Why do SJWs think I'm obligated to kiss their ass?

Post Reply New Topic

The right wing "version" of political correctness is commonly known as "family values", but I agree, political correctness is something that isn't exclusive to any one part of the political spectrum. "Political correctness" and "family values" are basically the same thing from different perspectives.

You made a good observation in stating that identifying issues of social justice is often seen as being politically incorrect. Certain demographics are affected by various things more than others, and people don't like to admit this. Dignity for all people is something society should be striving for... but unfortunately discrimination is something that seems to be encoded into our DNA as human beings. That doesn't mean it's right, but how else are you supposed to explain where discrimination comes from in the first place? It has been argued that people don't start off discriminating against others, and that it's a learned behavior, but I don't think this is entirely true. It's not entirely false, but again, how else are you supposed to explain how it became a thing in the first place?

I agree about the mansplaining, I've had the same thing done to me enough times by loud personalities of either sex to conclude that it's neither a behavior exclusive to men, nor a faux pas only directed at women, it's just an annoying thing that some people do. I often see this sort of persecution complex in feminist writing, reading bigoted motivations into simple rudeness that is simply not supported by any evidence other than anecdote.

Triggering is an excellent example of the language of academic feminism seeping out to a broader audience that doesn't really understand the underlying concepts, and simply tries to use those ideas as blunt implements against their ideological foes. Privilege would be the real poster child, a pretty good concept so twisted and weaponized that it's no longer recognizable, or even useful in any way.

I read, "Yes, and that's not mansplaining" as a sarcastic comment which implied that my original response was just me "mansplaining". You were just saying what I described was not mansplaining. My bad.

I just think it's silly to have such a specific and basically pointless word. If I'm correct on what your definition is (I say that because I have heard various definitions), it means when a man condescendingly explains something to woman, because he is a sexist. Why can't you just say that what he is saying is sexist, or even simply call him a sexist? Just from a language standpoint that's kind of awkward, since it can only be used accurately in a very specific set of circumstances.

But also, I think it has a huge potential to be used in a way that just creates a ton more problems than it fixes. What is the point of the word? Why is it gender-specific? Women can also be sexist, so if a sexist woman condescendingly explains something to a man, should we call it womansplaining?

It just seems like a really easy way to casually accuse someone of sexism and shut down a discussion, simply because you don't like or agree with what they are saying, or believe they are being rude. I've seen it used in such a way at least once, and I'm sure it's happened many more times than that.

The "feminism" of today bears almost no resemblance to the feminism of the 60s and 70s, when women were actually fighting for equality and for respect and equal opportunity in the workplace. Back then it was about women being given the same chance at administrative positions as men have and opening up many traditionally male jobs to women when women could physically do them. It was about giving us the same economic freedom as men by not discriminating on mortgages and credit and women began demanding the same respect and autonomy as men have always been given. I'm old enough to remember want ads in the newspaper divided into Ladies and Men's sections based on the particular type of job. I remember when a single working woman with a good job had almost no chance of getting a loan to buy her own home, and when the idea of a single woman adopting a child was outright ridiculous. I remember when it was common practice to give a job to a man instead of a woman because the man had a family to support and women were expected to accept that, and many times did accept it and agree with it to a point. Now, "feminism" seems to be about whether or not someone committed a cardinal sin and didn't spell it "womyn", or that a tv show cast every secretary or teacher as a female, or panel discussions on why men should be fired, or at least disciplined in the workplace for doing something so terrible as standing up with a lady walks into a room or opening the door for her and thus adamantly proclaiming a victory for the patriarchy, or even how we all need support groups and therapy and reparations because a man looking at us for .025 seconds too long is not just akin to rape but is actual rape and our HMO should pay for therapy for the PTSD that we will no doubt develop because of the horrid experience of a man glancing our way for .025 second too long.

While there still are a few things that aren't fully equal, most of them are and nobody would suggest that the CEO job be only given to a man, or any such thing anymore, todays version of "feminism" is entirely focused on silly, nitpicking things that don't actually matter in any big picture anywhere and are only a topic because of a theory that they might influence x amount of people in a certain way, and even that is conjecture. It's like todays women feel like they have missed out on the struggle and instead of sitting back and enjoying the victory they feel that they can't be fully equal without having burned their bra or marched in protest, so they have to dig up something to protest against. It's really ok to say "We won" and be done with it and simply prevent things from going backwards, but that just isn't good enough for these gals, so the nits will by God be picked.

That is why I've decided that I'm not going to call myself a feminist anymore, even though I certainly am one. I'm going to use the term we used back in the day, when there was actually something that had to be fought for and was yet to be won. I'm a women's libber. That term, dated and and as 70's as polyester, the shag haircut, and disco, is one that isn't tied to ridiculous theories and demands for protection of our oh so delicate feelings and emotions, but is reminiscent of the issues that were actually fought for, and won, by our mothers and grandmothers. It's about saying we are just as strong emotionally and mentally as men are and we don't need any special protection or to be shielded from something that could hurt our sensibilities lest we get the vapors and be shocked and offended so much that our emotions keep us from functioning like the Victorian ladies did. This fainting couch feminism, that is primarily concerned with policing the words and ideas that could trigger us into an episode of hysteria-like PTSD, has absolutely no place in a philosophy of equality and strength, which is what women's lib fought to have recognized by the rest of the world. You would be hard pressed to even get women the vote by painting us with the delicate flower, ruled by our emotions and unable to function if the slightest bit offended brush that todays "feminists" paint us all with. The ladies that go into hysterics today over a perceived verbal sleight or seeing a female stereotype on screen or in print would be an embarrassment and a burden to the tough ladies who put up with a ton of s**t to prove that we aren't fragile and that our sensibilities aren't a problem for us and we won't be moody and insist on slowing everything down in the business world with our petty complaints and whining, rather than just sucking up whats annoying and bothersome and focusing on getting the job done, you know, like men did at work before we joined the work force - and like we can do and have done for years until our feelings became more important than anything else. And the s**t that those ladies put up with is s**t that we don't have to put up with now, and the focus of the complaints is so many times just petty, I'm not talking about putting up with actual sexual harassment or actual sex discrimination.

So no, I'm not a feminist. Not at all. I'm a women's libber, because fainting couch feminism does nothing more than reinforce all the things that those against women's lib used as justification for keeping things unequal. I don't need the couch, I'm a big girl and I can sit in the big chair even if it is uncomfortable at times. I don't expect anyone to cater to my special feelings and sensitivities because I have a ovaries and not testicles. Just because we don't have testicles doesn't mean we don't have balls, and fainting couch feminism has created a whole generation of castrated feminists but women's libbers still have big brass balls and aren't afraid to let it be known that we do.

No, you are a victim of right wing tools who have tried to undermine feminism since the beginning. It hasn't changed, it's still about the same thing. Only a coward would give in to this reprehensible negative propaganda.

I'm not giving in to anything. I'm just simply calling myself something else to distance myself from the nutjobs. Actual feminism is the same as it always was, it's just gotten lost amidst the mixed nuts. It's much easier to just call myself a women's libber than it is to explain that no I'm not one of THOSE kind. People will automatically ask why I use the term women's libber and I'll simply say that third wave loud screechy feminism isn't feminism and I'm old school.

And I'm hardly giving in to anything, and a coward if very, very far from anything that I even remotely resemble. I'm just saving my breath as opposed to the hysterical flowers.

I wonder if you're aware of the irony in your post, calling yourself a true feminist and then using a sexist insult against the women you disagree with by calling them "hysterical flowers"? That's almost like meta-irony.

Totally not necessary. I'm still an American, even though the USA is full of nutjobs. I'm also a Democrat, and an atheist, both groups full of same. I'm sure many Republicans are fine with the label even though Michele Bachmann exists.
The nuts are called out by our enemies specifically in order to destroy us. And apparently that works.

I call them hysterical flowers because of the way they insist that we be offended by language and comments that aren't directly harassment or threatening, etc. They do exactly what men said women would do when we started fighting to work side by side with them at traditional male only jobs and complain that the way the guys talk offends us. They act like we are delicate flowers whose fragile sensibilities have been offended by the coarse and rough banter of the men, and being overtaken in a fit of hysteria object so strenuously that they shouldn't have to hear things like that because they are offended by it. I call them that because that's exactly how they are acting. Rather than handle a guy telling an off color joke by telling him he's not funny or better still by just ignoring it because it's just a joke, they go on a crusade against that kind of talk in their presence. Not for the same reasons as victorian women did of course, they did it out of feeling that it was improper and forward and immodest and today they couch it in terms of disrespectful and offensive and triggering, but either way it boils down to the same thing - talk that is objected to by a group of women when it's not aimed at them. We aren't so special that our little feelings have to be coddled all the time. They are trying to portray us as victims all over again and weak and in need of protection, which is basically everything that we fought against then. So no, you didn't understand what I was saying at all. My feelings don't need that kind of protection and fainting couch feminism is not my thing. I'll stick with women's lib thank you. Nobody has to have jazz hands or safe rooms or primal scream therapy to be involved in that.

Think what you want. I explained my reasons to you, and I require neither your understanding nor your approval. It makes no difference to me at all. You do your way and I'll do my way.

I'll take that as a 'no'--the irony was obviously lost on you. That's my favourite kind of irony!

How is "hysterical flower" a sexist insult? Are you implying that the word "flower" must always refer to a female-identifying individual? Or that flowers are inherently feminine because they are delicate and pretty!? How DARE you!?!? Your heteronormative ideas serve only to reinforce the gender binary!! !! ! CHECK YOUR f*****g PRIVILEGE!! !! !! !!4$*! !&_!!&&!(((_&! !

"Hysteria," in Freud's time, was confined to women.

Because of the prefix "Hys" Think: "hysterectomy."

It's true: you rarely hear about men going "hysterical."

Are you truly ignorant of the history of the term "hysteria"?--it was coined to specifically describe a woman who had temporarily gone mad because her womb had got loose inside her and was wandering around causing trouble. How is that NOT sexist, because of the derivation and the context of the discussion?

I used it as satire based on the way they are acting like words they find unpleasant can hurt them. I'm not talking about attacks or name calling, I'm talking about silly things that aren't meant harmful but are many times taken that way. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to be annoyed by them and to tell the person to please not say that around them but it's the going completely overboard and starting a public outcry because a guy says "Darlin" or some such term, or tries to be funny and makes a joke that his wife found funny but his coworker finds tasteless and offensive. The entire overkill centered around completely ignoring the fact that they are two different sexes while all the while making sure to keep hypervigilant so as to not make any reference to the fact that she is female because while many won't take offense, the fact is that she not only could take offense and if she does it will be blown completely out of proportion and turned into something completely different than it is. Nobody is saying don't be offended or don't speak up. The problem is the intensity and yes, hysteria, that happens when a SJW takes offense when somebody says something remotely related to being female. Nobody is ever just rude or a jerk, they are sexist and misogynist and whatever other label that could be stretched to fit, and they are written up and have a disciplinary warning placed in their file and have to go to classes to teach them to just not say anything at all because even if they don't say something offensive, it could simply be inferred by microaggression and then they can be told they are this ist and that phobic and the other thing discrimatory, and that it's so ingrained in them that they don't even know they hold that opinion until some SJW susses it out and informs them of it and it's back to class they go to learn how to fix something they didn't even know was broken and probably wasn't, until have to jump through these hoops while dancing through a minefield, and then people are surprised when they walk away from the experience with a bad taste in their mouth about ladies, or rather womyn.

So, I didn't use it in the sexist way, I used it to point out what it's doing to those who buy into it and how it can destroy decades of work proving that we aren't delicate fragile little beings, whose feelings could shatter like crystal if a man utters the wrong word in our presence. That's really giving away your power in such a lame way, in some crazy attempt to gain and keep the upper hand.

Thats how I used it. Don't worry, I don't expect you to understand it and I fully expect you to try and twist it back around into something it isn't, rather than simply see and acknowledge how far overboard it's gone in some places. Cause, that's what SJWs do rather than discuss the topic that is upsetting them.

Mmmmmhmmmmm. Absolutely.