism doesn't care about men - Feminism is about tearing down gender roles, as these are all products of the same oppressive system. The patriarchy hurts men too - men cannot be feminine because female is lesser, while women can be masculine because male is better. Breaking down the mindset of female as lesser breaks down the mindset that men shouldn't be wearing dresses. Breaking down the mindset of female as lesser breaks down the mindset that being raped as a man is not something to complain about, because it's something that's a "women's issue" and therefore you should suck it up. Breaking down the mindset of female as the only nurturer breaks down the mindset that only women should take extended leave for a child, and men are expected back after a week. Breaking down the mindset of female as the only nurturer breaks down the mindset that women should be favored when talking about children in a divorce. These are all interrelated.

3. Feminism in first-world countries has accomplished everything - Women make 75 cents to a man's dollar, in the same jobs, working the same hours. When a woman negotiates for a higher salary, she is seen negatively, while a man is seen positively, using the same negotiation techniques. When a woman says the same things in an interview, has the same qualifications, and is talking to the same hiring manage, the woman is less likely to get hired. Even outside of the sexism perpetrated towards women, there's stereotype threat - if a woman knows from socialization that a man is supposed to be better at something she's doing, she'll do worse. But you know what? That stereotype threat disappears if the woman is educated about stereotype threat. This shows up as early as third grade - girls that are told to color a picture of a doll will do worse on a math test than they do when told to color a landscape. Who's educating those little girls to remove the stereotype threat? There's still work to be done in first-world countries.

I don't think it's proper for women to become career oriented as a whole, because somebody has to be the secretary/janitor/burger-flipper/line worker.

Click to expand...

So women should be forced into the lesser jobs, while men are the ones encouraged to move up? Why? Why can't secretaries/janitors/burger-flippers/line-workers be half and half men and women, as well as higher-up? The workplace as a whole is just about half and half (I believe 52/48), why do you think women should be put in the lesser positions while men are encouraged to become "career oriented"?

Not surprised at most people here, but a little disappointed. PC can be so progressive and then so...ignorant sometimes.

Toujours said:

No one is ever "asking for it", Fenneking. That's a terrible and harmful mindset to take on anything, ever. Also you don't really understand the various forms of feminism.

I'm noticing that a lot on this thread. People either not understand what feminism actually is, or choosing not to understand to attack it. For example:

Click to expand...

Please don't take what I said out of context and say it is a harmful mindset since you are inferring something other than what was explicitly expressed. When wearing a bikini or a speedo, exposing a lot, if not all of your skin, it is likely that other men and women will pester you, ie. flirt, stare, give one unwanted attention, not necessarily sexual assault. For some, getting some head-turns or flirting might feel empowering or even an ego boost; for me it would! Generally, this is a reason and a mindset why some Middle Eastern women may prefer to be veiled, many a time they ABSOLUTELY don't want any friendly flirtation or have eyes lust for them, any unwanted pestering/attention would go against their Jihad - journey for inner peace.

Second, I am only referring to the type of femenism regarding to those that want to westernize the world. Not all femenists do, though there are a number that do.

You explicitly said "Any woman wearing a bikini, might be asking to get pestered, or a man wearing a speedo similarly." You literally cannot get any clearer than that, I am not inferring anything.

Yep. "Asking to get pestered (petty annoyances)" and "asking for it." They do not mean the same thing.

The latter has an undertone to it, as if I am implying women are sexually assaulted for their own actions. When the original statement says pestered, with the nuance of bothering, flirting, or gazes.

Secondly, I never addressed any other forms of feminism, I specifically said, some, not all.

Please be constructive and not make any rash implications as it affects my character and creates nonconstructive discussion.

I did not say "asking for sexual assault". Who's the one inferring something not explicitly said now?

I never implied so, I stated a fact that the second term has an undertone which distorts the meaning of my original post. A fact that the your post took my statement out of context and skewed its meaning in some way or the other given it was in quotations.

There is an ocean of difference between "expect" and "ask for."

Some things are likely to happen in certain situations. Things we "expect" to happen. Wearing a bikini in many Middle Eastern countries will likely mean a lot of bad attention is directed toward you because it is rare/against many people's morality. A person who wears a bikini, however, can have many different reasons for wearing a bikini, such as a need to escape the heat or a desire to go swimming. They would not be asking for harassing comments, even if they expect that will happen. "Ask for" implies that any consequence of an action is the fault or responsibility of the person taking the action, i.e., a woman wearing a bikini knowingly causes harassment, and could avoid such harassment if not wearing a bikini, therefore it is her fault she is being harassed. A feminist (using that term loosely) perspective would be that a woman has a right to choose to wear a bikini (under the idea that it doesn't hurt anyone) and that people who have a problem with that are the ones at fault for the harassment because they are the ones harassing.

We can argue about whether it is risky or dangerous to do certain things in certain situations. (For instance, a gay couple kissing in public in many parts of the world.) We shouldn't confuse that with what is right and who is the one who needs to adjust their actions. This, I think, is one of the core ideas of feminism: not blaming women for every incident where a woman makes a decision. The reactions of others (men, other women, society) are also actions under people's control so we should hold them to the same standard.

Again, saying "asking to", and linking it to choosing is fair, but then to link "harassment" (To irritate or torment persistently) to it... I never expressed that. My statement had nothing to do with risky behavior or sexual harassment. Pester is much different. Merely saying, "You are beautiful", would constitute pestering in the context. Or a simple gaze. (Unwanted petty annoyances). Clearly, there are unfair implication being made.

If a woman chooses to wear a low-cut shirt/bikini/short-shorts or a man decides to go for a jog shirtless/tanktop/short-shorts, they are choosing to reveal their bodies in some type of way, and spectators, regardless of their control, may lust for them. Merely a person's hair and face can be sexual attractive to others. The gaze from a spectator of one's beauty to some cultures in the Middle East is against their Jihad. The point of the comment was that unveiling in Middle Eastern countries should not be a pressured by the Western World as it was during the colonization period in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebannon, ect. When we merely show our bodies in any respect, we are choosing to allow for the possibility to have someone be sexual attracted toward us, make comments on our beauty, or make friendly chit-chat (flirting). In certain middle eastern societies, women may not want anyone to have a sexual attraction toward oneself from others, a stranger to comment on their beauty, or unwanted friendly advancements. Therefore, these women should be able to choose to veil or not, rather than be pressured to unveil.

Fenneking said:

Again, saying "asking to", and linking it to choosing is fair, but then to link "harassment" (To irritate or torment persistently) to it... I never expressed that. My statement had nothing to do with risky behavior or sexual harassment. Pester is much different. Merely saying, "You are beautiful", would constitute pestering in the context. Or a simple gaze. (Unwanted petty annoyances). Clearly, there are unfair implication being made.

Click to expand...

It's the subtext of what you said. When you use words like "ask for" you're bringing along a lot of extra baggage that, whether you intend for it or not, includes a degree of blaming or shaming as I wrote about in my previous post. It's the blaming which I take issue with. It's why being careful with the words we use is so important on these kinds of topics.

There's also the slippery slope nature of this topic. When someone says a woman "asks for" some kind of unwanted attention even if it's relatively harmless it's part of a larger narrative that says anything a man does in response to a woman's choices is the woman's responsibility ("If she doesn't want to be bothered she shouldn't wear a bikini.") instead of the man's responsibility to control his actions. Smart people can understand the different between ogling, catcalling, and assault, but those distinctions get blurred very easily and so any time the "asking for" phrase is used it helps, inadvertently, reinforce the idea that women are to blame for the bad things that happen to them (even if someone is only using it in the context of something minor).

Fenneking said:

If a woman chooses to wear a low-cut shirt/bikini/short-shorts or a man decides to go for a jog shirtless/tanktop/short-shorts, they are choosing to reveal their bodies in some type of way, and spectators, regardless of their control, may lust for them. Merely a person's hair and face can be sexual attractive to others. The gaze from a spectator of one's beauty to some cultures in the Middle East is against their Jihad. The point of the comment was that unveiling in Middle Eastern countries should not be a pressured by the Western World as it was during the colonization period in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebannon, ect. When we merely show our bodies in any respect, we are choosing to allow for the possibility to have someone be sexual attracted toward us, make comments on our beauty, or make friendly chit-chat (flirting). In certain middle eastern societies, women may not want anyone to have a sexual attraction toward oneself from others, a stranger to comment on their beauty, or unwanted friendly advancements. Therefore, these women should be able to choose to veil or not, rather than be pressured to unveil.

Click to expand...

If people choose to wear a veil, a hijab, or whatever, I don't care, but no one should be forced to wear one or prevented from wearing one. I've met Muslim women who wear headscarves and ones who don't. It should be up to them. I don't think we disagree on that. It's just that there there seems to be an implicit something or other saying that a woman who doesn't want attention should do something about it when, really, men should not give unwanted attention. Obviously where to draw the line is going to be a little blurry. A woman may not want to even speak to a man, but it shouldn't be unreasonable for a man to say 'hello' just as long as he understands that he has no right to a conversation if the woman chooses to ignore him.

This is probably one of the stupidest conversations I've seen in a while. I mean that with love.
Look people, let me break this down simply for you. . .
Treat people as they should be treated, and don't be so damn sensitive.

Me? Yeah, okay, I do crack jokes and say things that are sexist. And yes, I do treat women a certain way, depending on their personality and if they don't say anything about it. Yes, I will protect women in a fight. Damn straight I'll treat you more gently (sometimes) if you're more 'girly'. But you know what, I do because I was raised in that way. If you say you want me to treat you equally then I'll treat you like a dude. I give the same amount of respect to everyone when I first meet them, regardless of sex, race, age, sexual orientation, whatever. It's what you do afterwards that changes that. If you're an ass I'll give you the least due respect. If you're a good person then I'll treat you like one.
That's what you're wanting right? Equality? Or am I sexist because of my initial treatment towards females? No, because I give the same amount of respect to everyone.
In my eyes, it honestly doesn't matter if you say things like "Pretty big word for a chick." or "Why aren't you in the kitchen?" So long as you're saying it in good humor.
That's where part of the blame for this international bumbling falls on 'Feminists'.
If somebody is being a jackass, let them be a jackass! What gain do you get from causing a big stink about it? Does it really get on your nerves that much that you have to waste your time making sure that everybody else knows how much of a jackass that one guy is?

And Scarf, you're picking at words.
Don't ignore the forest for trees, if it's obvious that somebody is saying something that is in agreement with you then don't pick it apart.
Not everybody has to dance around their words, as though afraid they would offend.

Now, let's think about this. . . You're all here because you agree that people should be treated equally.
But how, may I ask, is posting on a pokemon forum going to change anything?
So, since you spent the time to read this, and me to type it, could we please just agree on one thing?
"Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."

Edit:
Oh damn, I give up.
My point was missed, parts of what I said dismissed, and overall I probably will be seen as an idiot, or an ass. I could clarify, but I have foresight enough to know that minds cannot be changed over the internet.
Go ahead and keep spending time talking about sexism on a pokemon forum, meanwhile I'll be changing the world. I'm crazy enough to.

Rococo said:

This is probably one of the stupidest conversations I've seen in a while. I mean that with love.
Look people, let me break this down simply for you. . .
Treat people as they should be treated, and don't be so damn sensitive.

Me? Yeah, okay, I do crack jokes and say things that are sexist. And yes, I do treat women a certain way, depending on their personality and if they don't say anything about it. Yes, I will protect women in a fight. Damn straight I'll treat you more gently (sometimes) if you're more 'girly'. But you know what, I do because I was raised in that way. If you say you want me to treat you equally then I'll treat you like a dude. I give the same amount of respect to everyone when I first meet them, regardless of sex, race, age, sexual orientation, whatever. It's what you do afterwards that changes that. If you're an ass I'll give you the least due respect. If you're a good person then I'll treat you like one.
That's what you're wanting right? Equality? Or am I sexist because of my initial treatment towards females? No, because I give the same amount of respect to everyone.
In my eyes, it honestly doesn't matter if you say things like "Pretty big word for a chick." or "Why aren't you in the kitchen?" So long as you're saying it in good humor.
That's where part of the blame for this international bumbling falls on 'Feminists'.
If somebody is being a jackass, let them be a jackass! What gain do you get from causing a big stink about it? Does it really get on your nerves that much that you have to waste your time making sure that everybody else knows how much of a jackass that one guy is?

And Scarf, you're picking at words.
Don't ignore the forest for trees, if it's obvious that somebody is saying something that is in agreement with you then don't pick it apart.
Not everybody has to dance around their words, as though afraid they would offend.

Now, let's think about this. . . You're all here because you agree that people should be treated equally.
But how, may I ask, is posting on a pokemon forum going to change anything?
So, since you spent the time to read this, and me to type it, could we please just agree on one thing?
"Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."

Click to expand...

It's never just "that one guy" who is a jackass. There are lots of jackasses out there. If there were only one jackass in the world then, sure, this might seem a tad much, but there are a whole lot of them. If I'm being honest the way your post sounds like it's talking down to us comes off as jackass-y. I don't know if you intended it that way, but I want you to know that's how it's coming across to me.

But anyway, we weren't agreeing about everything, and it's not "dancing around words." It's about communicating what you mean and not what you don't mean. It's about avoiding miscommunication and increasing awareness of the things you don't mean to say but nevertheless say because of how you word what you say. It's about making sure that when we talk I don't just look at what you say and think "ass" and you don't look at what I say and think "oversensitive."

What does this being a Pokemon forum have to do with anything? It's a forum. A place where people communicate and share thoughts and ideas. We're doing that. And we're not detracting from any of the Pokemon-based discussion either, so no loss to the primary reason this forum exists.

And I think we need to talk more about what a "good man" is as much as anything. I for one would start that discussion by saying that a "good man" probably doesn't say things like "Pretty big word for a chick." I mean, imagine if there were kids around. What kind of example would this man be setting, especially for a kid who may not be able to tell if the comment was made as a joke (if in fact it is a joke and not representative of how the man feels about women)? I would say a good man communicates and tries to communicate as best he can.

Rococo, calling the conversation "the stupidest you've seen in a while" does you no favors. It just makes you look condescending and like you don't have anything of worth to add. Next time, try not to insult a serious conversation if you want to become a part of it, okay?

You speak about these things like there's nothing beyond the surface level of meaning. You are wrong in that assessment. Studies have shown time and time again that sexist attitudes become ingrained in both women and men, affecting subconsciously how they act and think. For example, the stereotype threat I mentioned earlier - where a woman learned that men are thought to be better at something, they do worse. As soon as a kid can understand what's being said, they're affected by what's said. You may not mean any harm when you make kitchen jokes at your female friends, but all it does is cement in everyone's minds in the vicinity the stereotype that affects everyone.

And I find it interesting that you consider "equal" to be treated "like a dude". You don't think it's interesting that you consider how you treat men normal and how you treat women "different"? It's a very common thread in society; men are normal and women are other. Recently, there was a massive controversy on Wikipedia because all American women fiction authors were moved to "American Women Novelists", while the page "American Novelists" was left to be entirely for men. Because men are the default, as you so poignantly pointed out with your example. Maybe instead of being worse to everyone by default, you should try being kinder to everyone by default.

"If somebody is being a jackass, let them be a jackass! What gain do you get from causing a big stink about it? Does it really get on your nerves that much that you have to waste your time making sure that everybody else knows how much of a jackass that one guy is?"

It's really amusing how you have literally no experience as to what sexism is, how it affects women, or anything except for your own male opinion, and yet you find it acceptable to tell women how to deal with sexism. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I don't tell people who work with wood for a living when I've never done anything with wood in my life what kinds of wood they should be using or that their technique is wrong, especially if I don't even have any legitimate research on the topic, just because I've seen things made of wood in my life. Edit: To make that clear, as someone who can never experience sexism the way women do, either you have to come in here with some solid research or you're going to be dismissed because you're not speaking from experience or knowledge. If you have no experience on the subject, and you have no knowledge on the subject, why should someone with both listen to you?

Well feminism does have its merits (many merits), but it completely depends on how it is carried out. If you ask ten different feminist what feminism is, you will get very different responses. Some might be more valid than the other, but there is no clear or correct definition of feminism, which changes in meaning with the change in sentiments of its membership. Feminist of the 1920's are vastly different from feminists of the 2000's. Therefore, often labeled, "radical feminism" is feminism, but does not emulate the sentiments of most feminists. The same can be said for any membership of an idealogical movement. Therefore, I think its a bit unfair to dismiss ones criticisms of some forms of feminism that are being implemented. When explicated to someone that a certain behavior is not true feminism, it implies there is a true definition or practice of feminism. Similarly, like conservatism, neo-conservatives and fiscal-libertarian leaning conservatives might proclaims that the other does not understand true conservatism. I do see this happening in this thread.

Therefore, I think it is more productive in discussing how feminism is best employed in its aims and practices rather than saying feminism is right or wrong. Essentially, we should be explaining the pros and cons of the various feminist movements and ideations rather than completely defending or dismissing all aspects as if only one form of feminism is being practiced.

With that said, criticisms, with logical and reasonable thought, should be taken note of in order to truly defend feminism. I will say that previous discussion was based on semantics since I made a criticism of a certain practice of feminism in which is not productive and detracts from the meritable practices of feminism. I could have phrased it better with one different word choice, I probably should have sooner admitted so, but by the same token, perhaps implications should not have been made, it is dangerous to have discussion when the content is marred by erroneous arguments over what a statement might imply. I have a background in logic, so I often overlook things others might assume, but are not explicit, and again, other words could have better expressed the point more eloquently, but all-in-all I think we agree that women should not simply impose their cultures on other women. Yet, perhaps, like with women being enslaved as sex slaves to men, Western culture and ideals would oppose such a thing and should impose a change of culture, but only when the culture coalesces with restriction of women's rights. I think the example of the hijab, forcing/pressuring women to unveil, is just one of many examples in which the culture does not necessarily coalesce with restriction of women's rights, and therefore should not be advocated by feminist that do engage in that behavior.

So toujours, I agree the discussion of feminism, in general, can be very productive. Though, I think it could be more productive if we were on the same page that we are determining the meritable vs non-meritable forms of feminism, and how to establish a more productive form rather than assume only one true form exists. That way, we can have a more balanced discussion in which we can identify a more viable ideation of what feminism should be.

A decent discussion so far, for the most part. A lot fairer than some of the absurdity I see elsewhere on the internet.

I take issue with a lot of the "neo-feminism" that's being pushed lately. I proudly support egalitarianism, but some of these "neo-feminists" are pushing for female supremacy and outright scoff at men's issues, as if the fact that there are women's issues completely negates the very real problems men face. These people think that men (especially heterosexual white men) are somehow incapable of having problems or being discriminated against. This is absurd and flies ni the face of reality. This sort of attitude only leads to more discrimination. I acknowledge there are women's issues that need to be addressed, but there are men's issues, too. These folk need to open their mind and realize that the end goal is not just "getting better treatment for women," it's "getting fair treatment for everyone."


A few things I noticed while briefly scrolling through.

Moogles said:

lol @ everyone saying "feminism has reached what it accomplished"

Click to expand...

You are correct, there are still issues that need to be worked on.

when lots of cases of sexual assault aren't taking seriously in the court system. shame on all of you tbh.

Click to expand...

That applies to both sexes, not just women.

e: In an effort to give my post some more substance I proudly identify as a feminist because I respect the women in my life and therefor respect all women. It's honestly that simple.

Click to expand...

Your respect should not be dependent on someone's sex at all. You should not respect women carte blanche, nor should you fail to respect someone just because he happens to be a male.

Moogles said:

I feel like the term "radical feminism" is stupid. I don't see people supporting equal rights going around and blowing up buildings like we would equate other radical movements to be.

Click to expand...

The KKK didn't blow up buildings, either. Radicalism is not limited to blowing up buildings, it is a term used to describe those who have taken an idea too far. The idea that "women deserve better treatment," for instance, should not be taken to the extreme "women deserve the best treatment." It should be taken as "women deserve equal treatment."

That applies to both sexes, not just women.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of that??????????????? Sexual assault is a terrible thing but considering that it mostly happens to women it isn't that far of a stretch that it's more of a woman centred issue than a man centred one. If we can't take it seriously when women are sexually assaulted, how are we supposed to take it seriously when men are? Not taking it seriously hurts both sexes, which I'm sure you know already.

Your respect should not be dependent on someone's sex at all. You should not respect women carte blanche, nor should you fail to respect someone just because he happens to be a male.

Click to expand...

Oh for ****s sake you're just putting words in my mouth. Everyone has their own values of personal respect but the fact that I want women to be seen as equal to men means I have respect for the women in my life. But in case you still want to make assumptions about my value system I respect people for more than their gender jfc.

The KKK didn't blow up buildings, either. Radicalism is not limited to blowing up buildings, it is a term used to describe those who have taken an idea too far. The idea that "women deserve better treatment," for instance, should not be taken to the extreme "women deserve the best treatment." It should be taken as "women deserve equal treatment."

Click to expand...

It'll still grate me 5ever but what can I do? It's not like I can have people stop using the term.

I agree that both genders deserve to be equal, but I hate the term "egalitarianism". It sounds like a bunch of poop for people who are too afraid to identify as a feminist because people start equating feminism to "feminizais" or other bullcrap. The end goals of "feminism" and "egalitarianism" are the same. Both lines of thought are the same. Feminism recognizes and understands that there are problems that affect men as well, but focuses towards women because the problems are intertwined with each other, as when I made a point about sexual assault not being taken seriously earlier.

People who refuse to identify as feminists but identify as "egalitarians" or whatever the hell should actually educate themselves about feminism and/or grow up and stop being scared of feminism being used as a buzzword in today's society.

Moogles said:

I'm aware of that??????????????? Sexual assault is a terrible thing but considering that it mostly happens to women it isn't that far of a stretch that it's more of a woman centred issue than a man centred one. If we can't take it seriously when women are sexually assaulted, how are we supposed to take it seriously when men are? Not taking it seriously hurts both sexes, which I'm sure you know already.

Click to expand...

All right, I was just pointing it out. It's an issue that doesn't get much attention.

Oh for ****s sake you're just putting words in my mouth.

Click to expand...

I respect the women in my life and therefor respect all women

Click to expand...

You said verbatim that you respect all women.

Everyone has their own values of personal respect but the fact that I want women to be seen as equal to men means I have respect for the women in my life. But in case you still want to make assumptions about my value system I respect people for more than their gender jfc.

Click to expand...

That does not match what you said earlier. I did not make an assumption, I directly restated what you said.

I agree that both genders deserve to be equal, but I hate the term "egalitarianism". It sounds like a bunch of poop for people who are too afraid to identify as a feminist because people start equating feminism to "feminizais" or other bullcrap.

Click to expand...

No, it is a more accurate and gender-neutral term. "Feminism," actual definition aside (as it actually holds multiple definitions) suggests exclusive female advocacy by its use of the prefix "femin." "Egalitarianism" is directly defined as "the political doctrine that holds that all people in a society should have equal rights from birth."

The end goals of "feminism" and "egalitarianism" are the same. Both lines of thought are the same. Feminism recognizes and understands that there are problems that affect men as well, but focuses towards women because the problems are intertwined with each other, as when I made a point about sexual assault not being taken seriously earlier.

Click to expand...

The fact that it is female-focused (and in some cases misused altogether), is precisely why I use the term "egalitarianism" to describe my position. It has nothing to do with "being afraid to identify as a feminist." There is no misunderstanding with the word "egalitarianism," it has one meaning and one meaning alone, there is no contention over its definition.

For the record, there are several popular types of feminism, it is by no means only a term equitable with egalitarianism. Some forms of feminism are egalitarian, but that is by no means the case for all of them.

People who refuse to identify as feminists but identify as "egalitarians" or whatever the hell should actually educate themselves about feminism and/or grow up and stop being scared of feminism being used as a buzzword in today's society.

Click to expand...

You completely misunderstood my reasons and drew fallacious conclusions based on those faulty reasons. I would suggest you refrain from making definitive personal attacks based purely on conjecture.

I think that, as terms, "feminism" and "egalitarianism" are both imperfect.

"Feminism," for all the different forms it's taken, is generally based on the idea that women typically have it worse off in the world than men. The name though can suggests to some as favoring women over men. "Egalitarianism," especially in the context of a discussion about feminism, can suggest that it is the "better" term, and that then suggests that other terms like feminism are less valid. So when you come from the perspective that feminism is important because women suffer a disproportionate amount of discrimination it can come off badly to talk about egalitarianism as the better "ism." We all think people should be treated fairly, but we worry about false equivalencies. So while it's true that men have problems, it's also true that in many areas of society women have more or worse problems to overcome, or simply problems that men don't have in the first place. We want to make sure that gets acknowledged and that we're all working from that understanding.

twocows said:

That does not match what you said earlier. I did not make an assumption, I directly restated what you said.

Click to expand...

Whatever you say

No, it is a more accurate and gender-neutral term. "Feminism," actual definition aside (as it actually holds multiple definitions) suggests exclusive female advocacy by its use of the prefix "femin." "Egalitarianism" is directly defined as "the political doctrine that holds that all people in a society should have equal rights from birth."

Click to expand...

It advocates for women because women are the group who has to faces more challenges and because the problems are interlinked together as I said earlier.

The fact that it is female-focused (and in some cases misused altogether), is precisely why I use the term "egalitarianism" to describe my position. It has nothing to do with "being afraid to identify as a feminist." There is no misunderstanding with the word "egalitarianism," it has one meaning and one meaning alone, there is no contention over its definition.

Click to expand...

Which is why we should try and identify as feminist to clear up misconceptions with the movement rather than making a new movement which has the same end goal.

You completely misunderstood my reasons and drew fallacious conclusions based on those faulty reasons. I would suggest you refrain from making definitive personal attacks based purely on conjecture.

Click to expand...

That was actually a broad statement meant for many people and not one based on yourself because there are people who actually do think that way. Although I suppose you attacking me on a supposed attack is pretty funny, isn't it?

To be fair you directed your statement to people that "refuse to identify as feminists but identify as "egalitarians" or whatever the hell" and he states that he feels that way. So you were directly addressing him in your last point.