RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias

RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

domiguy -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 8:38:12 AM)
I believe she was referring to MMercurial.

jujubeeMB -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 8:46:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Madame4a I don't see it... and I'd say perhaps your original statement should include.. "in the heterosexual community... " as its hardly an issue in the dyke community.. Yep. That's what I said. [:)]

porcelaine -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 8:54:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer When you say 'I have always been an advocate for the furtherance of women in society' that, to me, just does make you a feminist. You're not the sort of feminist that you hate or fear, you're a different kind of feminist. This has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with privilege. It really isn't something I can explain. You've either lived it or you haven't. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Well - I did say it tongue in cheek - but since you mention it - Yes, I think that you probably are a feminist by many people's definition. I'm guess I'm having a hard time understanding why you're so opposed to the label? I have no opposition to the label. But I don't allow others to define me either. As I previously mentioned my bias isn't related to feminism. You're free to think as you wish. And I assure you there are many women like myself. They become donors and patrons because they support a cause or want a dandy tax write off instead. ~porcelaine

AsmodaisSin -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 9:38:03 AM)
Well, it depends on your definition on feminism. To me, feminism is the equality of all sexes to one another, and the equal opportunity to make choices in our life. I am a feminist, even if I am a slave, because it was my choice to accept my true nature and embrace who I am. It is my choice to serve and love and worship. I think a lot of the outer circles of the feminist movement have an issue with this.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 11:15:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer When you say 'I have always been an advocate for the furtherance of women in society' that, to me, just does make you a feminist. You're not the sort of feminist that you hate or fear, you're a different kind of feminist. This has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with privilege. It really isn't something I can explain. You've either lived it or you haven't. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject. [;)] OK. Here's one sort of conservative, to start with: She follows in the conservative tradition of Disraeli, most definitely not that of Thatcher. She takes to heart the idea of noblesse oblige - the idea that was fundamental to Disraeli's philosophy in Sybil and his 'One Nation Conservatism'. In Sybil, Disraeli referred back to the French Revolution. France had become, he said, 'two nations' - that of the rich and that of the poor. These two nations needed to be united. It was the duty of the privileged to look after those who were poor. It was the honourable thing, the noble thing, to do. It was on the basis of such principles that Disraeli went on to become, as I said, one of the greatest reforming prime ministers the UK's ever had. As I also mentioned, a feminist is someone who wants to apply more general principles of liberty and equality to a particular case - that of women. One type of feminist would be a conservative, following in that 'One Nation' tradition of Disraeli. Well, that sort of feminist might be someone you'd get on with, or she might not. Up to you. I've already made my decision, as I'm sure you'll have guessed. [;)]

Yourscum -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 11:44:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Perhaps I should have phrased that differently because we seem to be at cross purposes. Feminism can be driven by philanthropy. It'd be nonsense to say otherwise. But you appear to have difficulty understanding that it isn't the motivation behind my philanthropic pursuits. quote: - That would make you a feminist. What I find baffling is why you appear determined to label me. It's peculiar in all truth. I could be a girl with extra change that enjoys spreading that around. There are a lot of possibilities. How strange you limit yourself to this one. ~porcelaine porcelaine, When you say 'I have always been an advocate for the furtherance of women in society' that, to me, just does make you a feminist. You're not the sort of feminist that you hate or fear, you're a different kind of feminist. When you say that you want to help women and children, that makes you a feminist, plus something else (someting creditable, in my book). A person who wants to help all of humanity is someone I'd call a philanthropist. I think your missing porcelains point. She is for EQUALITY, not merely the advancement of women. In many cases, that does mean the advancement of women, but she would also fight for men's rights and equality when they fall behind in something, where as feminists as a whole would not. For example, if someone was in favor of making new laws or scholarships to get more women into college(like title 9 which for some reason is still on the books), that would be the advancement of women, and by your definition you'd call that individual a feminist. But people like porcelain or myself who are for EQUALITY, would be opposed to that, as women already represent 64% of the college populace. For equality, we'd need to focus on getting more men in the classroom, something I have not heard feminists doing. So you'd call a person who wants to get more women into college a feminist, at this point though people who believe in equality would call that person a sexist.

porcelaine -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 11:58:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Well, that sort of feminist might be someone you'd get on with, or she might not. Up to you. I've already made my decision, as I'm sure you'll have guessed. [;)] For me it extends well beyond the poor in all truth. It isn't about leveling the playing field so to speak, but sharing the bounty instead. That doesn't always mean dollars and cents. It could represent assistance in other ways. I am not a hoarder nor threatened by another person's prosperity. If anything it's the reverse. I simply enjoying being a part of that process in anyway that I can. In a larger sense I am my brother's keeper. But I don't limit brotherhood to gender, race, sexuality, or economic background. I give of myself irregardless of these things. quote: ORIGINAL: Yourscum I think your missing porcelains point. She is for EQUALITY, not merely the advancement of women. In many cases, that does mean the advancement of women, but she would also fight for men's rights and equality when they fall behind in something That is correct. [;)] ~porcelaine

solestria -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 12:03:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine For me it extends well beyond the poor in all truth. It isn't about leveling the playing field so to speak, but sharing the bounty instead. That doesn't always mean dollars and cents. It could represent assistance in other ways. I am not a hoarder nor threatened by another person's prosperity. If anything it's the reverse. I simply enjoying being a part of that process in anyway that I can. In a larger sense I am my brother's keeper. But I don't limit brotherhood to gender, race, sexuality, or economic background. I give of myself irregardless of these things. Being a feminist indicates that I am for the equality of women and their rights. It in no way indicates that I'm for those rights to the exclusion of all others, or that I'm unconcerned about the plights of other groups or other forms of injustice. I don't understand why you think it would mean that. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Yourscum I think your missing porcelains point. She is for EQUALITY, not merely the advancement of women. In many cases, that does mean the advancement of women, but she would also fight for men's rights and equality when they fall behind in something That is correct. [;)] ~porcelaine As would I. I am a feminist because I have a sense of justice, and that sense of justice extends beyond the advancement of women. Again, how is this in conflict with feminism?

PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 12:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yourscum I think your missing porcelains point. She is for EQUALITY, not merely the advancement of women. Nope, I got that, Yourscum. Per my definition of feminism in my last comment to you.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 12:14:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Well, that sort of feminist might be someone you'd get on with, or she might not. Up to you. I've already made my decision, as I'm sure you'll have guessed. [;)] For me it extends well beyond the poor in all truth. It isn't about leveling the playing field so to speak, but sharing the bounty instead. OK. I wouldn't have wanted to use the Disraeli example to focus exclusively on wealth, or even on wealth and power. However, I did mean to use that example to convey the idea of equality of outcome ('sharing the bounty') rather than equality of opportunity ('levelling the playing field').

Yourscum -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 12:31:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Yourscum I think your missing porcelains point. She is for EQUALITY, not merely the advancement of women. Nope, I got that, Yourscum. Per my definition of feminism in my last comment to you. My apologies, but I don't think you do get it, because even after it was made clear that she believed in equality, and only wants the advancement of a group when they need it (which includes women but is not exclusive to them), you still called her a feminist because that included women. "I'm sorry to keep repeating the line, but porcelaine said "I have always been an advocate for the furtherance of women in society." People who have that aim are called 'feminists'." You made that statement after your response to me. The advancement of women is not always the advancement of equality, and she believes in equality. If she only believed in the advancement of women, or if she identified as a feminist, then you could call her one, but as it is, no that label is not warranted.

Yourscum -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 12:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: solestria quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Yourscum I think your missing porcelains point. She is for EQUALITY, not merely the advancement of women. In many cases, that does mean the advancement of women, but she would also fight for men's rights and equality when they fall behind in something That is correct. [;)] ~porcelaine As would I. I am a feminist because I have a sense of justice, and that sense of justice extends beyond the advancement of women. Again, how is this in conflict with feminism? Well, the way I see it feminism has become the advancement of women. It doesn't proclude feminists from helping other's, but it doesn't intrinsically include that either. To represent equality, feminists would have to fight for men's right's and status' when men fall behind as well. I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but you don't hear or read about that. To use my previous example, decades ago when women were the slim minority in college title 9 was passed, granting more scholarships to women in an attempt to raise their attendance. This succeeded wildly, and now women represent the majority of the college populace in the states. And yet title nine has not been removed or altered now that women have surpassed men. When women were behind feminists pushed for legislation that would change that, but now that men are the minority in college where's that push for them? As far as I know, there hasn't been one. To believe in equality, you'd have to fight for men as well as women, but as far as I can tell feminists, by in large, are not doing that.

solestria -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 1:00:48 PM)
quote: Well, the way I see it feminism has become the advancement of women. It doesn't proclude feminists from helping other's, but it doesn't intrinsically include that either. To represent equality, feminists would have to fight for men's right's and status' when men fall behind as well. I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but you don't hear or read about that. The reason for this is that men are still in a position of privilege over women, certainly overall. There may be specific examples to the contrary, but women still tend to get the short end of the societal stick, double standards, etc. The balance is closer to equal than it previously had been, but it's not there yet. quote: To use my previous example, decades ago when women were the slim minority in college title 9 was passed, granting more scholarships to women in an attempt to raise their attendance. This succeeded wildly, and now women represent the majority of the college populace in the states. And yet title nine has not been removed or altered now that women have surpassed men. When women were behind feminists pushed for legislation that would change that, but now that men are the minority in college where's that push for them? As far as I know, there hasn't been one. To believe in equality, you'd have to fight for men as well as women, but as far as I can tell feminists, by in large, are not doing that. From what I understand, the main concerns about Title 9 have involved its impact on men's college sports, not on college attendance overall. Since Title 9 states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...", I don't understand how this would lead to a reduction in men's college attendance. Do you have sites to back up what you're saying?

PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 1:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yourscum My apologies, but I don't think you do get it, because even after it was made clear that she believed in equality, and only wants the advancement of a group when they need it (which includes women but is not exclusive to them), you still called her a feminist because that included women. That's correct, Yourscum. A person is, to me, a feminist if she or he supports the advancement of women, albeit within a larger group. quote: "I'm sorry to keep repeating the line, but porcelaine said "I have always been an advocate for the furtherance of women in society." People who have that aim are called 'feminists'." You made that statement after your response to me. The advancement of women is not always the advancement of equality, and she believes in equality. If she only believed in the advancement of women, or if she identified as a feminist, then you could call her one, but as it is, no that label is not warranted. Firstly, I'm not sure how the point at which I made that statement in relation to your comment is relevant. Perhaps you could explain that? Secondly, as I've said, when I talk of the advancement of women, it carries the assumption that women don't have equality, by and large, yet. I'm not a female supremacist and I see nothing in what porcelaine's said that makes me thing that she is, either. A female supremacist isn't, to me, a feminist. She, or indeed he (thinking back to one of my favourite 'enemies' on these boards) is . . . her own category. Lastly, I'm afraid that people do not get to have the sole right to label themselves in any way, including political ways. A Nazi doesn't get to complain that he's really a liberal and demand that we all go along with him; an anarchist can't demand that we all refer to him as a conservative . . . and so on. It doesn't, and can't, work that way.

Yourscum -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 1:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: solestria The reason for this is that men are still in a position of privilege over women, certainly overall. There may be specific examples to the contrary, but women still tend to get the short end of the societal stick, double standards, etc. The balance is closer to equal than it previously had been, but it's not there yet. This is true, but I don't think it does anything to decry my point. Yes, women are still behind in many more area's than men, its wrong and it should be stopped, but men are behind women in some area's now too. But rather than helping with those area's as well as the area's women need help, the focus from feminists in general still seems to be almost exclusively on womens issues. You can't call it equality then say, "Oh well, I'm not going to help mens equality because women still have further to go." Don't get me wrong, I do understand why many would take that stance, but that's not equality. quote: To use my previous example, decades ago when women were the slim minority in college title 9 was passed, granting more scholarships to women in an attempt to raise their attendance. This succeeded wildly, and now women represent the majority of the college populace in the states. And yet title nine has not been removed or altered now that women have surpassed men. When women were behind feminists pushed for legislation that would change that, but now that men are the minority in college where's that push for them? As far as I know, there hasn't been one. To believe in equality, you'd have to fight for men as well as women, but as far as I can tell feminists, by in large, are not doing that. quote: "From what I understand, the main concerns about Title 9 have involved its impact on men's college sports, not on college attendance overall. " Yes that does seem to be a point people have focused on. Although why that is the case I really have no idea, as your own quote from title nine showed no direct mention of sports. quote: Since Title 9 states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...", I don't understand how this would lead to a reduction in men's college attendance. When you consider that more people are in college now period, it's not necessarily about a reduction in mens attendance, so much as the increased attendance of women that have pushed men into the minority. The point was that when women were behind there was a push to change this, legislation was passed, and the problem was solved. Now the opposite problem has become an issue, and men are behind, but that same push we saw when women were the minority has not occurred for men. The point being, feminists pushed to help women when they needed it and are not doing so for men now that they need it. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how that can be called equality.

Yourscum -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 1:46:47 PM)
.

porcelaine -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 1:47:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer OK. I wouldn't have wanted to use the Disraeli example to focus exclusively on wealth, or even on wealth and power. However, I did mean to use that example to convey the idea of equality of outcome ('sharing the bounty') rather than equality of opportunity ('levelling the playing field'). Then how would you explain corporate philanthropy? Would the support of women's causes mean they're feminists as well? What about organizations benefiting minorities? Are they pro-affirmative action too? I'm not disputing your theories and I think you have presented them quite well. However, I am introducing a different way of addressing a problem. Things aren't always black and white and you cannot determine a person's motivations for their actions. No matter how many labels we create or attempt to affix. quote: ORIGINAL: solestria Being a feminist indicates that I am for the equality of women and their rights. It in no way indicates that I'm for those rights to the exclusion of all others, or that I'm unconcerned about the plights of other groups or other forms of injustice. I don't understand why you think it would mean that. Where do you see that suggested? I have never defined feminism in this thread. I merely stated that my motivation for helping women was not based on those principles. That doesn't suggest I see the movement as good or bad, but it does mean I'm operating from a different point of view. Another poster felt differently. ~porcelaine

Yourscum -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 1:50:42 PM)
quote: That's correct, Yourscum. A person is, to me, a feminist if she or he supports the advancement of women, albeit within a larger group. But that ignores the whole of the person, to focus on one aspect of them. She believes in equality, and since women are behind in many area's, that includes the advancement of women. But since she also believes in the advancement of others, not exclusively women, I would not put her in the feminist category, and for her own reasons neither would she. quote: Firstly, I'm not sure how the point at which I made that statement in relation to your comment is relevant. Perhaps you could explain that? I'm saying that comment, to me, implies that you did not get my point, but you said you did and felt that your previous comment to me explained that you had. You said you got the point, then after saying that wrote a post that, to me, showed you hadn't. I'm sorry I failed to explain that clearly. quote: Secondly, as I've said, when I talk of the advancement of women, it carries the assumption that women don't have equality, by and large, yet. True, but I don't see how that matters. The advancement of women is not always the same as equality. Sure it is more often than not, but not always, and will become so less and less as womens status grows in society. quote: Lastly, I'm afraid that people do not get to have the sole right to label themselves in any way, including political ways. A Nazi doesn't get to complain that he's really a liberal and demand that we all go along with him; an anarchist can't demand that we all refer to him as a conservative . . . and so on. It doesn't, and can't, work that way. Well, I see your point here, and largely agree with it. I wish you'd been on another thread a week or so ago, when the term Master was being debated. Or perhaps you were and I missed it. But anyway, on the other hand, (and this is a bit silly with how over the top it is but its meant to convey a point so bare with me) if a new word was created for, say, people who like the color blue as I don't believe there is a word specifically to describe that, and we said that someone who likes that color was a takeituptheassist, how many people would choose to identify with that term? If feminism was still truly about equality, not just for women but for everyone, why not opt for a more gender neutral word?

solestria -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 2:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yourscum quote: ORIGINAL: solestria The reason for this is that men are still in a position of privilege over women, certainly overall. There may be specific examples to the contrary, but women still tend to get the short end of the societal stick, double standards, etc. The balance is closer to equal than it previously had been, but it's not there yet. This is true, but I don't think it does anything to decry my point. Yes, women are still behind in many more area's than men, its wrong and it should be stopped, but men are behind women in some area's now too. But rather than helping with those area's as well as the area's women need help, the focus from feminists in general still seems to be almost exclusively on womens issues. You can't call it equality then say, "Oh well, I'm not going to help mens equality because women still have further to go." Don't get me wrong, I do understand why many would take that stance, but that's not equality. It's because men are still privileged over women. I don't think you have any concept of how privilege works, but it still works in favor of men in general, and whites in general. Here's a good checklist if you're interested in the basics of how that works: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ Because male privilege is systemic, and women do not have equality of opportunity yet, feminists focus on this disparity. I'm not sure why that doesn't make sense to you; feminists are generally concerned with equality and in changing societal attitudes towards women. A few cases do not indicate that men are not a privileged class, and this is a problem for everyone. quote: To use my previous example, decades ago when women were the slim minority in college title 9 was passed, granting more scholarships to women in an attempt to raise their attendance. This succeeded wildly, and now women represent the majority of the college populace in the states. And yet title nine has not been removed or altered now that women have surpassed men. When women were behind feminists pushed for legislation that would change that, but now that men are the minority in college where's that push for them? As far as I know, there hasn't been one. To believe in equality, you'd have to fight for men as well as women, but as far as I can tell feminists, by in large, are not doing that. Do you have sources for this claim? So far in my search, I've seen nothing to support it. Do men really have unequal opportunity for college? I'd like to see the statistics you're referencing. quote: Yes that does seem to be a point people have focused on. Although why that is the case I really have no idea, as your own quote from title nine showed no direct mention of sports. Title 9 itself makes no direct mention of sports, but it is the impact of Title 9 on men's sports that has been the primary focus of conversation.

zenny -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/26/2010 2:55:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: solestria Do men really have unequal opportunity for college? Boiled down men can only play soccer, football, and baseball at any given university. Women on the other hand have soccer, rowing, softball, field hockey, volleyball, etc. Sure, men can get club sports for such things but they don't have the support or opportunity to compete that woman's teams with university backing have.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02