My wife had a good laugh about this. Most of the feminists I know are happily married (and both gay and straight) men and women.
The guardian article had a "male feminist " telling a woman that she is lucky any man even wants to hear her opinion at all? Scare quotes indeed.
This thread really belongs in Mindless Pointless Stuff I Must Share.
Do you identify with “Scott”?
In general, I don’t think people should be fired for expressing their own personal opinions, using their own resources, on their own free time.
On the other hand, if a national media institution expressed the opinion that women were genetic defects, who suffered from “Y chromosome deficiency disorder,” I think that institution ought to be condemned. Especially if it claimed to be The Chronicle of Higher Education.
What do you think?
So you no longer believe this has anything to do with feminism?
What if the President of a big prestigious company says in his personal twitter account (which is public) “I wish all the niggers would just get out of America”. Subsequently, there’s a huge boycott of the company and shares plummet. Would the Board of Directors be justified in firing him?
If so, why do you feel differently for this Pax guy?
I would agree. If the Chronicle said that, they should be criticized. If a writer wrote an opinion piece in that journal, that writer should be criticized.
It sure seems like both the Chronicle and the writer are being criticized here… so what’s the problem?
Wow. “Woman with strong prejudice against feminists has trouble dating feminists.” There’s a shocker. Up next: David Duke explains why interracial dating is a bad idea.
Not even that so much as it’s about individuals who are either not capable of, or, have not yet learned how healthy adult relationships work. Buggered if I know what that has to to with feminism except that it’s cherry picked examples of disfunctional or immature adults being couched as “feminists” and used to illustrate a deliberately slanted view.
ex. “Scott, who adores a female co-worker, Molly (?), but is indifferent to everyone else at work, rushes to help Molly with her responsibilities to the point of doing much of her work for her. Molly has no interest in Scott but allows and encourages him to do so. She then comments to another co-worker how Scott is her bitch. Scott hears this and realizes he’s being taken advantage of, directs a few invectives towards Molly, and presumably wises up. The End.”
Now, can anyone tell me how this paraphrased example of the narrative in the linked video serves to show anything about feminists or feminism in even the most tangential way? What purpose does it even serve except to illustrate that people can be stupid and/or selfish in their interpersonal relations, especially when it comes to one wanting a romantic relationship with someone who does not share the same desire.
I was unaware LinusK suffered from Klinefelter Syndrome…
Linus, it’s men who suffer from a chromosomal deficiency versus women, not the other way around. Your Y isn’t extra, it’s an incomplete X, and women have the full set.
KS seems to have a pretty deep-seated animus toward women. But at least she kills her own bugs, right, LinusK?
I also don’t find her attitudes and experiences as a woman to be even remotely like my own. I am not even sure where to start - I disagree with everything she says about being a feminist. She talks about Jane - and even flat out says that Jane was **not **a feminist. So what the hell does Jane’s behavior have to do with feminism? If Jane had been a feminist, she would have done - what? Talk about how Scott really wasn’t a nice guy, except acting that way just to Jane? The way that KS said Scott was really like at the beginning of her story? I mean, KS says that Scott didn’t really act nice to anyone except Jane. Being sweet was a stretch for Scott, she says. So how was Scott really a “nice guy?”
I am a feminist, and I don’t want to fuck all the guys who are “*really *nice” in the world. She builds a nice strawman, but I don’t think she has anything meaningful to say about feminism.
You’ve never known a guy in the friend zone? :dubious: She has a good understanding of the male experience with dating, relationships, etc.
I *have *known guys in the friend zone. She may have a good understanding of the male experience - I don’t agree with her understanding of the *female *experience of dating. For instance, she wonders if Jane went home and sobbed about Scott saying No More - really? Or not understanding why some women get sick of hearing “I’m such a nice guy, I deserve a chance because I am so nice to her.” According to KS, a feminist would have convinced herself that Scott was not a Nice Guy. She presents feminist reaction as a monolithic "THIS is the way that a *feminist *would react. " I am a feminist, and when faced with a Nice Guy that i prefer to keep as a friend, I acknowledge that yeah, he is nice, but I don’t want to fuck him. If he wants to stick around and pursue friendship, great. If it’s painful for him, I understand. If he wants to stick around and whine to everyone that he just keeps doing nice stuff for me, but I won’t let him move out of the friendzone- well, no, let’s not do that.
Not by feminists.
So much for “equality,” right?
You need to read the article again.
From Women Against Feminism:
I don’t need feminism because the way feminists handle criticism is despicable. Feminism doesn’t have a monopoly on equality, and I can do my part to make sure women are treated with respect, without:
[ul]
[li]Silencing dissenting opinions[/li]
[li]Make fun of people who disagree with them[/li]
[li]Work so hard to explain away all the legitimate criticism of the movement[/li]
[li]Twist facts to support their causes…[/li][/ul]
WHY do you feel a guy who was tweeting under his corporate title and doing his damnedest to offend women, minorities, and Christians should get a damn pass from his private employer under the banner of “free speech”?
Honestly, I am starting to think this is some sort of long, whooshing joke. You ignore most of those who argue against you, you build strawmen and triumphantly knock them down, and you absolutely refuse to engage in honest debate. What, are you actually 12? Maybe 15, 16? You are obviously NOT trying to engage in an intelligent discussion. SO WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH?
Yes, I know. I read the article: men are genetically deficient.
You need to work on your insults, though: I’m not sure you know what Klinefelter Syndrome is.
This doesn’t apply to me or the feminists I know and know of, in general. So I’ll remain a feminist, then.
I don’t know what this response means. Are you still blaming feminists or feminism for the firing of the “Jesus raped by a pack of niggers” guy? Or do you think it’s reasonable for a company to fire someone who says something that may have a significant negative effect on their business?
Yes, it seems like they’re against the strawmen that have been built up by anti-feminists describing what feminists in their majority are.
Similar to what you’ve done here and the earlier thread.
Heck, must I remind you of this thread?
Most of the people in that thread consider themselves feminists. They answered your questions, unsurprisingly in ways that are against what you keep repeating over and over in the later threads. Yet you ignore them. You ignore all the responses in that thread when it came to later threads about feminism.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish? You either do not believe people when they say “Yes we’re feminists and we do not believe in this ridiculous strawman you present as feminism”, or you just completely ignore them.