Feminism and why it's bad.

And Randi Harper is a feminist.

/edit:
Although I don't exactly see why the article mentions Gamergate in that? The Gat0rs are not the only enemies she made on the Internet, they're just the most recent.

/edit2:

Now that's some proper empowerment back in 2013. This style of protest doesn't seem to have caught on so far, though.
Seriously though, it's a lot of fun trying to read up on ALL the sides of the story and trying to disentangle all the lies and pieces of disinformation on both sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Third wave feminism is a joke.

When we want to bring western ideals of gender equality to the middle east, Where women have no rights under sharia law and actually minorities are targeted by Islamic groups.

Let me know, I'll have your 100% support.

But you may not find me, as in the time that happens my remains will be nothing more than skeletal husk.
 
People fighting for gender equality in the west means that they don't want gender equality elsewhere, now?
 
The post clearly says that bringing "western ideals of gender equality to the middle east, Where women have no rights under sharia law and actually minorities are targeted by Islamic groups" is not something third-wave feminism wants.
 
I think a big issue many people have with Third Wave/Postmodern/Internet Feminism is that especially the Internet activists mostly focus on what's immediately accessible to them, i.e. stuff like "micro aggressions" and other things that are seen as mostly pointless to the broad masses.
It's not that they don't want to help those who are oppressed in the Middle East (and they probably do help them, too), but
a) Not much can be done from the West
b) What can be done is so little that it's being drowned out by their work in the West.
It turns out you can care about many things at the same time.

My biggest problem is that this sort of postmodern feminism is utterly terrible at conveying what they actually want and do. It's a very varied movement, but all ave in common that their PR departements are utter shite.
Most of the material is unreadable (sometimes even on purpose, for example by arbitrarily adding underscores and asterisks, or using no caps and random italics), and there's no effort to actually make it understandable to people without a background in postmodern philosophy. The heavy use of arbitrarily redefined words is a perfect example of what's wrong. Most people, for example, know the textbook definition of racism to be something like "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (online Merriam-Webster definition). Certain parts of postmodern feminism simply use the word "racism", but actually mean a different concept based on privilege (itself a word that is used in a slightly different way everyone else uses it), oppression and whatnot. The problem is that those texts require a large amount of prior knowledge, but nobody knows that there is actually a requirement because they use common words in uncommon ways. Naming conventions are there for a reason. You can't just write a scientific paper on, say, the Quantum Hall Effect and use "conductivity" in a non-standard way without explicitly defining it. It just leads to unnecessary confusion.

I want to like modern feminism, because there's still a lot of stuff to improve. But the actual execution of the modern movement is mostly shite. I blame the Internet.
 
Also note that the notion that women live under sharia law in the middle east is largely untrue ("the middle east" is not a monolith), and that they have "no rights" is also inaccurate. In any case, most of modern feminism thinks the best way to support oppressed women in other spheres is not by bringing them "western ideals", because that shit has backfired a gazillion times by now and is also pretty damn paternalistic, but by supporting activists who live and work in those regions.

@Hassknecht: A lot of words have different meanings in different contexts, and especially for people in specific backgrounds. Jargon exists. If some non-physicist approached you and insisted that Newtonian gravity was the only way the word "gravity" should be used and that quantum gravity should just find a different term to use, that'd rightly be dismissed. Not only is it largely irrelevant, it is also completely impossible given the historical development of the term and its usage. The history and usage of "racism" also has very little to do with feminism as is: it's a consequence of sociology and critical theory half a century old, mostly not intersecting with feminism. Academic work, that is.

Beyond that, the fact that most people equate racism with racial prejudice alone, rather than with a system of power relations that enforces hierarchy and difference, is part of the problem. It obscures the actual harm caused by racism and instead focuses on the feelings and intent of the person enacting racism. It centers racism on "is the perpetrator a good person" rather than "are people being harmed, and how does this work". The former allows the latter to be constantly sidestepped by insisting that "it was just a joke" and "I didn't mean it that way" and "you're so easily offended." In the extreme form, racism has even come to mean simply pointing out someone's race -- which means that when those in power are confronted with their racial privilege, they get to cry "racist" because someone pointed out the realities of racial hierarchies. The inclusion of power in modern definitions of racism (as well as the concept of privilege) are a deliberate reaction to that sidestepping, an effort to counteract those developments in the interpretation of racism. It is a way to force people to come to terms with the hierarchy and power relations inherent in race, that it is not just the marking of difference but something more sinister.
 
Sander said:
People fighting for gender equality in the west means that they don't want gender equality elsewhere, now?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Gender equality? Like what, Fighting for man spreading? Seriously? If that is the best excuse for the use for the need of the current feminist cult. Then i do hope it gets demolished.

While we are all complaining about how women in the west have it so hard, Play professional victims and have patrons to make some money on the side. REAL females denied of education and freedoms and liberties that are unalienable. They are being forced to cover their entire bodies up and are abused on a constant basis. As a woman. I feel my duty would be best put there. Not bullshit that most of not all don't exist.
 
Sander said:
Also note that the notion that women live under sharia law in the middle east is largely untrue ("the middle east" is not a monolith), and that they have "no rights" is also inaccurate. In any case, most of modern feminism thinks the best way to support oppressed women in other spheres is not by bringing them "western ideals", because that shit has backfired a gazillion times by now and is also pretty damn paternalistic, but by supporting activists who live and work in those regions.

@Hassknecht: A lot of words have different meanings in different contexts, and especially for people in specific backgrounds. Jargon exists. If some non-physicist approached you and insisted that Newtonian gravity was the only way the word "gravity" should be used and that quantum gravity should just find a different term to use, that'd rightly be dismissed. Not only is it largely irrelevant, it is also completely impossible given the historical development of the term and its usage. The history and usage of "racism" also has very little to do with feminism as is: it's a consequence of sociology and critical theory half a century old, mostly not intersecting with feminism. Academic work, that is.

Beyond that, the fact that most people equate racism with racial prejudice alone, rather than with a system of power relations that enforces hierarchy and difference, is part of the problem. It obscures the actual harm caused by racism and instead focuses on the feelings and intent of the person enacting racism. It centers racism on "is the perpetrator a good person" rather than "are people being harmed, and how does this work". The former allows the latter to be constantly sidestepped by insisting that "it was just a joke" and "I didn't mean it that way" and "you're so easily offended." In the extreme form, racism has even come to mean simply pointing out someone's race -- which means that when those in power are confronted with their racial privilege, they get to cry "racist" because someone pointed out the realities of racial hierarchies. The inclusion of power in modern definitions of racism (as well as the concept of privilege) are a deliberate reaction to that sidestepping, an effort to counteract those developments in the interpretation of racism. It is a way to force people to come to terms with the hierarchy and power relations inherent in race, that it is not just the marking of difference but something more sinister.
Click to expand...


You can try to rationalize bronze age beliefs from a bygone culture all you want.

Oh, The moral relativism needs to stop. The Middle east IS forcing Minorities and women to either believe in our way or most likely be attacked. Isis killing minority groups, As has even state sanctioned governments in the past. Aka Taliban. Saudi Arabia is gross violator of human rights. Such as homosexuality is a sin and lashes them/imprisonment. I could go on and on, But again i'm talking to someone who clearly can't even agree that middle east violates the rights of women. So, I'd might as well being talking to a wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai Woman who fight the Taliban while people are talking about White privilege.


Oh, Quoting Richard Dawkins when i say this, in relations to islamic culture in middle east that is the problem. "To hell with their culture."
 
Hassknecht said:
I think a big issue many people have with Third Wave/Postmodern/Internet Feminism is that especially the Internet activists mostly focus on what's immediately accessible to them, i.e. stuff like "micro aggressions" and other things that are seen as mostly pointless to the broad masses.
It's not that they don't want to help those who are oppressed in the Middle East (and they probably do help them, too), but
a) Not much can be done from the West
b) What can be done is so little that it's being drowned out by their work in the West.
It turns out you can care about many things at the same time.

My biggest problem is that this sort of postmodern feminism is utterly terrible at conveying what they actually want and do. It's a very varied movement, but all ave in common that their PR departements are utter shite.
Most of the material is unreadable (sometimes even on purpose, for example by arbitrarily adding underscores and asterisks, or using no caps and random italics), and there's no effort to actually make it understandable to people without a background in postmodern philosophy. The heavy use of arbitrarily redefined words is a perfect example of what's wrong. Most people, for example, know the textbook definition of racism to be something like "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (online Merriam-Webster definition). Certain parts of postmodern feminism simply use the word "racism", but actually mean a different concept based on privilege (itself a word that is used in a slightly different way everyone else uses it), oppression and whatnot. The problem is that those texts require a large amount of prior knowledge, but nobody knows that there is actually a requirement because they use common words in uncommon ways. Naming conventions are there for a reason. You can't just write a scientific paper on, say, the Quantum Hall Effect and use "conductivity" in a non-standard way without explicitly defining it. It just leads to unnecessary confusion.

I want to like modern feminism, because there's still a lot of stuff to improve. But the actual execution of the modern movement is mostly shite. I blame the Internet.
Click to expand...



You know, the west can and has done a lot in the past in different situations. In the 70's President Carter was able to broker peace between Israeli and Egypt. A Muslim nation and a Jewish nations. That is quite a feet. Also, When the soviet unition and the cold war. West and East turned to diplomacy, Argued Dente' Or Cuban Missile crisis. The united States and by the extension of the west clearly can do a lot more than what it is doing.

As Sam Harris said. "War of Ideas" That is what needs to be planted in the Muslim world. We need to criticize bad ideas, that they follow due to their culture. We as human beings have the power of compassion and we can make others in or lives better or worse on our actions. It's best if we use our big influence to also help those REALLY in need.

Oh, I almost forgot lol. The iran nuclear deal also is a big achievement thanks to diplomacy.
 
Buxbaum666 said:
The post clearly says that bringing "western ideals of gender equality to the middle east, Where women have no rights under sharia law and actually minorities are targeted by Islamic groups" is not something third-wave feminism wants.
Click to expand...



Clearly that isn't what Third wave feminism wants. They just want to petition the United Nations about being "Harassed" online. Who are they going to bring next? Sarah Nyberg who is a known Pedophile?

I digress, It's important to realize real problems in our own culture and when people are cherry picking and fabricating reasons for self-centered agendas. In the middle east, Rape is punishment. In the west, It's a crime. That kind of mentality is what i think feminist need to focus on.
 
TransgenderVaultDeweller said:
Yeah, Gender equality? Like what, Fighting for man spreading? Seriously? If that is the best excuse for the use for the need of the current feminist cult. Then i do hope it gets demolished.
Click to expand...
Like correcting the gender pay gap, like fighting persistent sexual assault, like fighting for the right to define your gender how you wish, like fighting continued gender discrimination in the workplace, like fighting rape, like educating people on sexual consent, like expanding possible gender roles, like changing the fact that women spend far more time on household chores even when both partners are working the same hours, like trying to change the fact that women are taken far less seriously, like pointing out constant microaggressions, like fighting inherent inequality in romantic relationships and, yes, like pointing out that men take up lots of space on public transport unnecessarily.

Sure, some of these issues are more serious than others. And some feminists support some of them while not supporting others. It's a varied movement. But pointing to the least serious issues and then taking that as the sum total of modern feminism is not a very good reason to dismiss the movement as a whole. It shows zero serious engagement with what feminists actually do.


I agree with you that there's a lot of gender equality in the middle east, and there's a lot of violence against and oppression of minorities and women there. What I am pointing out, though, is that blaming this on "sharia law" (a very vague concept with multiple interpretations) is largely incorrect, and that calling the situations in those countries one of "no rights" is inaccurate because of the diversity (and vague definition) in the middle east. For instance, many feminists who live in the middle east will point out that they are Muslim and do not oppose sharia law, but simply want to change it. It's important to be specific here, because vague shouting about "women are being oppressed in the middle east" has been used over and over and over again to justify imperialistic violence.

More importantly, my point was not that that does not need to change, but that trying to impose western ideals through imperialism keeps on backfiring (in fact, western imperialism has historically contributed to oppression of women and especially queer people). Most feminists these days want to enact change in the middle east and other countries to which they don't belong not by running in and forcing top-down change, but by supporting local activists. Because those activists know best what is needed, and are best-equipped to enact change within the culture within which they live.

Finally, none of that impacts the validity of modern-day feminism in Western countries. It is possible for gender inequality to persist in Western countries while being worse elsewhere, and fighting one does not mean you are blind to the other. Moreover, the cry of "but middle eastern women" is often used not to actually support those women, but to shut down anything that tries to address gender equality in the west (or to justify discrimination of and violence against muslims). In a lot of modern discourse, it is nothing but a red herring.



Also, please use the edit button instead of triple posting.


EDIT: Oh you're a gamergater. That's a shame.
 
36a56f0460.png
 
Sander said:
TransgenderVaultDeweller said:
Yeah, Gender equality? Like what, Fighting for man spreading? Seriously? If that is the best excuse for the use for the need of the current feminist cult. Then i do hope it gets demolished.
Click to expand...
Like correcting the gender pay gap, like fighting persistent sexual assault, like fighting for the right to define your gender how you wish, like fighting continued gender discrimination in the workplace, like fighting rape, like educating people on sexual consent, like expanding possible gender roles, like changing the fact that women spend far more time on household chores even when both partners are working the same hours, like trying to change the fact that women are taken far less seriously, like pointing out constant microaggressions, like fighting inherent inequality in romantic relationships and, yes, like pointing out that men take up lots of space on public transport unnecessarily.

Sure, some of these issues are more serious than others. And some feminists support some of them while not supporting others. It's a varied movement. But pointing to the least serious issues and then taking that as the sum total of modern feminism is not a very good reason to dismiss the movement as a whole. It shows zero serious engagement with what feminists actually do.


I agree with you that there's a lot of gender equality in the middle east, and there's a lot of violence against and oppression of minorities and women there. What I am pointing out, though, is that blaming this on "sharia law" (a very vague concept with multiple interpretations) is largely incorrect, and that calling the situations in those countries one of "no rights" is inaccurate because of the diversity (and vague definition) in the middle east. For instance, many feminists who live in the middle east will point out that they are Muslim and do not oppose sharia law, but simply want to change it. It's important to be specific here, because vague shouting about "women are being oppressed in the middle east" has been used over and over and over again to justify imperialistic violence.

More importantly, my point was not that that does not need to change, but that trying to impose western ideals through imperialism keeps on backfiring (in fact, western imperialism has historically contributed to oppression of women and especially queer people). Most feminists these days want to enact change in the middle east and other countries to which they don't belong not by running in and forcing top-down change, but by supporting local activists. Because those activists know best what is needed, and are best-equipped to enact change within the culture within which they live.

Finally, none of that impacts the validity of modern-day feminism in Western countries. It is possible for gender inequality to persist in Western countries while being worse elsewhere, and fighting one does not mean you are blind to the other. Moreover, the cry of "but middle eastern women" is often used not to actually support those women, but to shut down anything that tries to address gender equality in the west (or to justify discrimination of and violence against muslims). In a lot of modern discourse, it is nothing but a red herring.



Also, please use the edit button instead of triple posting.


EDIT: Oh you're a gamergater. That's a shame.
Click to expand...
There actually isn't a pay gap. I think that's been proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top