Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[P3nT4gR4m]

"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

What's that? You were actually in Auschwitz? And it's happening again? That's terrible, we need to fight these new monsters. What? Oh I can't possibly understand? You don't want my support? Fair enough. Enjoy them ovens when you get there.

[AFK]

The language discussion is interesting.  Though, I posit that a discussion about PC-ing insults seems rather, awkward.  Insults, by their nature, are generally derived in such a way to instill a feeling of "not-worthiness" or "less-than".  I mean, that's why they are insults, that is what they are SUPPOSED to do.


That's not to suggest I condone language that has demeaning connotations to women, minorities, the mentally ill, etc.  But, then again, I'm the sort of person who tends to try to NOT insult people.  If someone pisses me off I'm more prone to tell them to fuck off and ignore them.


But, all that said, it has been a very interesting and educational discussion.  Good work spags!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society". 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

This!

Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.

[Signora Pæsior]

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

OHAI.

From what I can see, the conversation was devolved into:
"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"
"Your preconceived notions aren't actually correct; here's how it really is!"
"I'm going to argue your point by holding on to my preconceived notions."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

[Signora Pæsior]

"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.

[Signora Pæsior]

"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

That, of course, has nothing to do with anything I said.

It does, however, bring up an interesting question:  Why are men supposed to be incapable of being primary sources on eglatarianism?  Or is the current definition (in this thread) of feminism gone from "eglatarianism" to "Women's historical and current problems"?

I've heard both definitions of feminism.  One is inclusive, and one is exclusive.  I prefer the inclusive version that states a goal of "all people of all genders, races, and orientations are and should be considered equal members in society".

For me, feminism is intersectional. It acknowledges that while women are systemically oppressed by patriarchy, it's pretty shit for men too. Intersectional feminism also means I don't have to choose between Being A Woman and Being Queer at any given point for the purposes of activism. But (and this is more of a point for people who think that there's a finite amount of privilege to go around so YOU CAN'T HAVE MINE, which no one on this thread has done, but it's the easiest way for me to explain my point at 1.40am); feminism focuses on women's rights rather than the harm patriarchy does to all genders in much the same way the gay rights movement focuses on the queer community rather than people of all sexual orientations -- because when we don't have equal rights, the focus is on those who are suffering under that to bring them up to the level of the privileged.

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

[Pæs]

Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.

Care to highlight where I represented your position, accurately or not?
The only part of my post addressed to you was after I used your name to address you and the content of the quote there clearly (imo) referred to the thread, rather than to you.

I suggest that this another miscommunication. Would you like to examine that or make assumptions about MY intent and then bitch about how that's what I'm doing to you some more? Because the former is how biped approach conversation and the latter is for hypocrites and gives you little room for criticising the quality of the discussion.

you do realise that not all replies are replies to you?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Right, then, if that's how I'm coming off, then I am neither suitable for this conversation or the general struggle it describes.  Signor Paisor can keep explaining my position for me, I guess, since he feels he is capable of stating what I really think.

Care to highlight where I represented your position, accurately or not?
The only part of my post addressed to you was after I used your name to address you and the content of the quote there clearly (imo) referred to the thread, rather than to you.

I suggest that this another miscommunication. Would you like to examine that or make assumptions about MY intent and then bitch about how that's what I'm doing to you some more? Because the former is how biped approach conversation and the latter is for hypocrites and gives you little room for criticising the quality of the discussion.

you do realise that not all replies are replies to you?

Yes, I fucking do.  I also am just smart enough to read when people differentiate between "P3nt" and "all of you".  No such differentiation was made.

This isn't a conversation anymore.  It's just another stupid dominance game, played for points.

And the irony in THAT, in THIS subject, is too ticklish for words.

[AFK]

I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.

[Pæs]

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?

If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, for me, I have now been told by Signor Paisor and yourself that I am a ball of preconceived notions, because those notions (that I never expressed in any way, shape, or form), because another poster who happens to be of my gender expressed those notions.

"Here are my preconceived notions that I'm going to use to explain why I think feminism is shit!"

Please quote where I said anything remotely close to that.

...you didn't? That was an overly-simplified version of the last two pages of this thread as I see them, which you weren't involved in (I think) until you called out the thread as turning into self-parody.

How was what I said oversimplified?  Shall I present direct quotes?  Or would you prefer to simply continue issuing me my opinion?

If it were anyone else, I would call a strawman including claims of misrepresentation a fairly amusing troll. I'm STILL trying to examine where you are getting your bad data from, but operating on it any further is just going to read like deliberate dishonesty.

Well, then, I guess I'd better leave you folks to it.