Feminist/Rights Nomenclature (cont.)

The conversations started in General Discussion> Not a feminist, but let's be real has been moved here:

@Reignmaker,@Mucklefluga, @Manwhohaseverything , @muhabba , @Manbehindthewires , @Jorgevy , @akbogert , @MrShway88 , @JimTheSurfer , @Manhunter2070 , @lykopis , @KnightRise , @time , @DarkxSeraph , @Dernman , @Timandm , @mrdecepticonleader , @Naamah , @turoksonofstone , @gravitypress

The main posted:

Not the biggest fan of fan service for fan services sake myself. I understand that it can help sales, and I'll tolerate it as long as it's not too distracting.  
And yes I know the irony of this statement when I'm using this AV.

I disagree. Like I already stated. I am a woman athlete with large breasts. I have DD and have competed in international fencing competitions, and almost even made it to the Olympics once upon a time. I am also a student of Martial Arts and have multiple forms under my belt but I have never competed with them, other then very small scale local tournaments. But still... Regardless. I am a woman whom has large breasts and competes. There is no rule that says you have to have small breasts in order to have an active lifestyle.

@Decoy Elite said:

Not the biggest fan of fan service for fan services sake myself. I understand that it can help sales, and I'll tolerate it as long as it's not too distracting. And yes I know the irony of this statement when I'm using this AV.

Hahaha. Decoy, go ahead and post that in the thread OP links to. The real irony of your post is that this thread was begun because people in the original thread weren't talking about fanservice/art, but feminism. You've managed to post in the feminism thread about fanservice/art.

Is it okay to say I'm a male and a feminist? Will you all come out and attack me for it?

OP's points are all valid, regardless of whether or not sex sells. I also agree, however, that both genders are idealized in comics, though I've come to terms with it, because most every superhero, regardless of race or gender is drawn at "maximum perfection".

@markslurpee said:

Is it okay to say I'm a male and a feminist? Will you all come out and attack me for it?

Men can be feminists too. Feminism is about believing women should have the same rights as men, as men have had more rights throughout history.

I'll probably get around to truly chiming in on this later, but I think the key dispute going on earlier was between those who viewed feminist as too specific and those who defended that specificity on the grounds that it's not exclusive. In layman's terms: "I fight for more than women, so I'm not a feminist" vs. "Yeah, but you still fight for women, so in addition to other things you're a feminist."

Personally, unless there are certain movements which you don't support, it seems more practical to just use something like "equalist" or "egalitarian" or whatever because it encompasses everything, including equality for women. I think saying "I'm a feminist," because of what extremes have done for the word, suggests that you may not care about other equality movements, or if you do, you don't care about them nearly as much. The very etymology of the word suggests that females are your number one concern. And to that end, a person like me may not feel comfortable identifying as a feminist, because women's rights are not the primary concern, even if they are important. The word suggests a degree of tunnel vision.

Language, for what it's worth, is a living thing (unless it's Latin), and words change meaning over time. Had I grown up fifty years ago in Britain, I would probably not think twice about referring to a cigarette as a fag, but growing up in 21st century America sort of precludes using the word, even in its innocuous sense, because the colloquial usage has embedded it with homophobic overtones. No matter how obvious the context or earnest my intention, if I say "I'm going to the gas station for some fags" every single person who hears me will at least think of the other way of interpreting the word. Am I saying that "feminist" has completely been run into the ground? No. But I think if the majority of people, as they've been accused of, are misusing it and/or immediately have negative associations with it, then it's in everyone's best interest to look for an alternative. Because, frankly, a word is simply a group of sounds we produce, and if your listeners are getting something different from those sounds, your intention really doesn't matter.

Obviously as I asked to have this thread created I am interested in seeing what people on both sides have to say about that. But let's try really hard not to get offended here because at the end of the day I haven't seen anyone thus far in the discussion who earnestly does not think women deserve equal rights to men (and those who do -- just go away, okay?).

Yeah, I'm just going to let people run with i, the different comments are interesting.

@Naamah said:

I disagree. Like I already stated. I am a woman athlete with large breasts. I have DD and have competed in international fencing competitions, and almost even made it to the Olympics once upon a time. I am also a student of Martial Arts and have multiple forms under my belt but I have never competed with them, other then very small scale local tournaments. But still... Regardless. I am a woman whom has large breasts and competes. There is no rule that says you have to have small breasts in order to have an active lifestyle.

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/off-topic/5/real-life-pic-thread/12499/?page=last#reply_form

Just going to leave this here.

before i leave this thread for good (I dont like going off topic in forums, I mainly stick to the themes that the forum pertain to and I like to keep that way - let alone for a topic on this particular theme, which is not only surely to backfire somehow, it's not of my particular interested or worthy of spending time in a forum for)

I want to make clear that the whole thing in the other thread started and kinda was going on between me and another viner, can't remember the name, about the name of the moviment, not really about anything else.

so yeah, I'll just leave half a cent here about that: it's ridiculous. feminism or feminists, those names are not what you should call yourselves. If women take offense when a man calls himself machist or chauvinist or people who support such views, so do I am offended by any person that uses those terms, either from one gender (machists) or the other (feminists). if you truly believe in equal rights, then do it. and if you need to call yourself something (dont know why) then just say you are a co existentialist, pro equal rights, or equalist, just anything that sums up = equal rights.

but seriously, better yet would be just to explain, simply and easily, what you believe in. it's not algebra or calculus

if you read this far, kudos and ciao.

-just reafirming that I won't post here again, only left my cents on the whole thing for the sake of politeness and because the thread creator tagged me in this thread :D

@V_Scarlotte_Rose said:

@markslurpee said:

Is it okay to say I'm a male and a feminist? Will you all come out and attack me for it?

Men can be feminists too. Feminism is about believing women should have the same rights as men, as men have had more rights throughout history.

This. Most men I know are feminists. :)

As for the term feminist -- I said it before and I state it again, I do not subscribe to the idea feminism now connotes a type of singular and specific advocacy for women to the detriment of men. I get that it would be great if the term evolved into humanist/equalist (both of which I am) but just who should be spear-heading that? Should those who are not comfortable being identified as feminists create their own group? Should they work at getting recognized as a lobbying group within their own governments and get the word out? Should they actively battle to change policies that discriminate against gender/race/economic status by spear-heading campaigns and rallies? The roots of feminism began with the women's suffrage (a movement specifically for the right to vote) and from there continued to grow, grabbing hold in the 70's. It was a strong and effective political movement which achieved great strides in making things equal between the sexes. Not to bring men down, or put women on top. Women have been historically oppressed so has different ethnic and religious groups. So similarly to groups created to fight for equality, women AND men created an organized movement for equality between the sexes. Are there groups who use the term feminist to further agendas which aim to vilify men? Sure -- but they are the most shocking and the most controversial and so get the most attention. I get why there is a disconnect there but I wish people would look past the noise and see the reality of what feminism stands for.

These groups do not represent feminism. People who support and believe in their warped ideologies are not feminists.

The only dissension when it comes to feminism being hashed over is the very real disproportion in terms of race and economic states within the group. It is very, very different for a black, hispanic, asian woman as compared to caucasian women, and to expand on that -- the huge gap in terms of wealth which is a terribly unfair but prevalent as shown in government censuses. Some feminists want to focus on the workforce only for equal pay in terms of professional occupations (lawyer/doctor etc) in the belief that once that is achieved, it will trickle downwards but the factory workers have a very different approach to that problem as their paycheques are getting more and more smaller than those of their male counterparts. And it goes further than that --- women are not offered full-time jobs as much as men although single parent families are predominantly female headed. They work several part-time jobs (women take up a disproportionate high percentage of part-time work which translate to no job security and no benefits. The gender gap is more profound in their instances so their concerns (they feel) are not being addressed fairly from within the feminist camp (which I agree).

This has been discussed so much in other threads in the Off-Topic Forum by far more eloquent posters than me. I am happy to discuss this with anyone -- to me there isn't any real argument when it comes to people believing the genders should be equal. As for those who claim equality has been achieved in western society, uhm - no. Not one country has achieved equality in terms of socio-economic-political measurements but it is a heck of a lot better than it was before. That doesn't mean we should stop and say "okay -- good enough". It's not good enough until everything is equal. Period. The good news is that is shouldn't take much more to achieve this. It's kind of flabbergasting it hasn't already frankly.

To turn this personal, I am more focused in gender equality in third world countries as I find that deserves the most attention -- it's life and death for them so for me it takes precedent. I am concerned about equality issues in my own country and have and will continue to support and advocate for equality whether its gender, racial, economic or sexually oriented oriented. But to insist feminism -- the actual term -- or the group itself -- as being outdated and unfair to other discriminated groups is ignorant (I use this word in the most non-offensive way possible) and worse, defeatist. Many men and women have worked hard and at great sacrifice to attain what most developed countries have today when it comes to gender equality. People who proudly declared themselves feminists. So until women achieved equality, feminism will stay active because feminism is needed.

Don't want to be considered a feminist? Fine. I translate that to mean you don't believe in gender equality. If you do believe in gender equality -- great -- but I don't get why some people claim they believe issues of race and sexual orientation etc are just as important and so don't subscribe to feminism because of that. It's like --- wah? Being a feminist doesn't exclude advocacy for discrimination in other forms. In fact, identifying yourself as a feminist pretty much leads to the assumption you believe in equality for everyone. This importance in making a distinction is generational fluff. Everyone has a right to pursue what they feel is an injustice to their lives. Whether its fair treatment of men when it comes to custody battles or religious freedom -- they have very specific goals for very specific needs. Lopping them all together into one group sounds great, but policies and laws will never be changed/introduced in one great big wave. It will be piece-meal -- one thing at a time and so as more and more progress is made, more and more of these groups will no longer exist when their goals have been achieved. To break it down even further -- an Equalist Movement would be broken down to identify all the concerns and specific discriminations so ultimately, their will be a feminist department, and masculinist department, a racial department and so on and so on. So what is being gained by denouncing one group because they are specific in their goals? It doesn't make sense.

Great --- now I have bored myself into an even bigger headache, lol.

@lykopis: I'm definitely going to reread this once or twice before addressing it, but a thought which crossed my mind, specifically due to your mention of "life or death" in other parts of the world.

To what extent do you (and that "you" applies to anyone reading this) think that gender equality is compatible with all religions? I'm not an expert by any means on religion, but I get that there are religions, or at least large sects of some religions, whose teachings on gender roles put the aims of religious freedom/tolerance directly at odds with the feminist movement.

On a related but very different note, large swathes of Christianity outright condemn the practice of homosexuality. Equal rights activists push for such churches to ordain homosexual leaders and perform homosexual marriage ceremonies -- yet doing so directly undermines the religious beliefs of those people. This puts these Christians in an awkward position, as they are forced to directly oppose the equal rights movement for the sake of preserving religious freedom; even if, beyond the confines of their churches, they believe that people ought to be free (legally) to live as they choose.

I guess my point is that there is a strange subjectivity (or at least diversity) to the way we apply titles. A person may consider himself in favor of equality while simultaneously believing homosexuality is wrong; likewise, a person may consider herself in favor of religious freedom while simultaneously believing, say, honor killing is wrong. At the end of the day we find that no one is quite as accepting as they would like to think themselves. The act of labeling oneself becomes almost absurd.

Anyway, those are just tangential thoughts. I do plan to address what you just said more directly later.

@akbogert:

Ah -- you bring up a very important point. There are religions which are misogynistic and there are religions which denounce homosexuality amongst many other commonly accepted factions which are considered discriminated groups. This is where the discussion can turn to religion specifically and not so much the topic of nomenclature of terms along the lines of feminism/equalists etc.

There is a thread where this discussion would be great to introduce -- outside of some heated discussions, it's been more civil than not and I would love for you to participate considering what I have learned of you. You would have much to share which I think would be very beneficial. Having said that -- I do have many concerns about the role some religions play when it comes to gender oppression and expectations (including homosexuality, etc) but as an atheist -- it's not something I struggle with on a personal level outside of the disturbance I feel when I learn of terrible practices done in the name of religion.

Third world countries --- specifically those ruled by the Islam faith I find need the most attention. There are atrocities committed everywhere in the world -- including in my own country but the stories I know of and the experiences I have had so far in Southeast Asia and the Middle East are almost indescribable. There is so much the world is not aware of. It keeps me up at night.

Anyway --- here is the thread if you are interested in some civil discourse about the pursuit of equality and its implications when it runs against one's religious beliefs.

@akbogert said:

I'll probably get around to truly chiming in on this later, but I think the key dispute going on earlier was between those who viewed feminist as too specific and those who defended that specificity on the grounds that it's not exclusive. In layman's terms: "I fight for more than women, so I'm not a feminist" vs. "Yeah, but you still fight for women, so in addition to other things you're a feminist."

Personally, unless there are certain movements which you don't support, it seems more practical to just use something like "equalist" or "egalitarian" or whatever because it encompasses everything, including equality for women. I think saying "I'm a feminist," because of what extremes have done for the word, suggests that you may not care about other equality movements, or if you do, you don't care about them nearly as much. The very etymology of the word suggests that females are your number one concern. And to that end, a person like me may not feel comfortable identifying as a feminist, because women's rights are not the primary concern, even if they are important. The word suggests a degree of tunnel vision.

Language, for what it's worth, is a living thing (unless it's Latin), and words change meaning over time. Had I grown up fifty years ago in Britain, I would probably not think twice about referring to a cigarette as a fag, but growing up in 21st century America sort of precludes using the word, even in its innocuous sense, because the colloquial usage has embedded it with homophobic overtones. No matter how obvious the context or earnest my intention, if I say "I'm going to the gas station for some fags" every single person who hears me will at least think of the other way of interpreting the word. Am I saying that "feminist" has completely been run into the ground? No. But I think if the majority of people, as they've been accused of, are misusing it and/or immediately have negative associations with it, then it's in everyone's best interest to look for an alternative. Because, frankly, a word is simply a group of sounds we produce, and if your listeners are getting something different from those sounds, your intention really doesn't matter.

Obviously as I asked to have this thread created I am interested in seeing what people on both sides have to say about that. But let's try really hard not to get offended here because at the end of the day I haven't seen anyone thus far in the discussion who earnestly does not think women deserve equal rights to men (and those who do -- just go away, okay?).

Best post ever, and absolutely correct.

Fun fact: When asked about Marxism, Karl Marx said "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist". Karl Marx did.

Words, sadly, do come to mean what they... well, mean. Right now, "feminist" has developed its own meaning, stemming from the extremism that has come along with it. It is mostly a derogatory term stemming from the amazonian feminists who attempt to prove feminine superiority rather than equality. At its core, feminism is about equal rights for women -- sure. I get that. But the nomenclature has memetically expanded to encompass a radical viewpoint, and needs to be replaced (while leaving the derogatory term "feminist" intact to absorb the bad juju).

@lykopis: Ah. I've seen the thread but kind of assumed it was the sort better left avoided (I get pulled into enough hot-headed arguments as it is, if you've not noticed ^_^). However if it truly is "more civil than not" perhaps I will contribute to it at some point.

Meanwhile, here, I agree that the subject risks going too tangentially. I suppose my salient question is the extent to which even those who identify themselves as, say, an equalist or a feminist, agree with each other. You've made it clear that there are some people who call themselves feminists who actually aren't, and some who, despite their protestations to the contrary, actually are. At what point do we draw the line between what people think themselves to be and what other people think them to be? I can call myself a unicorn trapped in a human's body, but of course I'm not. If I say I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body, these days some people will accept that and some people will think I may as well have just said I was a unicorn. This would suggest that a person's claims alone are insufficient for judging the validity of the ideologies with which they align, that external evidence is necessary (though there are some who would still say if I say I'm a woman, I'm a woman, end of story).

I actually like the idea of taking things on a case by case basis, because I may find the claims of oppression by some people absurd (for example, fat people who want society to stop telling them they should lose weight) while feeling very strongly the validity of the claims of others (your story about that little girl and her father continues to linger on my mind). As wonderful as it is to pretend we rally for all causes equally, we all draw lines, and because of those lines you're probably right in suggesting that an overall umbrella "equalist" movement would still ultimately be a collective of other -ists who just happened to be working together.

Hm...

@Joygirl:

I tried to get the term "Man-Eater" to take in all the bad juju but for some reason guys were a little too enthusiastic for all the wrong reasons --- **sigh** ---

Great info on Karl Marx - do I see a blog sometime soon on the horizon....hmm? <3

@akbogert:

I hear ya loud and clear -- sometimes you spend more time having to pull people back from all their assumptions and miscomprehension of what you are conveying than on the topic itself. Just so that we are clear --- everything you say about Avengers Academy is bang-on.

It's all true what you said. That ridiculous book aside, there are far more shade of grey than fifty and the pursuit of equality and what is considered fair and right is so diverse and to an extent, subjective. I try to keep it as simple as I can -- anything that hurts someone physically, anything that prevents someone from pursuing their dreams and anything that prevents someone from achieving happiness without it being at the expense of another I am in support of. I am not part of a world that will be addressing things as simply as that -- and I don't anticipate a great many changes in my lifetime, but every step is something, even if it's only to the side? At least something is happening. I guess for me, I am aiming to not step back -- and when conversation turns to feminism, I see a horrible stepping back and so I made a choice to not be a part of it, but resist and actively fight against it as well. I like to call it a choice, lol but if I am being really honest I really can't help it. I can't do otherwise -- kind of impossible for me.

Wonderful analogy of the unicorn. So true. Some food for thought. My first reaction is no one has the right to claim anything of another person - especially in labelling them. To me it's like someone is telling me white is black? While I do believe they believe it's black, I can't in good conscious agree with them because the claim I find is detrimental to others who hear the claim. It's akin to a mob mentality -- once one person starts clapping inappropriately, soon enough others will and yet the show has just begun. How can any of them see and experience it if they are distracted by the clapping that they joined in because everyone around has?

I don't mean to claim people are lemmings, but comments along the lines of feminism taking on another meaning doesn't make any sense to me. It has not changed -- the world around it might have and some people's blatant misuse of the term might be more prevalent but that doesn't make it okay. I'm not going to clap. I want to see the show. Not a particularly succinct attempt at expressing my perspective but that's how its playing out in my head. Feminism to me doesn't deserve the fate of going down in history as a description of misandric lunatics -- it deserves the respect it fought hard for which is being responsible for me living independently and with the expectation of being considered equal to a man. To me its a foregone conclusion and that's directly because of feminism. So -- yeah. I am forever a feminist.

@lykopis said:

@V_Scarlotte_Rose said:

@markslurpee said:

Is it okay to say I'm a male and a feminist? Will you all come out and attack me for it?

Men can be feminists too. Feminism is about believing women should have the same rights as men, as men have had more rights throughout history.

This. Most men I know are feminists. :)

As for the term feminist -- I said it before and I state it again, I do not subscribe to the idea feminism now connotes a type of singular and specific advocacy for women to the detriment of men. I get that it would be great if the term evolved into humanist/equalist (both of which I am) but just who should be spear-heading that? Should those who are not comfortable being identified as feminists create their own group? Should they work at getting recognized as a lobbying group within their own governments and get the word out? Should they actively battle to change policies that discriminate against gender/race/economic status by spear-heading campaigns and rallies? The roots of feminism began with the women's suffrage (a movement specifically for the right to vote) and from there continued to grow, grabbing hold in the 70's. It was a strong and effective political movement which achieved great strides in making things equal between the sexes. Not to bring men down, or put women on top. Women have been historically oppressed so has different ethnic and religious groups. So similarly to groups created to fight for equality, women AND men created an organized movement for equality between the sexes. Are there groups who use the term feminist to further agendas which aim to vilify men? Sure -- but they are the most shocking and the most controversial and so get the most attention. I get why there is a disconnect there but I wish people would look past the noise and see the reality of what feminism stands for.

These groups do not represent feminism. People who support and believe in their warped ideologies are not feminists.

The only dissension when it comes to feminism being hashed over is the very real disproportion in terms of race and economic states within the group. It is very, very different for a black, hispanic, asian woman as compared to caucasian women, and to expand on that -- the huge gap in terms of wealth which is a terribly unfair but prevalent as shown in government censuses. Some feminists want to focus on the workforce only for equal pay in terms of professional occupations (lawyer/doctor etc) in the belief that once that is achieved, it will trickle downwards but the factory workers have a very different approach to that problem as their paycheques are getting more and more smaller than those of their male counterparts. And it goes further than that --- women are not offered full-time jobs as much as men although single parent families are predominantly female headed. They work several part-time jobs (women take up a disproportionate high percentage of part-time work which translate to no job security and no benefits. The gender gap is more profound in their instances so their concerns (they feel) are not being addressed fairly from within the feminist camp (which I agree).

This has been discussed so much in other threads in the Off-Topic Forum by far more eloquent posters than me. I am happy to discuss this with anyone -- to me there isn't any real argument when it comes to people believing the genders should be equal. As for those who claim equality has been achieved in western society, uhm - no. Not one country has achieved equality in terms of socio-economic-political measurements but it is a heck of a lot better than it was before. That doesn't mean we should stop and say "okay -- good enough". It's not good enough until everything is equal. Period. The good news is that is shouldn't take much more to achieve this. It's kind of flabbergasting it hasn't already frankly.

To turn this personal, I am more focused in gender equality in third world countries as I find that deserves the most attention -- it's life and death for them so for me it takes precedent. I am concerned about equality issues in my own country and have and will continue to support and advocate for equality whether its gender, racial, economic or sexually oriented oriented. But to insist feminism -- the actual term -- or the group itself -- as being outdated and unfair to other discriminated groups is ignorant (I use this word in the most non-offensive way possible) and worse, defeatist. Many men and women have worked hard and at great sacrifice to attain what most developed countries have today when it comes to gender equality. People who proudly declared themselves feminists. So until women achieved equality, feminism will stay active because feminism is needed.

Don't want to be considered a feminist? Fine. I translate that to mean you don't believe in gender equality. If you do believe in gender equality -- great -- but I don't get why some people claim they believe issues of race and sexual orientation etc are just as important and so don't subscribe to feminism because of that. It's like --- wah? Being a feminist doesn't exclude advocacy for discrimination in other forms. In fact, identifying yourself as a feminist pretty much leads to the assumption you believe in equality for everyone. This importance in making a distinction is generational fluff. Everyone has a right to pursue what they feel is an injustice to their lives. Whether its fair treatment of men when it comes to custody battles or religious freedom -- they have very specific goals for very specific needs. Lopping them all together into one group sounds great, but policies and laws will never be changed/introduced in one great big wave. It will be piece-meal -- one thing at a time and so as more and more progress is made, more and more of these groups will no longer exist when their goals have been achieved. To break it down even further -- an Equalist Movement would be broken down to identify all the concerns and specific discriminations so ultimately, their will be a feminist department, and masculinist department, a racial department and so on and so on. So what is being gained by denouncing one group because they are specific in their goals? It doesn't make sense.

Great --- now I have bored myself into an even bigger headache, lol.

That's very well worded. I must at least acknowledge this in the same way you acknowledged mine.

This. :)

Comic fan = Male man child, often making death threats against comic writers when they kill off a character or retcon that character.

Atheist = Lacks morals and ethics, views nothing wrong about killing or raping since nothing matters anyway, pretentious and stuck up and think they know everything about everything.

Christian = homophobic and anti woman, and intolerant of muslims and jews and buddhists and Thor. If they aren't married probably molests children.

Humanist = Thinks that there is nothing wrong with ripping off elephants tusks and using them as weapons to impale dolphins and gorillas to death before wearing their skins as trophies of humanities superiority! Often punches computers for looking like a robot and calculating faster than most humans.

Homosexual = wears leather and oil all day every day and if they aren't having kinky sex they are thinking about having kinky sex, with your straight children.

Feminist = Wants to wear male genitals as earrings and ensure girls get best spots in colleges, businesses and currently trying to retroactively insert video imagery of another woman into the old 90's TV show Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place, so the show can be renamed Two Guys, and Two Girls and a Pizza Place. However Subway is supporting them if they can manage to change the shows name to Two Guys, and Two Girls and a Subway Place. Eat fresh! Yum!

Well I use to be a Homosexual Atheist Christian Humanist Feminist Comic fan, but those things are different now. So I am not those things. Plus I had a lot of self conflict. Plus I was very critical of myself, and rather address the criticisms about myself in a intelligent, and direct, reasonable way, tackle, address, discuss the best arguments, best discussions, best reasons, sincerely as to progress, I have decided that the easiest thing to do is actually just address the easiest and most simple challenges. I mean why address the most valid and intelligent points of a person when I can just paint them as some irrational negative member of an extremist group who wants to eat children and oppress others. Well, unless you know you are actually addressing the sincere groups that want to sincerely eat children and sincerely oppress others but even there the fun is in the details.

Anyway so right now, I am a Neo Tropical Omniasexual Deity Decider Ultra Humanite Male Reductionist Graphic Novel Enthusiast, at least for the next five minutes or so, then all my hard work at furthering my goals and agendas will be tainted by those who have read my post and associated me with the weaker and less valid members of the Neo Tropical Omniasexual Deity Decider Ultra Humanite Male Reductionist Graphic Novel Enthusiasts.

@SC: Genius, as always.

I'd make a post but I don't think I could hold up my end with all these brilliant and rational pioneers of human hope. <3

Oh and I forgot one important thing! No need for feminism since men and woman are treated equal now. No need for for maps anymore either, since people from all countries are equal now too. No need for pants anymore since everyone has equally nice legs and so short shorts and skirts for everyone! No need for height requirements on roller coasters because everyone is of equal height! No need for schools since everyones education is equal now.

@Joygirl said:

@SC: Genius, as always.

I'd make a post but I don't think I could hold up my end with all these brilliant and rational pioneers of human hope. <3

Thank you Joygirl, but I have a feeling you will like my no pants - everyone wear short shorts and skirts idea better! ^_^

(I am going to your Red Lantern blog now too!)

@SC said:

No need for pants anymore since everyone has equally nice legs and so short shorts and skirts for everyone!

I find this idea offensive. But I forgive you, because you couldn't have known any better. You haven't seen my legs.

@akbogert said:

@SC said:

No need for pants anymore since everyone has equally nice legs and so short shorts and skirts for everyone!

I find this idea offensive. But I forgive you, because you couldn't have known any better. You haven't seen my legs.

Oh its my mutant power. I have Omnividence when it comes to legs. I even see legs of those who have no legs!! Suffice to say I have a lot of weird dreams involving millipedes and can can dancers.

@SC: Legitimately just laughed out loud.

So the basic argument here is in syntax?

@muhabba: Well, semantics.

To some extent the question is whether the feminist label has enough negative baggage to justify its continued use or replacing it. People who agree about the importance of the same exact goals are in disagreement over how they want to be labeled/how they label themselves; this debate, then, is primarily between self-declared feminists and the people they largely believe should also declare themselves feminists.

@lykopis said:

@Joygirl:

I tried to get the term "Man-Eater" to take in all the bad juju but for some reason guys were a little too enthusiastic for all the wrong reasons --- **sigh** ---

[LOL]

Great info on Karl Marx - do I see a blog sometime soon on the horizon....hmm? <3

[Yes, please.]

Feminism to me doesn't deserve the fate of going down in history as a description of misandric lunatics -- it deserves the respect it fought hard for which is being responsible for me living independently and with the expectation of being considered equal to a man. To me its a foregone conclusion and that's directly because of feminism. So -- yeah. I am forever a feminist.

Very well-put. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too tangential, but I think it's relevant:

Your mention of the religion thread reminded me of how a friend of mine, studying to be a minister, recently conducted a poll of Christians he knew to find out what they listed as their religious beliefs on Facebook. A surprising number of us actually don't list ourselves as "Christians." We have all sorts of clever/not-so-clever ways of saying the same thing ("follower of Jesus" is a popular one) but for some reason the vast majority had independently decided not to just say "I'm a Christian."

My friend ultimately concluded that that was bad, that despite the fact that others are tarnishing the name (recent apocalypse/rapture scares and that terrible Westboro Baptist Church come to mind), it's still the most accurate term to describe what we believe in AND has a long and proud history attached to it, despite the extremists and the blights. He raised a good point and ultimately made me question whether I was afraid to just say "I'm a Christian" because others might read more negatively into it than they ought to.

And I think my friend, with "Christian," and you, with "feminist" are on an identical wavelength. There's a simple, historically-accurate word for supporting women's equality, and letting it be assaulted or die off is a rather defeatist attitude. If anything, efforts may be redoubled to reclaim the worth of the title with pride, and to make absolutely clear who the "fake" feminists are and why you are disqualifying them; not as a slight to other people, but as a bold declaration of what you believe history has properly defined the word to mean.

I don't know that I've actually changed my stance, per se, but I can definitely appreciate your side better than I previously did.

Why change the name from feminist or Christian just because other people believe the definition to be something other then what it is? If people believe the wrong definition than you should use it as an oppertunity to educate people. The Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK can call themselves Christian all they want, it doesn't make it true. The sterotypical Feminazi can be people's first impression when they here the word feminist but if a feminist shows them that it is not true, then you have a teaching oppertunity. Hence Patrick Stewert's shirt. A feminist is not a unshaved, butch, bald, flannel wear, dirty work boot scuffing, man hating feminazi. It's a man or woman just like Patrick Stewert. He didn't even have to talk to someone about feminism, they just had to read his shirt. Changing the name of a thing does not change the thing. "A rose by any other..." yadda yadda yadda. Don't change the name just to get away from the negative view point, that is just taking the easy way out. Fight the negative view point and you educate at the same time.

@muhabba said:

Why change the name from feminist or Christian just because other people believe the definition to be something other then what it is? If people believe the wrong definition than you should use it as an oppertunity to educate people. The Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK can call themselves Christian all they want, it doesn't make it true. The sterotypical Feminazi can be people's first impression when they here the word feminist but if a feminist shows them that it is not true, then you have a teaching oppertunity. Hence Patrick Stewert's shirt. A feminist is not a unshaved, butch, bald, flannel wear, dirty work boot scuffing, man hating feminazi. It's a man or woman just like Patrick Stewert. He didn't even have to talk to someone about feminism, they just had to read his shirt. Changing the name of a thing does not change the thing. "A rose by any other..." yadda yadda yadda. Don't change the name just to get away from the negative view point, that is just taking the easy way out. Fight the negative view point and you educate at the same time.

Very nicely expressed with great examples.

Whenever I am personally critical of something (in a seriously genuine way) I always try to address the best arguments and go the hard route. I mean if I want something to change or argue against a point I like to address the best arguments and or positions, the educated and intelligent stances. Don't take the easy way out I agree with firmly.

@SC said:

@muhabba said:

Why change the name from feminist or Christian just because other people believe the definition to be something other then what it is? If people believe the wrong definition than you should use it as an oppertunity to educate people. The Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK can call themselves Christian all they want, it doesn't make it true. The sterotypical Feminazi can be people's first impression when they here the word feminist but if a feminist shows them that it is not true, then you have a teaching oppertunity. Hence Patrick Stewert's shirt. A feminist is not a unshaved, butch, bald, flannel wear, dirty work boot scuffing, man hating feminazi. It's a man or woman just like Patrick Stewert. He didn't even have to talk to someone about feminism, they just had to read his shirt. Changing the name of a thing does not change the thing. "A rose by any other..." yadda yadda yadda. Don't change the name just to get away from the negative view point, that is just taking the easy way out. Fight the negative view point and you educate at the same time.

Very nicely expressed with great examples.

Whenever I am personally critical of something (in a seriously genuine way) I always try to address the best arguments and go the hard route. I mean if I want something to change or argue against a point I like to address the best arguments and or positions, the educated and intelligent stances. Don't take the easy way out I agree with firmly.

Yeah, I think that's basically what @lykopis and my pastor-to-be friend were saying, and as the days have gone by I'll admit I've continued to think about it. The "teaching opportunity" is a really great point. It gives an opportunity not just to dismiss extreme hypocrites but to actively and thoughtfully present my own values.

The critic in me can't help noting this is actually the opposite of Juliet's point, though. To say "a rose by any other name would smell would smell as sweet" is actually the equalist position, for it suggests that you can continue to believe in women's rights under a different, less unpopular name; Romeo might have fairly responded "yes, but rose takes only four letters to convey an idea which would otherwise be pretty complicated to describe, and besides, it's been sufficient for centuries, so why abandon it now for petty political reasons?"

Not very romantic, but it may have saved both their lives, so...

@akbogert said:

The critic in me can't help noting this is actually the opposite of Juliet's point, though. To say "a rose by any other name would smell would smell as sweet" is actually the equalist position, for it suggests that you can continue to believe in women's rights under a different, less unpopular name; Romeo might have fairly responded "yes, but rose takes only four letters to convey an idea which would otherwise be pretty complicated to describe, and besides, it's been sufficient for centuries, so why abandon it now for petty political reasons?"

Not very romantic, but it may have saved both their lives, so...

Save their lives both but also you can tell that Juliet isn't in the flower business with advertising and packaging and commercials and product placement and all that. Heh heh. Could you imagine the money, time and manpower involved with rebranding? **grin**

The rose thing also reminds me of parmesan cheese, since its scent when grated for many can smell like something not as nice smelling as grated parmesan cheese if that association is positive to you. Juliet and Romeo would have never worked out really... ^_^

@muhabba said:

Why change the name from feminist or Christian just because other people believe the definition to be something other then what it is? If people believe the wrong definition than you should use it as an oppertunity to educate people. The Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK can call themselves Christian all they want, it doesn't make it true. The sterotypical Feminazi can be people's first impression when they here the word feminist but if a feminist shows them that it is not true, then you have a teaching oppertunity. Hence Patrick Stewert's shirt. A feminist is not a unshaved, butch, bald, flannel wear, dirty work boot scuffing, man hating feminazi. It's a man or woman just like Patrick Stewert. He didn't even have to talk to someone about feminism, they just had to read his shirt. Changing the name of a thing does not change the thing. "A rose by any other..." yadda yadda yadda. Don't change the name just to get away from the negative view point, that is just taking the easy way out. Fight the negative view point and you educate at the same time.

Lovely. Seems pretty straight forward to me as well.

@akbogert said:

Yeah, I think that's basically what @lykopis and my pastor-to-be friend were saying, and as the days have gone by I'll admit I've continued to think about it. The "teaching opportunity" is a really great point. It gives an opportunity not just to dismiss extreme hypocrites but to actively and thoughtfully present my own values.

The critic in me can't help noting this is actually the opposite of Juliet's point, though. To say "a rose by any other name would smell would smell as sweet" is actually the equalist position, for it suggests that you can continue to believe in women's rights under a different, less unpopular name; Romeo might have fairly responded "yes, but rose takes only four letters to convey an idea which would otherwise be pretty complicated to describe, and besides, it's been sufficient for centuries, so why abandon it now for petty political reasons?"

Not very romantic, but it may have saved both their lives, so...

The "contrarian" in me says differently. While a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, it does well to recall the scent is still a rose's scent and while equally as pleasing, it still is distinctive in its origin. Feminism began because there was and still is an inequality relating directly with the gender. Identifying oneself as a feminist now is in acknowledgment of that reality so to reject it outright based on nomenclature or misinformed definition of the term makes no sense to me outside of a unexpressed or unrealized aversion to the word itself.

I call myself an abolitionist. When people people think of abolitionism, they think of African slavery in the Americas and Western Europe so to hear the term used now might be a bit jarring and confusing since slavery of that type has ended in these countries. However, abolitionism is the movement to end slavery in all its forms and human-trafficking (sex trade/children soldiers etc) is still very much alive. Should we tell groups who are working to end these horrors they should consider themselves equalists since at its core, its all about equal rights for every human being? Of course not and while many people might say the feminism movement isn't equal to efforts made to end child slavery, they are wrong. Half those children are female and most sex trade workers trafficked are mostly women and same in terms of women sent overseas for work, "indentured" to people who don't plan on releasing them. These are feminist issues as well.

Maybe my issue here is that when I think of feminism, I don't think of my own country -- I see it globally as I do everything else. Someone in my country hears the word "feminism" and might picture rabid man-haters while someone in Saudi Arabia hears the word and pictures females going to school alongside a males and driving cars and reacts just as repulsed. Use the term "equalist" and these same people would react differently to each other and this is why feminism is still relevant and important today.

@lykopis: I'm down with whatever she says. Unless it's against me them I'm not down with it.

Exits thread.

@SC said:

Comic fan = Male man child, often making death threats against comic writers when they kill off a character or retcon that character.

Atheist = Lacks morals and ethics, views nothing wrong about killing or raping since nothing matters anyway, pretentious and stuck up and think they know everything about everything.

Christian = homophobic and anti woman, and intolerant of muslims and jews and buddhists and Thor. If they aren't married probably molests children.

Humanist = Thinks that there is nothing wrong with ripping off elephants tusks and using them as weapons to impale dolphins and gorillas to death before wearing their skins as trophies of humanities superiority! Often punches computers for looking like a robot and calculating faster than most humans.

Homosexual = wears leather and oil all day every day and if they aren't having kinky sex they are thinking about having kinky sex, with your straight children.

Feminist = Wants to wear male genitals as earrings and ensure girls get best spots in colleges, businesses and currently trying to retroactively insert video imagery of another woman into the old 90's TV show Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place, so the show can be renamed Two Guys, and Two Girls and a Pizza Place. However Subway is supporting them if they can manage to change the shows name to Two Guys, and Two Girls and a Subway Place. Eat fresh! Yum!

Well I use to be a Homosexual Atheist Christian Humanist Feminist Comic fan, but those things are different now. So I am not those things. Plus I had a lot of self conflict. Plus I was very critical of myself, and rather address the criticisms about myself in a intelligent, and direct, reasonable way, tackle, address, discuss the best arguments, best discussions, best reasons, sincerely as to progress, I have decided that the easiest thing to do is actually just address the easiest and most simple challenges. I mean why address the most valid and intelligent points of a person when I can just paint them as some irrational negative member of an extremist group who wants to eat children and oppress others. Well, unless you know you are actually addressing the sincere groups that want to sincerely eat children and sincerely oppress others but even there the fun is in the details.

Anyway so right now, I am a Neo Tropical Omniasexual Deity Decider Ultra Humanite Male Reductionist Graphic Novel Enthusiast, at least for the next five minutes or so, then all my hard work at furthering my goals and agendas will be tainted by those who have read my post and associated me with the weaker and less valid members of the Neo Tropical Omniasexual Deity Decider Ultra Humanite Male Reductionist Graphic Novel Enthusiasts.

What is this referencing to?

@mrdecepticonleader said:

What is this referencing to?

Oh heh heh I tend to reference a lot of things in my overblown and over winded posts ^_^ - did you have anything specific in mind or reference? The overall theme is addressing labels/definitions.

@SC said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

What is this referencing to?

Oh heh heh I tend to reference a lot of things in my overblown and over winded posts ^_^ - did you have anything specific in mind or reference? The overall theme is addressing labels/definitions.

Okay was just wondering.I was going to ask a question then I realized it didn't need asking.

I was going to post a response since my name was mentioned in the OP but I kind of expressed my views on the term and whatnot in the other thread in a debate with another user.

There is an awful lot of feminist threads for a forum with like 8 females on it.

@Vance Astro: I agree. I wonder why that is ?

@Vance Astro: I agree. I wonder why that is ?

@Vance Astro said:

@Nelomaxwell said:

@Vance Astro: I agree. I wonder why that is ?

I don't have a clue.

AHEM

Perhaps its because its a topic in which everyone takes an interest in?

Why would you need to be a female to be interested or female to create a thread?

Unless I completely missed your point, Mr. Vance.

Pretty much sums up my views.

@Vance Astro said:

There is an awful lot of feminist threads for a forum with like 8 females on it.

As was pointedly argued by an earlier photograph of the revered Patrick Stewart, femininity is hardly prerequisite to feminism.

@lykopis: I'm actually pretty confused, not by what you said, but by what I said with which you take issue. Romeo, I felt, echoed your sentiments in my example, and quite reasonably so.

@Vance Astro said:

There is an awful lot of feminist threads for a forum with like 8 females on it.

Eight? That is an exaggeration since I think I am following around eight female users and they are no where near all the female users on here.There are actually quite a few female users on here.

@mrdecepticonleader: You actually prompted me to count! At least 19. Some of the others I am following might be girls, and I have by no means met even a quarter of the people here, to the extent where I could be confident of their gender - or as confident as one can be over the internet. We're definitely here :D

@BumpyBoo said:

@mrdecepticonleader: You actually prompted me to count! At least 19. Some of the others I am following might be girls, and I have by no means met even a quarter of the people here, to the extent where I could be confident of their gender - or as confident as one can be over the internet. We're definitely here :D

Yep :)

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Pretty much sums up my views.

Seriously?

He starts off with an assumption --- then continues with an assumption, then another --- then continues with generalisations and then draws comparisons between issues he reduces to such simplistic bases that it null and voids any real statistics or reality in relation to perceived issues?

Sorry --- I got about half way through before I had to stop. It's sad. Very. You have the right to your opinion but if it any way mirrors this guy's -- then I pretty much have no motivation to carry a discussion with you or anyone else who feels the same.

@akbogert said:

@Vance Astro said:

There is an awful lot of feminist threads for a forum with like 8 females on it.

As was pointedly argued by an earlier photograph of the revered Patrick Stewart, femininity is hardly prerequisite to feminism.

@lykopis: I'm actually pretty confused, not by what you said, but by what I said with which you take issue. Romeo, I felt, echoed your sentiments in my example, and quite reasonably so.

lol - no, what I meant to say is that a rose is a rose --- by any other name is still worth fighting for not just because of the simplicity of continuing with the moniker, but because of what the term "feminism" evokes in some people. It's not so much historical respect, but what the term still means. In Canada (where I am from) I am confident in saying I am allowed -- by law --- to drive a vehicle, go to school with men etc. And this is due to feminism. In Saudi Arabia, there is no such rights -- by law -- and so feminism takes on a real meaning there, in the way it was intended.

Just me on my soap box I guess. I got what you said --- just wanted to pontificate a bit more because its fun on here. So many ruffled feathers. ;p

Edit: I went back to watch it. And it got worse. @mrdecepticonleader -- words fail. I guess in this instance, its a good thing (for me) that I don't view someone based on only one opinion as compared to the rest they express. Because, wow --- this is pretty bad.

Eh, I'm somewhat of a feminist I guess.

I mean I'm not in people's face about it(I try not to be with any of my personal views) but I certainly think woman should have equal rights in all areas.

For instance I get the logic behind why women get paid less on average, but I still think it's stupid and shouldn't be the case.

@lykopis:Watch the whole video.The later part of the video is kind of more of the reason I posted it.If you don't want to fine,and I mainly posted it because I don't really feel like discussing it again.But I thought I would post something anyway.

I just felt he was right about quite a few things.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN!!!!!

Women should have to do selective service too.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@lykopis:Watch the whole video.The later part of the video is kind of more of the reason I posted it.If you don't want to fine,and I mainly posted it because I don't really feel like discussing it again.But I thought I would post something anyway.

I just felt he was right about quite a few things.

I did watch the rest (I edited my post to say so) and it got worse. Everything I have ever posted on this site was directly in opposition to what he claimed and I agree --- it's getting tired if anyone feels they are only repeating themselves because to do so means you don't feel like you are being heard.

Understood. You feel he was right about quite a few things. I know he was wrong about all of it.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN!!!!!

Women should have to do selective service too.

Damn straight. And it's going to happen --- for the US anyway, although for all the noise that's going around about having combat positions open to female soldiers, it will still take until 2016 for it to be implemented. I am pretty sure other countries have it in place already.