Hmmm well probably the same. When the so called outliners continue to have substantial pull and influence on a movement who’s apologetics claim don’t represent or inform said movement…well it’s not so much a case of faulty observation or bad generalization but instead just calling a cigar a cigar…but look mate that’s just my 2 cents;)
“Calling a cigar a cigar” is actually a pretty good summation of it–a tautology, devoid of an intrinsic argument of its own.
My objection is this: when you restrict any definition of feminism strictly to its most extreme version and define anybody who subscribes to any other version of it as dishonest or apologetic, you are in effect stifling any possibility of productive conversation on the subject. You bring the discussion to a halt before it ever gets started. That’s fine if all you’re interested in doing is making jokes in an echo chamber.
That’s exactly all we are interested in.
‘Those blacks out in the street just want to take over, look at that Malcolm X kid’
You got it all wrong mate and half of it is cause your assuming too much of the oppositions motives. I’m not simply defining feminism by its most extreme aspects because in my view, the entirity of feminism regardless of the particular branches severity in views can all be traced back to the same basic core principles. I’m not taking exception with just the radicals because I’ve learned that the ideas,theories and opinions that inform the core of feminist theology run through all bases of it…the only differences between andrea or a year 1 women studies student rest soley on the degrees of radical thought but outside those degrees, both would have identical views on the patriarchy, on women’s roles historically, on sexuality and all things gender related.
The problem with you and other feminist apologetics is that in your effort to justify and apologize for the radicals, you also attempt to divorce their views as some completely foreign mutation that materialized from thin air. It’s at this point that the dishonesty from people like you really sets because instead of acknowledging the relatable theology that the radicals and so called"real feminist" share you instead deny it and pretend there is no connection…as if the minsandry and bigotry just spawned individually outside their involvement to feminism. It’s like pathetically arguing that young earth creation science has nothing to do with christianility or vice versa, and that the 2 are just completely seperate entities with no overlapping theories or ideas.
Again though mate I don’t make it a business of mine to mock people on their religious views so have at it…but just remember it won’t get your dick sucked any sooner unless you offer me a 50$.
^reminds me of how religious people(especially Abrahamic believers) distance themselves from fundamentalists by saying they’re “corrupting” the religion, or “misunderstanding it”(or even better, are not “true” Muslims/Christians/Jews), yet you could find passages directly in each holy text that justify the way the fundamentalists are acting.
Exactly.
I mean sure not every Christian will be holding signs saying"God hates fags"but would you really be that delusional enough to think the bible doesn’t encourage that line of reasoning.
Yeeeaaaaah no.
The vast majority of religious people tend to be relatively moderate in their views and behaviors, while those who subscribe and carry out the extreme tenets of their doctrine are correctly seen as socially aberrant. Why wouldn’t the former want to distinguish themselves from the latter? And isn’t it completely buttfuckingly irrational to paint the whole group by the actions of the latter when the former is far more predominate?
If you can point to a central canonical feminist text that I or anyone else here have attempted to rationalize, please point me to it.
Also, if you and Bewd are going to suck each other’s dicks, I suggest getting a room.
Nothing wrong with distancing yourselves from the extremes, but that is completely different from saying those extremes are not “true” whatevers. The latter is just a lazy way to avoid confronting problems in the doctrines you subscribe to.(In this case the fact that American Feminism has typically been a [middle class and above white women]'s movement(chivalrists and other male toadies aside) that ignored or downplayed(or outright mocked) the differing experiences of non [middle class and above white] women.(with many of those attitudes still around in some circles)
Oh? The dick sucking one is new, I usually expect feminists to call me wife beater/misogynist/domineering patriarch. If nothing else though, you put a new spin on the age old feminist adage of “the political is the personal”.
Feminism is mainly founded on patriarchy theory. The basic core idea of patriarchy theory is what informs feminist theology and all the concepts and theories that trickle therein. Therefore the central cannonical text of feminism is quite simply patriarchy theory. I guess I could ask instead to point me to a feminist or branch of feminism that doesn’t have even remote traces of patriarchy theory or any corresponding ideas that spurn from patriarchy theory.
I should add too that the ideas and views radical feminist hold are not found from any other ideology or religion. Ideas such as reducing the male population to 10% or that all heterosexual sex is rape…I have yet to find any other groups or schools of thoughts in which people have ever shared those sentiments. Isn’t it funny how all the bigoted misandric ideas all seem to collect in a very specific location…hmmm must be just a coincidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSaT9utl4Ys
If you haven’t already watched this good morning plz do…it literally puts your argument and assertions on blast. If your able to logically and objectively tells us why radical feminism and"real feminism"are not the same and explain to us point by point how we are wrong for positing that feminism is not in fact informed by a governing principle that reaches to moderates and radicals…I’ll gladly concede, retract my points and pay you 1K over pay pal for doing what no other feminist apologetic has done before.
In short if you can prove this video wrong…my 12 inch cock is yours!
Hey, man, sucking dick is sucking dick. I’m just saying.
I’ve defined feminism as I see it, which is really the only way that I can. People are free to agree or disagree with me, but what everybody should be able to agree on as a general principle is that if something gets too far away from what it is defined to be, then it is no longer that thing.
I’ve done my best to stay away from the “no true Scotsman” argument, because it is a seductive one–to say that no true feminist would ever say something crass about men, no true feminist would ever rashly leap to a conclusion without hashing out its full implications, blah blah blah. No, of course they could do that. Anybody could. It would certainly be easier for me to default to that argument, despite it’s lack of validity.
But at a point, you have to define what something is–and, by extension, you have to define what that thing isn’t. It isn’t a “no true Scotsman” argument to put forth a set of criteria that outlines what something is, then point out that something or someone strays outside of those criteria. I’ve tried to provide the reasoning behind my thinking, wherein lies the difference. “No true Scotsman” avoids laying down the parameters of what one views a Scotsman to be, so that those parameters may be shifted to fit any scenario.
The strangest thing about my experience in this thread is that people haven’t really engaged my stated views too much, so much as put other people’s views forth as a sort of challenge. I’m not sure I see the purpose of that. I know why I consider myself a feminist. I don’t think anybody’s really made an argument against the values that I hold, which I’ve enumerated over the course of several years and several threads. Most people have reverted to more extreme examples to demonstrate why they find feminism so disagreeable, and some (SuperTroll) have convinced themselves that there is no other kind.
(Funny–I must have been a feminism apologist way back in the fourth grade when I was first exposed to Andrew Dworkin’s views and found them to be absurd.)
And I guess that’s why I feel an obligation to lay out my own views–that, and the fact that there are virtually no self-identified* feminists on this site aside from maybe me and Matriarch. It’s basically the only reason I even bother with threads like this one. Someone has to represent.
*There are some people whom I’d identify as having made distinctly feminist remarks, even if they’d rather set themselves on fire than describe themselves as such.
Tell me what you think my feminist views are first, so I can watch for them in the video. NOT my views as you think they relate to other feminists, but the views that I’ve cited as reasons why I identify myself as such. If you don’t do this to my satisfaction in your next post, I’m not going to waste my time.
(I’m suddenly finding myself with very little patience for an argument that equates my beliefs with the beliefs of people that I have time and time again said that I disagree with.)
Well you should know that despite you being a feminist I still respect your opinion, and kudos to you for having the courage to avoid the no true scotsman argument.
You may want to give this some consideration:
It’s fine for you to state your own personal views of feminism, but to ignore its ugliness(that has manifested several times as in any other movement) isn’t showing your own view, it’s being deliberately disingenuous.
I would also take umbrage at you assigning feminist sympathies to anyone in here who’ve made similar comments to feminists(by your definition). Feminism doesn’t own the discussion on gender or women’s rights, despite what American white women think.
edit: Btw I see what you did thar, asshole
You’ve told me time and time again that you hate the gays and wanna burn the jews…although I do appreciate your policy on no fat chicks.
I will check out the blog.
I don’t think I’ve ignored that feminism has its pockets of ugliness. (Remember my Founding Fathers comparison–plenty of ugliness to go around.) But you have to admit that the examples you’ve cited are extreme enough that I and anyone else you might talk to about this can’t be blamed for dismissing them. Citing someone like Solanas is like citing Charles Manson as a member of the peace ‘n’ love movement.
If I assign the feminist label to anyone around here who doesn’t assign it to themselves, it’ll be 10% because I think it’s true and 90% because it’s funny.
I will remind you that there is a difference between fat and thick, and that thick is where it’s at.
This leads to the only question that matters in this whole thread…ricki lake…yay or nay?
Then? Yay.
Now?
Yay.
I’m sure theres more (me!) but probably only you two with the energy to engage essentially semantic arguments on the matter. keep fighting the good fight bro
No surprise that the white people of this site describe themselves as feminists. Raising white women up at the expense of others is the norm for your type.
Still getting their dicks sucked faster. 
It may shock people to know that in addition to being an atheist, a vegetarian, and a feminist, I am also a guitarist.
Commence series of epic-length threads now.