well also its kind of hard to have respect for someone you used to be with, who thought you were cheating on her, but you werent. Then she makes up lies and tries to hit you, also talking to her ex behind your back
Yeahhhhh, I like you goodm0uning but don’t use wikipedia as a source man.
I am riffing on ElderGod’s post, which seems to indicate that he literally doesn’t know the first thing about feminism.
That said, dismissing Wikipedia out of hand is sooo 2006.
Guess it would help to know who the person was that edited the information. Although going by what something says it is as opposed to what it actually it does is pointless.
Wikipedia lives and dies by its sources, which are handily listed at the bottom of each page. Your best bet, if you really need the accurate info, is to look into those sources and confirm or disconfirm them with other sources on the subject. In a sense, Wikipedia is an aggregator for links and abstracts to other articles outside the site. As a heuristic device, Wikipedia can’t be beat.
As far as editing information goes, Wikipedia’s pretty good about policing it. Anyone who’s ever tried editing or adding pages themselves will find that it’s not a simple issue of getting on there and changing stuff willy-nilly.
Feminism, like any movement or idea, exists on a theoretical level above all else. The level of “This is what this means, above all else.” The level that not only defines what it is, but also what it isn’t.
Like any movement or idea, some of the people involved with it are going to be faithful to that meaning, and some less so. Some people are even going to be shitheads, wrapping themselves in the cause for their own glory. And even the genuinely well-intended people aren’t always going to agree on the correct methods or the specifics within the universal ideas that they share. There is no hive mind. People can pursue the same greater good and hold different ideas of how it might be achieved. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Batman and Superman.
Feminism, above all else, is about equality. It’s about redressing historical disadvantages, about constantly checking our assumptions, about raising consciousness about the ways that we interact with one another, and so on. Therefore, if somebody is pushing for some kind of legislation, restitution, or social change that is fundamentally unequal, something that worsens the imbalance of power, then it falls outside the purview of feminism–no matter what label is slapped on it by its proponents. And if those proponents are styling themselves as feminists, feel free to criticize them on that basis. I do.
An idea, in itself, doesn’t do anything other than give people something to strive toward. In doing so, some people will succeed and some won’t.
No argument here, that’s pretty much how any movement works.
But ya see I don’t believe in the widely perpetuated myth that feminism is about equality because for all in intents and purposes, based off the ideological foundations of the movement and how these ideological values have directly effected their advocacy and principles, it would be far more accurate to say feminism is above all else, about female interest. As a result the narrative in which historical disadvantages and modern day assumptions are discussed can be a landmine of misinformation,distortion and even revision. I also think its kind of hard to be about equality when the etymology is expressively exclusive to 50% of the population…it would be like saying a movement called"white-ism"speaks about racial equality for all ethnic groups.
Now granted a self interested movement doesn’t always need to be a bad thing because its sometimes a good thing to target specific issues which effect a particular population more then other…which is why I would prefer for feminist or those sympathetic to their cause to at least be honest on this point as opposed to continually projecting the idea that feminism=egalitarianism when that is clearly not the case. At any rate I know people will fancy themselves as a true representation of whatever it is they label themselves so meh…the topic just goes in circles and we all waste our time lol.
A movement that aims to address inequality is necessarily operating in the interest of the disadvantaged party. The two are not mutually exclusive. When you’re balancing a game, some characters are going to have to be buffed.
As far as the name goes, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that interest. Egalitarianism is too non-specific, something like gender-egalitarianism would be too specific (some relevant issues are not necessarily gender-related), and anything that evades the female empowerment aspect is going to come off as an apology or a euphemism. It’s sort of like people who pretty clearly don’t believe in God, but would rather pick from a smorgasbord of other labels than call themselves atheist for fear of ruffling other people’s feathers.
That’s not to say that the word “feminism” is perfect, but it is what it is.
femenism is for the global elite to push men and society down so they can push their laws and agenda further…femenism is anti women
If this post was made in jest, it’s a work of genius.
I would love to address your post but your walls of revealing text got me on lock for the next three days.
If I got you into trouble somehow, please let me know the details so that I may further enjoy them.
The females in The Last of Us are very strong. I like that. I still refer to them as bitches though. Except Ellie, because she is a kid technically. But she too will be a bitch. Not just right now.
@goodm0urning: So I notice how any time I bring up second wave feminists like Valerie Solanas or Andrea Dworkin you tend to respond with they weren’t feminists. Well I came across this gem earlier while doing my history homework and wondered if you consider these people feminists?
Could it possibly be, that they along with Solanas/Dworking were feminists in every sense of the word, and came with bigotry and a bunch of other nasty business attached? Or are you going to say they(the originators of American Feminism) were “corrupting” feminism?
Dude you forget…feminist are only feminist so long as they arent bat shit crazies. Remember feminism is all about dat equality and is open for interpretation but also self authoritative too.
Quite simply put…apologetics get dizzy with the mental ghmantistics they gotta perform to justify their own ideology cult.
^I’m sure the patriarchy made them do it.
The patriarchy broke my 360 and spit on me while doing it:(
First off, I would refer you to an earlier post I made about how feminism is an idea, and that people can strive for that idea in some ways and fail to strive for it in others. Think of the Founding Fathers and their vision of an ideal America, which they themselves utterly failed to live up to. We can quite comfortably recognize the virtue of those ideals without conflating them with the personal failings of the people who introduced them to our fledgling nation. I would argue that this can be applied in principle to any social movement.
That said, in my opinion, Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin wrecked their claim as legitimate feminists, precisely because of how aggressively they pushed the fundamentally anti-feminist elements of their rhetoric… plus, you know, trying to kill a guy tends to overshadow any other accomplishment you might make and is not really in keeping with any socially progressive movement that I can think of. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I think it’s fair to say that an idea can be pushed only so far to an extreme and diluted with other ideas (“nasty business” is definitely a fitting description) before it stops being that idea and starts being something else–perhaps related to the original idea in superficial ways but too crucially different to qualify as one and the same.
As for the book, I’d have a hard time commenting on it not having read it, but I will say that the subject matter would have to be weighted against early feminists whose work decidedly did not foster a racially divided society. For example, black scholars and activists like Anna Cooper and Sojourner Truth, who were vital in shaping the idea that women did not have to be constrained by conventional gender roles… something that the white gentry would perhaps have a harder time envisioning.
I would also like to mention that I think it’s hilarious that you spelled her name “Andrew Dworkin”.
I wonder how SuperTroll’s position on feminism would fare if we applied it to other social movements and groups.
XD, ooops, sorry. Despite Andrea’s beastliness, I didn’t mean to call her Andrew.