My Theory About Why Feminism is Currently Irrelevent to Millenials

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(ie. because the feminists made this a much more feminist world, it's harder to see that it still is far from equal).

so long as we keep faith in oppression it may continue to haunt us. unfortunately for contemporary feminists, rule-of-thumb laws have been abolished, women's sufferage achieved and modesty marginalized. There is naught for them to do, but wage wars on imagined issues, sound science and ordinary thinking.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are so full of shit dude. Don't tell me to read a history book. How on earth could you argue your point? Ask a linguist, or a professor of first or second wave feminism what they think of the word feminism you fucking shill.

Hope liberal arts is treating your checkbook well, loser.

I would assume English isn't your first language, if it was you would likely understand the prefix and suffix of the word FEMINISM

I was actually an English (well, Modern Literature, same diff) major ... but what you're talking about is Linguistics, not English.

Luckily however I lived with multiple linguists (and had even more in my D&D group; yes we had a character named "!xabu"). If any of them were here I promise they would tell you that words are not in fact defined by their Latin roots (prefix, suffix, or otherwise), but rather by what people think they mean. What you're referring to is commonly known as the etymological fallacy.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think it's pretty clear what (most) first- or second- wave feminists meant when they used the word, but since you didn't like Susan B. Anthony I suspect you'd just dispute any feminist scholar I could quote, so let's let Wikipedia settle the debate. Here's the very first sentence of the "feminism" article:

Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.

P.S. Now just to be clear (so that I don't get accused of making an etymological fallacy myself [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] ), I understand "feminism" means different things to different people, and it legitimately means "man-hater" to some people. I'm not trying to dispute that, I'm just arguing that for most feminists, today or historically, feminism refers to the fight for gender equality.

[Patriam1066]

"Feminist scholar"

Now there's an oxymoron

[fash]

It was "rights for women" long before it became "equality for the genders" in the 80s or maybe before.

I might have already said this here, but you're too idealistic in how you represent groups or movements like feminism. Instead of paining an accurate picture of the group, you put forth only the abstract ideals they hide behind, as if you're either peddling their propaganda or falling for it.

Stalinism was all about freeing the workers from the capitalists, not the mass murders.

The Patriot Act was all about patriotism, not infringing on civil liberties and privacy. It's right there in the name!

[loramin]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It was "rights for women" long before it became "equality for the genders" in the 80s or maybe before.

I might have already said this here, but you're too idealistic in how you represent groups or movements like feminism. Instead of paining an accurate picture of the group, you put forth only the abstract ideals they hide behind, as if you're either peddling their propaganda or falling for it.

Stalinism was all about freeing the workers from the capitalists, not the mass murders.

The Patriot Act was all about patriotism, not infringing on civil liberties and privacy. It's right there in the name!

Heh, we're in agreement on Stalinism and The Patriot Act, but there's one HUGE difference between them and rights movements: top down vs. bottom up. With top-down stuff you have people in power needing a justification for getting more power. With bottom up stuff you have people without (or with far less) power trying to get equal power.

Obviously the former has (almost transparent) reasons for their justification. But rights groups have no hidden agenda to justify, they just have their actual agenda.

Women really aren't equal in our society. Women really don't want to be second-class citizens (even if they are a whole lot closer to first-class citizens than their grandmothers were). Why is it so hard to believe there's no agenda beyond that?

*preps for incoming barrage of feminist conspiracy theories*

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is from 2010
https://web.archive.org/web/20100216.../wiki/Feminism

"The term feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women."

C'mon don't cherry-pick, keep going ...

The term feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women. Feminism involves political, cultural and sociological theories, as well as philosophies concerned with issues of gender difference. It is also a movement that advocates gender equality for women and campaigns for women's rights and interests.

So because someone moved the equality part from sentence #3 to sentence #1 in a more recent version of the page, this makes feminism not about equality?

And again, we're only even looking at Wikipedia because the words of an actual feminist like Susan B. Anthony (who was so central to the feminist movement she got her own coin!) weren't good enough. But if you want to keep burying your head in the sand I can all but guarantee (having done no advance googling at all) that I could find several more quotes from several other famous historical feminists.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People like you are the reason for any hint of inequality among modern humans. By dragging these issues on and on and making them relevant, you are inevitably perpetuating inequality. You are probably one of those white guilt shills too. Grow a pair soyboy.



Susan Anthony would barf if she saw trigglypuff, or any other third wave femnazi

So, option #1: bury head in the sand, pretend everyone's equal when they're not, let the world stay the same or get worse. Option #2: fight to make people aware that the world does have problems, that there are solutions, and that if they embrace those solutions the world can in fact get better.

Call me crazy, but somehow it seems to me the people who pick option #1 are the ones more responsible for inequality.

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Susan Anthony would barf if she saw trigglypuff, or any other third wave femnazi

For a very long time people have attacked rights movements by ignoring the bulk of the movement and focusing entirely on the extreme fringe elements. For instance, in the 60's lots of white people attacked the civil rights movement by ignoring MLK and the tens of thousands of protesters he represented, and instead argued "well these black panther folks are crazy, and they represent the civil rights movement: if you're against them you're with us."

All you're doing is following the same sad historical pattern which has long been used to attack, dismiss and demean rights movements.

[maskedmelon]

i listen to him and while I disagree on various points, i have learned things from the exchanges :3

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Whoever you think you are helping by "fighting" doesn't need your help, or any kind of help. You probably think affirmative action isn't racist, right? What about dumping Native Americans in trailer parks with a lifetime supply of liquor?

Eat a dick

And dude, the MLK reference. No one within the current femnazi or black lives matter regime can even hold a candle to that man. By comparing the supposed inequalities of today to the civil rights movement of the 1960s you are insulting those people. He was fighting for something entirely different. People were being lynched in the name of racism.

Who do you have now? Al Sharpton?

I'm done talking. Anyone who could possibly listen to this indoctrinated faygate obviously can't make up their own opinions.

Have a nice afternoon you "privileged" asshole

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You probably think affirmative action isn't racist, right?

Actually, in this very thread (or possibly the Why are most of the artists in the USA democrats?; both are rather long now and blurring in my head) I actually addressed affirmative action. Obviously it's racist. Obviously that's not a bad thing if you're using it to combat racism; no one with a brain would say targeting the untouchable caste in India for housing/educational/whatever benefits is a bad thing, because the untouchables have been screwed over in India for centuries. But of course it is "racist" to target a race.

My problem with affirmative action though isn't that it's racist, it's that it's not an ideal mechanism. Like if it worked perfectly great, let the targeted specific racist thing continue to fight overall societal racism. But affirmative action doesn't do that as well as it could: it ignores disadvantaged kids whose race has historically done well, and it privileges the most well-off members of disadvantaged minority communities (eg. it helps rich blacks and doesn't help poor whites).

As I said before, the solution isn't to eliminate the consideration of background in higher education, the solution is to target by social class. If you give preference to the poor kids, and more blacks are poor, then by definition you give preference to blacks (and specifically the ones who need it) without ever having to even know the applicant's race.

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about dumping Native Americans in trailer parks with a lifetime supply of liquor?

Honestly I'm not really up on the latest Native American issues, but I think anyone with a brain and even minimal knowledge of our reservation system knows it's completely fucked up.

Originally Posted by mtb tripper the 2nd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No one within the current femnazi or black lives matter regime can even hold a candle to that man. By comparing the supposed inequalities of today to the civil rights movement of the 1960s you are insulting those people. He was fighting for something entirely different. People were being lynched in the name of racism.

Who do you have now? Al Sharpton?

Ok obviously things are better now than in the 60s, but look at what you're (more or or less) arguing: minorities have been systematically repressed for centuries, but because they made a few gains in the 60s they must be perfectly equal now, and since Al Sharpton (who, BTW, I completely agree is a total fuckwad) is no MLK there's no reason to think about race or have anyone advocate for racial issues anymore. Yay!