Feminist Kiwis (not a honeypot)

[Meowthkip]

Are you telling me the majority of feminists would denounce Sarkeesian? Because I've rarely if ever seen that happen. In fact, most of the feminists I've read or talked to outside of this forum have expressed solidarity with the same totalistic views I have a serious problem with, usually somewhat modestly, but that's still being an advocate.

I am honestly skeptical that most contemporary feminists aren't like that. It's hard for me to buy that a minority has this much of a voice above all the others. I mean, I get that the media backs this so called minority. But that doesn't explain decentralized places like tumblr, which appear almost unanimously in support of the mainstream variation of "feminism".

Admittedly, I never was an avid tumblr user, so perhaps my perspective on it is simply inaccurate. All I know is most of the time I've gone there the people reposting porn were also reposting SJW bullshit, and it seriously got in the way.

I'm merely pointing out that there are different schools of thought within the movement. Sarkeesian herself is a divisive figure, as she skews more second-wave with her disdain for pornography and sexualized images of women, yet she has a ton of support from SJWs, who tend to be more third wave. But there's also third-wavers (sex positive feminists) who criticize her somewhat puritanical views on sexualizing women in media, and find it insulting that she's so bothered by women dressing up all sexy.

There's a lot more fracturing going on than those on the outside might notice, with the most radical, authoritarian types being the loudest. I think you'll find a lot more women who either used to call themselves feminists but have distanced themselves from the title, or women who are egalitarian types, which is basically just a way of saying "I agree with the ideals of feminism but I don't want to be a part of the community." I'd argue the number of people disillusioned by the current trend of SJW culture is pretty big, but most people prefer not to speak up lest they make themselves a target, including feminists.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I'm merely pointing out that there are different schools of thought within the movement. Sarkeesian herself is a divisive figure, as she skews more second-wave with her disdain for pornography and sexualized images of women, yet she has a ton of support from SJWs, who tend to be more third wave. But there's also third-wavers (sex positive feminists) who criticize her somewhat puritanical views on sexualizing women in media, and find it insulting that she's so bothered by women dressing up all sexy.

There's a lot more fracturing going on than those on the outside might notice, with the most radical, authoritarian types being the loudest. I think you'll find a lot more women who either used to call themselves feminists but have distanced themselves from the title, or women who are egalitarian types, which is basically just a way of saying "I agree with the ideals of feminism but I don't want to be a part of the community." I'd argue the number of people disillusioned by the current trend of SJW culture is pretty big, but most people prefer not to speak up lest they make themselves a target, including feminists.

The biggest problem I find is that the feminists opposed to the current wave or whatever don't speak up loud enough. If there's behavior in your movement that's unacceptable you can't just lay down and take it.

 

[sugoi-chan]

The biggest problem I find is that the feminists opposed to the current wave or whatever don't speak up loud enough. If there's behavior in your movement that's unacceptable you can't just lay down and take it.

Plenty do if you look for it. Liana Kerzner wrote a pretty long piece taking Sarkeesian to task and identifies as a feminist. I remember, back when GG was first getting going and I was investigating it to see what all the hoopla was, there were plenty of people saying "I'm a feminist but I disagree with ____".

I disagree with the assumption though that any -ism as broad and storied as feminism is is one monolithic movement and it's the responsibility of the moderates to bring the extreme ends in line - especially when those extremes have beaucoup media bucks and a pretty big bully pulpit. I think it's fairer to ask people listening to not brush everyone who identifies as x-ism with the same brush, much in the way you see plenty of moderate Christians ask not to be identified as gay hating Bible thumpers.

 

[Red_Rager]

Plenty do if you look for it. Liana Kerzner wrote a pretty long piece taking Sarkeesian to task and identifies as a feminist. I remember, back when GG was first getting going and I was investigating it to see what all the hoopla was, there were plenty of people saying "I'm a feminist but I disagree with ____".

I disagree with the assumption though that any -ism as broad and storied as feminism is is one monolithic movement and it's the responsibility of the moderates to bring the extreme ends in line - especially when those extremes have beaucoup media bucks and a pretty big bully pulpit. I think it's fairer to ask people listening to not brush everyone who identifies as x-ism with the same brush, much in the way you see plenty of moderate Christians ask not to be identified as gay hating Bible thumpers.

Don't forget Base Mom AKA Christina Hoff, Sarah Haidar, and Cathy Young. One way to find moderates is to take a look at who the loony toons consider halal and see what the infidels actually have to say for yourself.

 

[KingQueen]

Fair enough but my point is that whatever diversity different feminist ideological strands have exists within a narrow ideological spectrum adhering to specific parameters, namely that:
1) It allows for, encourages and even demands excessive social engineering, almost always (if not always) including by the government
2) It presupposes that gender equality is achieved by prioritizing and adopting a woman-centric approach (not in the sense of necessarily focusing on women but in the sense of always adopting a woman's (general "woman's") point of view as more important / truthful)

(1) alone disqualifies any "right-wing" ideologies from feminism. Most people belonging to (other) far-leftist ideologies (communists, anarchists) would also be disqualified since they would mostly see the issues raised as unimportant in the grand scheme of things. And from the rest (centre-left and left-wing), only a certain mount of people would accept (2) as true

From the viewpoint of someone who disagrees with both (1) and (2), differences between feminist ideologies aren't really that important, it's the same thing with different "dressing"

(Again, the above do not include First-Wave Feminism into the definition of Feminism)

I started typic up a more detailed reply but it got super long, and it's mostly a semantic thing. Let me know if you want it.

The short version is I agree with you politically, I think. Separatism is unsustainable and the concept that equality will happen by focusing on one subgroup is illogical. It's one of several reasons I'm reticent to call myself Feminist.

However, that's in terms of ideology. In terms of methodology and practical application of ideology, I think that for *individuals* and small groups having a focus is key to getting shit done. You need to pick a focus in activism and set specific goals, and if you feel women is your focus, then that's your thing. Just because you're campaigning, say, for trafficked girls, doesn't mean you don't give a fuck about trafficked boys. As an individual you can prioritize whatever you want. But the idea of "prioritizing" means for a lot of people "until equality becomes a habit" rather than "at the expense of others".

I think this is where it branches into a larger social issue outside feminism, which is a big push to turn everything into a moral judgement. Nobody is allowed to disagree, and if you ever made any tiny mistake YOU ARE DISGUSTING DIE IN A FIRE. There's nobody going "well I'm egalitarian but feminists have some similar goals so let's work together" it's "you're a bigot-in-denial and the antichrist". I think this attitude is actively harmful. Like this latest with the Sufferagettes being "racist" because their particular voting campaign benefited the middle-class white woman. It's incorrect to say they were ignoring non-white women and a lie to say they were bigoted.

But anyway, this is what I mean by ideology versus interpretation, and what I mean to say is the difference between groups. Some feminists are not woman-centric ideologically but use "feminism" as synonymous with "equality", some feminists are only woman-centric in terms of their activities and focus...and of those who hold true to a woman-centric ideology, some of them mean "kill all men" but some just really believe centerism will benefit everyone in the end. I think this is the part where "anti-feminisim" is a problem, because they don't recognize that two opposite actions might come from ostensibly the same ideology, nor that two similar actions might come from opposing viewpoints. Nobody remember the anti-abortion bra-burners.

(note: I haven't read any other replies yet, got busy with work)

 

[Mecha-Lenin]

I consider myself a feminist. The simplest way to put that is that I support full women's liberation from the double standards imposed upon them by a society which has depended on women just as much as it has men, but where men have always had disproportionate political and economic influence (within and outside the home).

To me feminism also means fighting for the liberation of men from standards imposed upon them. While it is true that men have always had more political power, men also suffer from arbitary cultural norms they don't consciously choose (often pushing them to be stoic, "independent", "breadwinners", etc.).

That is what feminism means to me in a nutshell.

There is alot of scholarly work in feminism which I learned about in college... and is where I first became most familiar with the philosophies and arguments behind feminism. Naturally, I am inclined to think about that rather than tumblr when I hear the word "feminism". But I suppose we all have our own experiences now don't we?

EDIT: Naturally, I refer to myself as "a feminist" in the context of this discussion. This should not be construed to mean that I identify with it in every waking moment, nor that I identify only with it. However, it is an important aspect of my overall worldview.

EDIT 2: I think it would also be valuable to note that the version of feminism I just proffered is very coincident with modern struggles for LGBTQ equality. Actually, I believe the goals of feminism and LGBTQ rights are largely the same.

 

[WWWWolf]

Honestly the current wave of feminism needs to die in a fire, it has become a meaningless and hypocritical movement that claims to be for equality for all yet ignores bigger issues in favor of pointless bullshit. I'm sick of all the lying for pity, telling me I'm a potential rapist for being a straight male and should feel bad about it, and also in just how holier than thou they keep fucking act. It's like the movement is becoming generations version of the crazy moralists trying to fight the culture wars for Jesus.

The movement needs to size down and refocus on getting inroads into the third world rather than complaining about micro aggressions and other bullshit issues in the first world.

This is basically the same problem a lot of movements face these days. If you actually go out and look at what people are doing to promote social equality, you don't really need to look too far. (For example, I'm all for making information technology and other fields of science more accessible for everyone. You can find a lot of interesting programs that aim that. Just that few of them are something that get mentioned often in public.)

...annnnd then there's the Internet. Want to take part in the public discussion? Think twice.

I guess it's kind of like Linux and the open source ecosystem. Hey, it's an undisputed fact that Linux is going strong - people are developing absolutely amazing open source software that is used by millions of people worldwide directly and majority of people around the world indirectly without even realising it.
...and our public face is a 12-year-old who installed Ubunty last week, installed Arch Linux yesterday because he's a GURU now, and is about to join some forum tomorrow to tell people not to use any "Micro$oft" products evar.

 

[Andy27]

I started typic up a more detailed reply but it got super long, and it's mostly a semantic thing. Let me know if you want it.

I think semantics are important in discussions about feminism because most definitions have a different meaning in feminist contexts compared to every-day use. If you want to post it, I will read it.

In any case, I will respond to a couple of things here and for convenience's sake I will split your post in smaller quotes to address each point separately.

The short version is I agree with you politically, I think. Separatism is unsustainable and the concept that equality will happen by focusing on one subgroup is illogical. It's one of several reasons I'm reticent to call myself Feminist.

However, that's in terms of ideology. In terms of methodology and practical application of ideology, I think that for *individuals* and small groups having a focus is key to getting shit done. You need to pick a focus in activism and set specific goals, and if you feel women is your focus, then that's your thing. Just because you're campaigning, say, for trafficked girls, doesn't mean you don't give a fuck about trafficked boys. As an individual you can prioritize whatever you want. But the idea of "prioritizing" means for a lot of people "until equality becomes a habit" rather than "at the expense of others".

I fully agree 100% that, in order to get shit done, people can (and even should) focus on specific issues. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group focusing on trafficked girls only without bringing in any ideological beliefs and anyone complaining about specific groups / individuals doing that and not focusing on trafficked boys as well is, in my opinion, incredibly petty.

What I was trying to point out is that when you have a fully woman-centric (with the definition of woman-centric given in previous posts) ideology (feminism), and when that ideology completely dominates the gender-equality field (as it currently happens), then you are going to inevitably end-up with 99,99% of groups targeting women while men's issues like FTM domestic violence, males being the majority of the victims of violence and males being 80% of homeless people are ignored (as it also currently happens).

This is a direct effect of feminism and the popularity of the ideology, especially in certain areas (academia). It is perfectly in line with the core beliefs of feminism as described in the most basic theories and ideologies from which all feminist ideological strands diversify from.

I think this is where it branches into a larger social issue outside feminism, which is a big push to turn everything into a moral judgement. Nobody is allowed to disagree, and if you ever made any tiny mistake YOU ARE DISGUSTING DIE IN A FIRE. There's nobody going "well I'm egalitarian but feminists have some similar goals so let's work together" it's "you're a bigot-in-denial and the antichrist". I think this attitude is actively harmful. Like this latest with the Sufferagettes being "racist" because their particular voting campaign benefited the middle-class white woman. It's incorrect to say they were ignoring non-white women and a lie to say they were bigoted.

An egalitarian and a feminist wouldn't have similar goals (they both claim the same thing but they interpret it very differently - unless we are talking about a "final" state of absolute equality but since such state is either never going to happen or if it does happen it will happen in many years from now, it is in my opinion irrelevant). There might be the occasional, accidental overlap between goals but nothing more.

But anyway, this is what I mean by ideology versus interpretation, and what I mean to say is the difference between groups. Some feminists are not woman-centric ideologically but use "feminism" as synonymous with "equality", some feminists are only woman-centric in terms of their activities and focus...and of those who hold true to a woman-centric ideology, some of them mean "kill all men" but some just really believe centerism will benefit everyone in the end. I think this is the part where "anti-feminisim" is a problem, because they don't recognize that two opposite actions might come from ostensibly the same ideology, nor that two similar actions might come from opposing viewpoints.

I disagree here. Yes, some self-described feminists use feminism as a synonym with equality* but feminists who use the common-use meaning of equality (which is "both genders should be treated equally" not "women should be treated equally to men" - you can see the implied difference of the latter from the former) don't actually adhere to any feminist ideology. And yes most of feminists who are ideologically woman-centric have convinced themselves that woman-centric ideologies are equality but that doesn't change the effects their ideology has on society.

Individuals calling themselves feminists without ascribing to feminist beliefs don't alter the core ideologies of feminism (unless those individuals become the norm but that isn't happening any time soon so all they do is providing "cover" for an ideology they don't actually subscribe to)

*although it should be noted that almost all feminists do that but most of them have a different interpretation of equality than the usual

Nobody remember the anti-abortion bra-burners.
(note: I haven't read any other replies yet, got busy with work)

I have isolated this sentence because I find it interesting. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in the end the rational side of feminism will prevail and the result will be good because the fanatics will be put aside since this is what happened in the past.

I disagree with the above and there are plenty of contradictory examples. Just to bring one up it was feminism who designated in the 70's, and still supports in many cases, "domestic violence" as a "gender issue" with men as the perpetrators and women as the victims, ignoring a sizable portion of victims. This is still in effect because of modern feminists' unwillingness to go against the interests of women to achieve equality.

And then you also have the worst effect of all which I mentioned earlier:

when you have a fully woman-centric (with the definition of woman-centric given in previous posts) ideology (feminism), and when that ideology completely dominates the gender-equality field (as it currently happens), then you are going to inevitably end-up with 99,99% of groups targeting women

...which is already a view dominating society (at least in the "gender equality" field) and it is not going away any time soon.

 

[Megahertz]

The biggest problem I find is that the feminists opposed to the current wave or whatever don't speak up loud enough. If there's behavior in your movement that's unacceptable you can't just lay down and take it.

Usually modern second wave fems are radfems, and radical feminists when compared to liberal feminists (3rd wave) are a much smaller group. The radical feminist movement which peaked in the 70s has come and passed, and the women who were feminists back then no longer care, generally. They're all old now.

So then its left to modern radfems who are usually millennials, some gen X. And there are far, far fewer of them.

It should be worth mentioning that the media also skews heavily third-wave.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

According to the definition of feminist used by some academics I would be considered one because I am supportive of men and women having equal legal rights and obligations. I think the draft criticisms are simply not valid because during WWII women did contribute to the war effort albeit not with a formal draft and all other wars in which the draft was used simply were not total wars and as a result the government would probably have just chose not to draft women anyways (draft is the government choosing to draft someone in order to help the war effort rather than an automatic process)

If this were the only qualifying feature of being a feminist then I would be one and so would the vast majority of people worldwide. So much so that the label itself would become meaningless and as a result there would be no reason to apply the label to oneself.

However this is not how the label is applied in reality. If I were to be optimistic about it I would simply say that it is academics using academic definitions of their words despite popular usage being otherwise. If I were to look at it more cynically I would say that it is a calculated ruse where feminists claim that everyone is a feminist with an extremely vague definition for feminism in order to get them to identify as feminists at which point they swap out the old definition of feminism for the real definition that reveals the true sinister nature of the movement now that the initiates are trapped in it.

Either way I do not see a reason to identify as a feminist but in the former case I still feel sympathetic to it

 

[Jaimas]

My favorite feminist Kiwi is @BOLDYSPICY!, because she's not afraid to punch a bitch.

 

[AnOminous]

I've probably said this before, but if "feminist" means I think women are structurally disadvantaged, that this is a bad thing, and we should fix it, then I'm definitely a feminist.

It's just too bad feminist now means total cuck.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I've probably said this before, but if "feminist" means I think women are structurally disadvantaged, that this is a bad thing, and we should fix it, then I'm definitely a feminist.

It's just too bad feminist now means total cuck.

Can you give some evidence for the structural disadvantage?

 

[Joan Nyan]

I would have been a feminist 30-40 years ago when women were actually disadvantaged in Western society. I've be a feminist today if feminists cared about women who were actually oppressed, like those in the Middle East. As it stands I don't see how women in Western society need any more help so I'm not a feminist.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I would have been a feminist 30-40 years ago when women were actually disadvantaged in Western society. I've be a feminist today if feminists cared about women who were actually oppressed, like those in the Middle East. As it stands I don't see how women in Western society need any more help so I'm not a feminist.

Were women disadvantaged in 1970? I usually place the time in which there was gender equality at 1920 when they gained the ability to vote

 

[Joan Nyan]

Were women disadvantaged in 1970? I usually place the time in which there was gender equality at 1920 when they gained the ability to vote

Maybe not in the 70s but women weren't guaranteed equal pay and equal employment rights until the mid 60s.

 

[AnOminous]

I would have been a feminist 30-40 years ago when women were actually disadvantaged in Western society. I've be a feminist today if feminists cared about women who were actually oppressed, like those in the Middle East. As it stands I don't see how women in Western society need any more help so I'm not a feminist.

Women in the Middle East actually still exist, you know. They're not mythical.

Oddly, "feminists" in the West don't seem to give a fuck about these actually existing women, though.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Women in the Middle East actually still exist, you know. They're not mythical.

I meant to say "are actually oppressed", sorry.

Oddly, "feminists" in the West don't seem to give a fuck about these actually existing women, though.

Exactly my point.

 

[AnOminous]

I meant to say "are actually oppressed", sorry.

Exactly my point.

Is it, though?

When I say I'm a feminist, I mean that I actually really do care about the welfare and quality of life of the gender that constitutes an actual majority of the human race.

And by that I don't mean that I'm an idiotic cuck who just automatically agrees with any retarded bullshit some whore says.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Maybe not in the 70s but women weren't guaranteed equal pay and equal employment rights until the mid 60s.

I don't know whether to say anything on that. My gut response is to say that the free market was taking care of it and creating a more efficient outcome than the one artificially created through feminism but it is quite possible that we simply went from a surplus of domestic labour to a shortage