Is feminism a force for good?

Post Reply New Topic

I think you already gave a pretty good summary yourself.

Trans people prove that gender and sex are not the same thing.

We know that gender is biological because of some medical accidents such as the case of David Reimer, who was raised as a girl from infancy after his penis was destroyed when he was circumcised. He suffered gender dysphoria and depression, transitioned back to masculinity as soon as possible, and eventually kill himself.

I think true feminism is a very positive thing. The tiny minority of misguided people with loud voices who use it for hateful reasons do not really represent it and should be ignored imo

If I was a woman I would be so angry at one or two of the modern day feminists who use it for their own purposes and twist it to something else. They are are spitting all over the hard work and sacrifices that true heroic feminists gave for their own selfish nasty reasons.

It's been said already we all know you will find extrimists in every group that ruins it for others. Altho we all have some form of cultural, family, gender, sexuality bias that is difficult to see past (like the hard truth)

It's hard to take some things seriously when you hear feminism at the moment. Like the attack on AVGN for not wanting to watch the new Ghostbusters.

AVGN attacked

Nash equilibrium keeps coming to mind ?



I would have never even consider them as part of the feminist movement. Mind blown for a moment well played

You're describing the reason my single demand from feminists is as follows:

Elect a pope, decide conclusively which of the Scotsmen are true or untrue, and denounce the ones who are apparently peeing on everyone's cornflakes.

Until then, your voice has parity with every single lunatic gender supremacist - who appear to constitute the majority.

can you elaborate a little please


I'm sorry I don't quite understand what you mean ?

Bad idea!

Having a pope will get them bogged down in dogma and make feminism much slower to evolve.

And who's to say this hypothetical pope would be the soft of feminist you'd agree with? Supposing you want a moderate feminist to be the pope of feminism but then a radical feminist is elected?

ADN's point isn't about where he wants feminism to go, it's about every criticism of feminism being deflected with a no true Scotsman argument about what "real" feminism is; he just wants them to pick a definition and stick with it.

the problem being that there is no "them", which benefits those who imply that there is. "either with us or against us" type of arguments, except "us" is actually just deceptive code language for "me". outside of dedicated studies and conversations between people who already understand each other, i don't see any other possible use for the word

-check your Nietsche*f**k them nihilists*, or Goldman

it fits tptb to give the power to MF-conformers to take away rights of those non-conform to their wishes
(it only took a female mayor to declare that i, as a married person, wasn't a owner of my house,)
great achievements lie ahead ! !
-call in the flakes!!they'll wreck it some more!

The Christians have a pope and yet that doesn't stop Christians from using using no true scotsman arguments.

Feminists do not have a universal ideology, yet all claim to be "true" feminists whilst denouncing those whose feminism does not align with their own.

The oft-cited dictionary definition is equivocal at best, downright unfit-for-purpose at worst. The result is that there are almost as many versions of feminism as there are feminists. Without an undisputed authority who can definitively state what does and does not count as a 'feminist', all feminists represent feminism equally.

Self-defined feminists are a great example of the nebulosity of collectivism.



Are you being ironic here?



I have no vested interest either way, beyond there simply being a definitive authority - someone who can officially denounce those whom are deemed unfit to speak on behalf of feminism. Whether or not I agree with the "Femipope" is irrelevant, I simply want a method of separating the true Scotsmen from the plastic Scotsmen.



Precisely so. They're a collective when it suits them, cliquey or even individualist when it does not, and the lines are ephemeral and ill-defined. I don't wish to tinker with the landscape, I'm asking for a map.



Even more precisely so. Whilst I don't believe my demand is an unfair one, I also acknowledge that it is virtually impossible for it to be met.



Were my demand to be met, I'm certain we'd see a great many denominations of feminism appear. There are differing hierarchies within Catholicism alone, but it's entirely possible to know which hymn sheet any single Christian is singing from.

In answer to the OP:

"Is Feminism A Force For Good?"

Objectively - no.
Subjectively - it's a tool which may be used for good or evil, however you choose to define such.

No.

Maybe a femipope would be ok if she was libertarian.

I saw this youtube video with this feminist. She said she liked wearing lip glass and pretty summer dresses and other feminists told her she should wear grey business suits because it's more "empowering".

I wouldn't want a femipope who declares one fashion choice to be against the principles of feminism because true women's lib cannot be achieved by restricting women's choices.

The femipope should not impose her own personal tastes on all her disciples.

By the same token, she shouldn't disparage housewives, homemakers, stay at home mums or woman who prefer to have traditionally female jobs.

She especially shouldn't tell her disciples to "take one for the team" or "the needs of our group outweigh the needs of the individual members".

That would be Marxism and there's already far too much Marxism in feminism as it is. It's wrong to throw an individual under the bus to protect the image of the group because if they can do it for one member they can do it for all the members at once, after all, what is a group but a multitude of individuals?

By that same token, the Femipope shouldn't engage in Marxist group politics. Yes, there are women who face oppression but there as many types of oppression as there are individuals.

What I mean is that everyone faces oppression on an individual basis, not as a group. They may face dire circumstances but those circumstances are always unique to the individual. This would stop feminists from proclaiming their highly specific personal problems effect all women.

Another reason to abandon group politics is that it would restore individual responsibility to feminism. That way if a feminist chooses to enter a lower paying field such as baker instead of politician, there would be no talk of her secretly wanting to be a politician but being scared away by the jeers of the men already in that field (after all, any politician will be criticised a lot so any person who can't take criticism can't be a politician).

Aside from that it's wrong for feminists to put words in other women's mouths or impose their own views on other women.

All of this group politics is no different from Marx proclaiming the proletariat group is the victim of the bourgeoisie group's oppression, rather  then admit individuals get oppressed by other individuals in a multitude of individuals ways.

It is wrong to say a woman will do this or that because she's a member of a particular group. It is the denial of her choice, the denial of her individuality, the denial of her humanity. This is not women's empowerment.

By denying her agency, it makes her nothing more than an unthinking cog in the collective machine. It is dehumanising. Responsibility is not a privilege, it is a burden yet it is also what defines us as adults. By denying women responsibility they reduce them to the status of children, which is the opposite of what feminism originally sought to achieve.

For this reason, the Femipope should be an individualist, not to impose the same tastes on all feminists but to protect the freedom of choice and the diverse range of thought that abounds in individual women.

^ all fine and dandy, except it's all fantasy

i wonder if self-proclaimed feminist leaders (or anything to that effect) realize how little most everybody cares about any of that as long as there's access to what is needed (food, shelter, company, entertainment, respect). especially when the debate reaches such ludicrous proportions. it's presumptuous. i believe they do realize it, and they just don't care. because they want to make it sound crucial and momentous

women may not be treated equally, but they already have equal rights. it's not a political issue anymore, it's a cultural one. addressing culture through politics = bad things happen

Which bad things?

When people get overly political, they tend to lose sight of the beauty of things.