hopelesslyInvo
Posts: 522
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: the future
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
a term like feminism can be very broad, but it's still a centralized and focused idea/theory.
I'd disagree. It's been through multiple metamorphoses in the last century. There are many variations. I wouldn't say, therefore, it's a centralised and focused idea/theory - except in terms of fundamental principles, like those of liberty and equality.
i'd doubly disagree; take whatever amount of views... i don't care if they're in the thousand, those thousand views are the localized idea that "it" as a whole pertains to. feminism is definitely not so amazingly broad that it coincides with chauvinism, art appreciation, christianity, or the ideas held for proper business management. you can stuff one word full of as many definitions as you want, it'll never mean anything, but eventually lose all meaning. but regardless, it's not so big that you can just go "meh, they're a feminist even if they don't really care all that much about feminist ideals compared to others".
feminism is a central idea, and as broad as it may be under one light, it's not even broad enough to even encompass the same issues it covers for women in regards to those same issues when present for concerns of race, age, etc.
I agree that a word can end up meaning so many things that it can mean almost nothing. But I didn't say this. I said that feminism concerns itself with liberty for women and equality with men. Presumably, you think this is too broad a definition? How would you define 'feminism'?
call me crazy, but it seems like you've suddenly forgotten i'm the one saying it's a localized idea and you've been the one saying it's a it's so wide-ranging and encompassing. i think feminism is pretty simple myself, you are the one backing that it is not. you've said it's not even a central idea except in terms of fundamental principles of liberty and equality, which it is... but here's that central part you keep missing "for women".
consulting wonderful ol' webster... feminism is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes; and organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.
what? a "theory" that may or may not be put into practice AND organized activity on behalf of women's rights?
you mean to say even almighty webster is stating it takes more than just "believing" in women's equality and rights to make one a feminist?
why yes, yes it is.
quote:
quote:
recalling... i already stated that i was a feminist.
i could however cite something else in order to exemplify what you're asking if i that wasn't the case; like how i don't believe gays should be able to get married, but that they should be allowed 'a union' with the same legal benefits and so forth that married couples get, which is all they really have to complain is lacking; which would make all but the whiniest happy and without sullying what is a coveted religious practice that joins a man and a woman under GOD, a god who happens to have a very big problem with gay couples.
since assuming that 'the majority of people will wish for the equal treatment of both genders' is enough for you to figure you can say next to everyone isn't a hardcore supremacist must then be a feminist; what i've just said is far more than enough for you to "suppose" that i'm both a gay activist/supporter and an activist/supporter of the church.
No, to repeat: for me, a person who supports equality and freedom for women may be called a feminist. An activist, for most (including me), implies more of an active role. Similarly, a socialist may be someone who may be actively involved in campaigning for socialism, or he/she may be someone who just supports the aims of socialism. If that only means voting once every four or five years for a party that adheres to socialist ideas and not, say, conservative ideas, then that is still doing something to support socialism.
what do you think "support" means that is so different from "active"?
are you telling me if i consult webster again that it won't say "a supporter acts on behalf" and "an activist supports on behalf" of an issue or theory?
feminism is a defined term itself. it implies you do more than sit on your ass "in agreement"; however for people who back up religious and sexual theories or much of anything else, there is no predefined term with an "ism/ist" at the end of it other than "__________ activist"/"__________ activism", or if the word bothers you so much "___________ supporter".
lets change the definition of feminism to work for this example and take homosexual freedom as the factor.
__________ is the theory of the political, economic, and social indemnity of all sexual orientations; and organized activity on behalf of homosexual/bisexual's rights and interests.
can you fill in that blank? homosexism? whatever-i-wanna-fuckism? penis-goes-anywhere-you-please'ism?
no. what goes in that blank is "gay/lesbian" rights supporter/activist.
yes, i would agree that there is a difference between at least the connotation or implications between "supporter" and "activist", but i also agree these two words are interchangeable and a person marching in a parade could be said to be either of them.
the guy sitting at home that says "i don't care what gays do so long as they don't bother me" is no more of a "gay rights supporter" than someone who sits on their ass saying "i believe in women's equality with men" but never does anything on behalf of those beliefs is a damn feminist.
"believing" in god doesn't get you to heaven, "believing" the son of god died for humanity's sins doesn't make you a christian, "believing" women's equality with men doesn't make you a feminist, "believing" gays can do as they please so long as it doesn't infer with me doesn't make you a gay rights supporter.
it takes more than agreeing [or not disagreeing] with the "ideas and theorys" of feminism to be a feminist; it takes more than agreeing you should be taking care of your son to be a father.
and no, i'm not saying you need to go marching in protests waving picket signs in order to be.
but yes, if you are a feminist or you do support gays or religious views/theorys, then you need to do more than sit on your ass "NOT supporting" in order to be.
quote:
quote:
i'm no more of a gay/religious supporter/activist than a guy that thinks "yeah, women might as well be able to have the same rights as men" is a feminist.
the reason i'm a feminist is because i take interest in women, i am concerned about women, and i am affected by them; sooooooo i will support them, i will stand behind them and stand up for them; i'd do a lot of things in regards to them.
not because i simply have no qualms with their interest, or because i'm sympathetic with their interests, but because i SHARE their interests.
You come dangerously close with that 'i'd do a lot of things in regards to them' to saying you're a feminist activist. ( If so, well . . . good!) But when a movement's goals reach a certain point of acceptance in wider society it tends not to need so many activists.
1. i do what i think is right in my eyes.
2. in my eyes, getting closer to a goal is no reason to stop pushing as hard as ever when it's still not being met.
3. just because you finally connect a bridge doesn't mean you can take out its support without it falling again. look how damn much "we" have to "support" freedom in order to have an ounce of it in a country that was made free hundreds of years ago with unanimous support.
4. this is akin to planting seeds and never watering them but expecting continuous harvests; it takes work to plant it, and it will always take continued work to keep it from withering or being uprooted.
5. just because you reach a goal and no longer have need for the "movement", doesn't mean shit in terms of not needing supporters ACTIVELY willing to make sure that goal stays secure.
as if we'd simply "stop" being feminists because women did finally have full equality with men? as if hitler would stop being fascist or active just because his goal was met? as if someone is going to simply stop being communist because they get elected and changed a law or two? as if being free once means it will forever be assured?
quote:
quote:
nazis were germans who operated under hitler's command, meaning they supported him, and he supported them. you saying "i support hitler" doesn't do much of anything to make you german, to make you someone who works under hitlers command, or make him accepting of you doing so.
Nazism can, for some, refer to the philosophy of national socialism and there are those who self-identify as Nazis for that reason alone. Still, my bad for using that particular example and thus raising the risk of someone falling foul of Godwin's Law. Perhaps we should stick to examples we on this forum all know and 'love' - terms like 'gentleman' or 'lady'. Should everyone who appears on this forum saying he is a 'gentleman' always be accepted as such? I doubt it.
what you're referring to is "neo-nazism", which is a social/political movement emphasizing the core aspects of nazism; simply you CAN'T HAVE nazism or BE a nazi WITHOUT a hitler.
just as you said...
"My point was that if you do satisfy those conditions, then - for many people - you are a feminist."
and here say
"if I support Hitler and his basic views, I'd say that people have the right to call me a Nazi whether or not I choose to label myself that way."
"Nazism can, for some, refer to the philosophy of national socialism and there are those who self-identify as Nazis for that reason alone."
i'm saying no; though it's true that all of these are things people do, it doesn't do shit to make it true. just because people are ignorant, fools, liars, deluded, misguided, flat out stupid, wish for them to be true, or say them to be insulting; it doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of whether it's true, and whether or not a person is or isn't something.
just because someone doesn't know the definition of fascist, doesn't mean they have any right, merit, or truth in their words when calling other fascists a nazi. if they don't know the definition for either or both of these words it's their own fault for ending up looking stupid, not the fault of the person who they're trying to pin the label on.
the same is true for calling or MISLABELING someone a feminist
also don't forget that in accordance to Godwin's law that whoever invokes it is said to lose the debate; but that's all in good humor.
quote:
quote:
it's like i said before, bit's and pieces aren't enough, assumptions aren't enough, and even having everything you would potentially need in order to be "something" doesn't mean you are that "something".
I'm not sure what that means. If a creature only potentially has four legs and a trunk, isn't it still an elephant?
what isn't clear? what possibly isn't clear?
do i need to define the difference between "potentially" and "actuality" for you?
if a creature only "potentially" has four legs and a trunk, that means it "potentially" does not and that you don't KNOW what it has for sure. so when you say "it's still an elephant" you've done nothing more than to make yet another assumption, and once again to also believe your assumption possesses relevance to the actuality of what it is.
say you overheard me talking about an animal [not even a "creature" or something that might make you think i'm talking of fictional ones] and heard me say that for a FACT that this animal has 4 legs and a long trunk; and this is something you know to be truth, an actuality, not potentially or possibly... it indisputably has 4 legs and a truck...
the moment you go "oh, hey guys, why are you talking about elephants hehe?", i'm completely justified in saying a lot of things to you, but perhaps most justified in saying...
*sigh* a trunk is a common term for torso, and if you think about how many things have four legs and a torso and the only conclusion you were capable of coming to when you heard me say that was "oh he must definitely be talking about an elephant" you have shown the actuality of your 'lack of understanding' rather than me just being aware that you might "potentially" lack understanding.
truth isn't told, it's realized.
and like i said, it's your fault for not knowing or possessing a clear understanding of the definitions of the words; not mine.
if you can't figure out that when something potentially has a trunk and four legs means it might potentially not have these things at all...
if you can't figure out that when something absolutely has a trunk and four legs means it might STILL potentially be a jackass and not an elephant...
i can at least hope you are potentially able see how damn different a donkey and an elephant can be, even if you don't vote for one or its opposite yourself.
if you can appreciate how wrong your assumptions have been even when you were going by actualities and not just possibilities you can hopefully understand how simple it is to come to the realization that "belief in women's equality with men" has led you to make the wrong assumption about what someone is several times over.
no doubt there might be a lot of things we'd like to call each other, and i'm willing to bet they too have little relevance or actuality to them. considering how much we know of each other, and how little you know about the people you call feminists; that's something worth noting.
quote:
quote:
it takes more than passive indifference, agreement, or sympathy for someone's cause to join or be a part of a cause.
Not in politics, it doesn't. This is why the phrase 'if you're not with us, you're against us' is so common in that particular game. And that oft-quoted line, 'for evil to succeed all it takes is for good men to do nothing'. It's these sorts of sentiments that have been, in part, behind Angela McRobbie's and others' attacks on the indifference of many of those who've called themselves 'post-feminists'. One doesn't always need to do much, but one does need to do something.
your informal fallacy has led you to make many incorrect assumptions.
here we stand with implications that it is taking a side of good or evil is tied into being a feminist or not; rather than being a view of "right and wrong", or "fair and unfair", or "justified and unjustified", etc.
here we are with you saying that we are somehow forced to pick a side at all, and indifference is to pick one or the other.
here we are... 2 guys on a bdsm message board, free to take any side we want including abstaining from any opinion at all, being compared to how politicians are required to state how they feel and how they would vote on topics before we vote on them.
this might have eluded you, but we're not politicians, and we're not having a political debate even if part of our debate is citing someone's political agenda.
but i assure you that, my view of politics and politicians aside....
if any of us were for some reason forced to picked a side, and if picking the side of "righteous" in order to stamp out the chance of success for "evil" means YOU CANNOT BE DOING NOTHING as you just stated in your set of beliefs in regard to our chat of being a feminist; well after you just argued so heavily that i can sit on my ass not acting in support of feminism and that just the "general agreement with feminism's theories" is enough to be a "feminist"... there are fewer easier ways i could completely debunk your entire debate than this.
i can absolutely see why angela or anyone else would attack the indifference of post feminists or many others. they are people who've shown they agree with and accept the idea women's rights and are able to live with it comfortable, but won't get off their ass to do anything when it's compromised; that's why agreement/indifference/sympathy alone is not enough to say someone is a feminist.
you can't say "you don't have to actually be active or do anything in order to be" and then say "to be, you must do" a few paragraphs later in the reply.
and while i don't know the inner workings of the UK, i can assure you in america...
i'm more than able to remain indifferent and abstain.
i'm more than able to agree with but ultimately not join or support a cause.
i'm more than able to have sympathy for someone's aim and likewise show no support.
and i'm more than able to not give a shit one way or the other.
we're not forced to agree with feminism, so when someone does agree with it and THEN freely chooses to be a feminist, saying "but i won't actively support it in order to see anything regarding it through" is not a goddamn part of the equation.
agreeing with ideas that are found in feminism and being a feminist is not the same damn thing; it's not even close.
< Message edited by hopelesslyInvo -- 11/17/2009 6:36:10 AM >
_____________________________
great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
|
RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? - 
Profile
), as is murdering, stealing, etc. etc. that's supposedly what jesus died on a cross for, these and all sins; and while we're all sinners in his eyes, and can have them all washed away and forgiven according to the bible, because yes, he does love us. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread