Well, I know that being put into the same breath as children makes my wee heart go pitter pat.
I remember a news story once about some medical research. They were looking into something, I don’t remember exactly what it was, but I think it was some circulatory phenomenon. They said that X was true of people, except for women and those of African descent. Maybe they didn’t think my girl-tainted math skills would catch that.
Aha! Thereby proving the point!
All of it. Next question.
(Also, in the accumulation of evidence, why do you need to talk to your fellow ideologists rather than just ask me directly? As noted long since in this thread, that kind of third person discussion is just a tool for creating a shared identity, that bypasses any reasoned discussion of the identity being shared).
Correction. When you make statements, as you have, that are open to question (because they’re not truths, and in this case not true), then they’re arguments. I must say, if your post amused you, then I don’t get feminist comedy 
Is ‘funny’ an oppressive patriarchal construct?
Is like how we all just know the things you claim about suffragists?
I foresee a thread someday where you talk about how everyone in this thread agreed with you, perhaps even lapping up your words as people are wont to do. “As we established in another thread…”
I’m a bit behind on this thread, but if we’re talking about what percentage of feminists are sane and rational it seems fair to ask the same question about anti-feminists.
As far as I can tell, the spectrum of anti-feminists ranges from “weirdly angry about the films of James Cameron” to “threatens to kill women who have opinions about video games” to “actually kills people attending a screening of Amy Schumer’s Trainwreck”. But perhaps this thread, recent news stories, and the SPLC are not painting a fair picture of anti-feminism. If anyone knows of any peer-reviewed studies on the subject of how many anti-feminists are “good apples” then I’d be happy to take a look at them.
All of it. I expect most of the things you think are reasonable, and that was just the loony extremist fringe of your thinking? Also, if you think you know, tell me why you just used that third person ‘he’s not in our gang’ style? It’s a very insecure ideology indeed that needs it.
I thought you said you were against racism and bigotry, and for equality! Very interesting.
It wasn’t a need, just a choice. I choose to engage them and to engage you. This particular statement was directed to everyone, including you.
Well that nice. The idea is naturally that harming women and children is especial gruesome. It’s also done in English news. Here just from the first pages of Google News:
Isis fighters ‘capture 230 civilians’ in Syria
Suicide bomber kills 19, including women and children, in Afghan market
Fallujah doctors: Iraqi airstrikes kill 11 more, including women and children
1,592 civilians including women and children killed in Afghanistan in 6 months
etc.
Yes, I know. And I regard it as infantilization of women, taking them out of the bucket of “normal” and into the bucket of “set apart.”
It does seem fair. If anyone (let alone several people) make a claim (let alone repeatedly) that the loony anti-feminists are just a fringe (let alone the totality) then you might reasonably ask for evidence. As I did, for the repeated claims that all those feminists that all these Right-Thinking People deplore are a loony fringe of extremists.
But to respond to a request for evidence to support those repeated claims by playing ‘I know I am but what are you?’ only serves to undermine your ideology to those who overcame the infection of it.
Anti-feminism, by the way, isn’t a movement. I’m not (despite the sad and somewhat desperate claims) Linus’s ‘friend’, for example. I don’t know what he believes, nor care much. An ideology that has to pretend that anyone not in it is an homogenous enemy is, again, providing evidence against itself. I do not doubt that a hardcore misogynist, for example, would be an anti-feminist. Right-wing traditionalists too. But also ex-feminist egalitarians, who want genuine equality rather than 'equality for women (equality, even if you only talk of gender equality, is equality for all). The Scientologists also put a lot of effort into suppressing criticism. Patriarchy, Xenu…we all need to believe in something, eh?
I didn’t watch it, though I did read the title. I’m “blathering” about your conflation of ‘feminism’ and ‘women’, and you’ve been havering, unable to address that.
I’m able to address it. But you have to ask nicely.
Yes…I am. What do you think that has to do with being against the whole of your ideology? Equality ‘for women’ is not equality. How did racism and bigotry get into this? It’s perfectly possible to be a racist, bigoted feminist, given the trite dictionary definition which has been all anyone has been able to commit to here.
Your statement was directed to everyone, including me, by referring to me as ‘he’? If that makes sense to you, no wonder you fell for feminism.
It’s reasonable to ask these questions. It’s also reasonable to respond with personal anecdotes and explanations of beliefs based on experience. That may not be convincing to you – that’s fine. It doesn’t have to be. In fact, I’m not interested in convincing you of anything, so I’m not going to put forth effort into that. I’m interested in discussing the issue and stating my beliefs, and hearing the beliefs of others.
This feminist, and the feminists I know and know of want “genuine equality”. I’m not sure what equality means differently when it’s in single quotes and “for women” is added.
I oppose any attempts at suppressing criticism. Please let me know if you hear of any. Challenging criticism is fine and good and appropriate – suppression is not.
It really seems like we agree on so many things.
If I could be bothered to crawl back, I’d find the posters who laid into me for a slightly similar game. They won’t lay into you, because it’s not about honest discussion, it’s about going out to bat for your team.
Here’s my claim again, more clearly. You are not able to address it. My evidence is that you haven’t addressed it, and that you insist I guess your name is Rumplestiltskin before you’ll address it. Ah, the perils of posting during the long school holidays…
Okay. Let’s test that.
Do you think virgin men should be mocked?
Do you think MRA-types are fueled by lack of sex with women?
Do you think it’s okay if men and women are raped in prison?
Equality for women is equality, as is equality for black people and equality for gay people (among other things).
I brought up racism and bigotry because opposing racism and bigotry are enormous parts of my ideology, which you say you oppose all of. Are you saying you don’t oppose all of my ideology, or perhaps you were unaware that opposition to racism and bigotry were enormous and fundamental to my ideology?
That’s a common practice on this message board. Please forgive me if I hurt your feelings. I really wouldn’t want to and I’m very sorry if I did. I’ll try not to do that again.
I’d be interested in seeing clips of such newscasts, tbh.
The evidence suggest otherwise. By which I mean actual evidence other people can look at, like your posts in this thread, rather than your witnessing (which is not really evidence at all).
Well then ‘feminist’ really has become a meaningless label. You’re egalitarians, if we’re to take you at your word. Do you stand opposed to those who want equality ‘for women’?
I didn’t notice that yet. Where do you do it, if not here?
Not so far we don’t.