Well, since I never said anything resembling “nothing to see here,” I guess we can now consider your claims to be the sort of which you are attempting to accuse me.
It’s also a definition of ‘egalitarian’. The difference between an egalitarian and a feminist has been addressed above: the former wants equality for all, the latter wants it ‘for women’, which would require a novel definition of ‘equality’.
As to your question, I cannot say. I suspect you’re falling for the popular confusion also discussed above, that somehow ‘feminism=women’ (though if we’re free to redefine ‘equal’ as we see fit, as feminists insist, then perhaps it does). I prefer the old school meaningful meaning of ‘equals’ and ‘equality’ and so forth. I wonder, if I were a bigot, whether your calling me one would offend me? I expect not. Since I am not (try to pay attention, I’m condemning a political ideology while supporting equality for all regardless of gender and other accidents of birth), I’m equally (in the dictionary sense) unoffended by your error.
Are you the same chap that swore earlier? I can’t say I care to check, given that talking to either of you (or just the one) looks like a particularly unappealing proposition, ‘pal’. Seriously, ‘pal’?? As though this were the saloon bar and you might be able to beat some sense into me?
I will concede that ‘my say-so’ isn’t ‘facts’ (unless we’re redefining equality with a feminist fluidity). Which facts were you confused by, such that you mistook them for ‘say so’?*
So says the man who claimed that there’s a bunch of important jobs that no woman on earth can do now, and that we couldn’t manage to learn even if all of our lives literally depended upon it, because…we’re too afraid of bugs?
What you said was different – you said that anyone who attacked feminists was labeled a misogynist. This was a false assertion.
This is triviallyeasy to disprove. Civil Rights leaders quite clearly called for both racial equality and equality for black people (mostly because they’re the same thing).
I congratulate you for being a feminist, but I don’t know what a “feminist anti-feminist” means.
You still haven’t established why my feminism is ‘wrong’ and these others are ‘right’. Obviously, I feel differently.
I’ll ignore accusations of ad hominem attacks from someone who engages in them quite frequently (e.g. ‘comprehension issues’, ‘simpleton’, and the like).
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate your bravery in telling your story.
And I’ll say we have something in common: I was also bullied, beginning in 7th grade. And eventually I learned something valuable from it: the road to self-esteem begins with ceasing to care about what other people think of you. In other words, refusing to let other people define who or what you are.
However, what prompted this thread was not any one personal experience, but happening to stumble across Karen Straughan. She combines a number of characteristics that rarely found in any one person: extreme intelligence, empathy, and a down-to-earth lack of pretentiousness. But what she really did for me, was to help me connect random bits of discordant information, so that I was able to make sense of a bigger picture. I freely admit that much of what I’ve written has been wantonly stolen from her videos.
While I’d strongly encourage anyone who’s interested to click on the link, her landing page currently sucks. She’s generously trying to promote the channels of other anti-femist women (with only a fraction of her subscribers), but if you want to see her videos, you’ll need to click “playlists” and then click on the ones with her face on them. And there are a lot of them. I estimate I’ve gotten through fewer than half.
Thanks for sharing the link. I watched some of her videos based on your recommendation. She is obviously incredibly intelligent and a very articulate speaker. I have to assume based on her depth of knowledge that she came out of academia somewhere. She is a welcome counter-force to the non-moderate versions of the various feminist sub-movements. Her college lecture style presentations are very good even though the are shot in her kitchen (no snark intended; her style transcends basic settings), unusually intelligent and mostly non-political for anyone that is interested. She is the ultimate anti-feminist but she presents her views in a fair and very academic way backed up with very strong evidence from multiple disciplines and reasons for her arguments.
I encourage any open-minded person to watch some of her well thought out presentations and give counterarguments of the same quality.
I’m going to admit I’m having trouble parsing your argument. However, it seems to revolve around the idea that if someone’s “active” they’re not a victim of rape. That’s not only false as a matter of law, it’s not how feminists themselves define rape.
Rape is sex without consent.
If someone’s unable to give consent, that means the sex was rape.
Also, I’d encourage you to quote me, when you’re claiming to speak for me… It’d be… not only easier for you - it would be what I actually said: instead of your version of it.
I am unpacking the argument implicit in what you said here:
You are saying that feminists, if they believe in treating the genders equally, should judge Schumer to be a rapist. Given that you described the incident and linked to a description of it, I took an accurate description of that incident to be one of your premises, hence my line 1). My line 2) is just a restatement of your claim that feminists would call a man in Schumer’s position a rapist. Finally, my line 3) is simply what you’ve said several times in this thread: that feminism claims to be about equal treatment of the sexes.
Check out the lines 1), 2) and 3) again. Would you disagree with any of them individually? If so, which one and why? If not, would you disagree that they lead, together, to the conclusion that Schumer should be called a rapist by feminists?
Here they are again for reference:
A drunk man had sex with her while she laid there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out of the situation without trouble, AND
If feminists believed a drunk woman had sex with a man while the man lay there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out the situation without trouble, THEN feminists would call the man in that situation a rapist AND
Feminism claims to be about equal treatment of the sexes.
All of them that I watched were very good quality. I haven’t seen all of them yet.
Here is one example but these are not your typical Youtube videos. They are more like really skilled and intelligent college lectures and should be treated as such. They are long and require some commitment just like any other university level class. However, her multi-disciplinary approach is very academically persuasive.