I’m unaware that this is a central tenet of feminism. It’s definitely not a central tenet of my feminism.
Actually, I would dispute this point. You don’t have to look far to find an article on whether models are too thin, actresses in movies are too young, or pictures in magazines should be airbrushed. I would see those as societal discussions on the image of the feminine.
Then you have “Lean In” and that whole movement about how women (and men) should evaluate their role at home and work, and take the route that makes sense for them. Stay home, go to work, do both. It’s ok to do one or the other. Again, this is an examination of what it means to be feminine in Western society.
There are a lot of books and speakers that tackle this topic. To the point where I think “what it means to be a woman today” is almost constantly a topic of discussion in the news or media.
Discussion and examination of roles can be helpful as we evolve as a society. I would also argue that sometimes you see what you’re looking for. From the other side of the fence, it can feel like everything is bash on women and men get the “pass”.
I missed the five minute window, lance, but I’d wanted to edit my post to really hammer home the point that you used “quote marks” around “every feminist group always opposes”, as though LK had ever actually said that. Was that deliberately deceitful, or are you more incompetent than malicious?
A third choice - I should have said I was paraphrasing, not quoting.
And here you are at it again.
It didn’t “pretty much” say that at all. It said something different, which you maliciously or negligently misrepresented.
I’ve covered this elsewhere. I’m an egalitarian, which is to say that yes, I share many goals with many feminists. I share a love of peace and charity with many christians too - but I am not a christian, I am not a feminist, and I think both are built on false foundations.
And you should argue decently and with respect, instead of making stuff up and playing silly games and wriggling around like a wriggly thing with a boy scout badge for wriggling.
Oh I would, if I had been, but I didn’t. Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle… I did address the foundation of feminism. I did not misrepresent it. I have not addressed the ‘bulk’ of feminists’ “beliefs” (note the word - there’s an element of faith required, eh?). Which is it, lance? Staggering incompetence, or wilful malice?
Did I say that, lance? Did I? No. It’s definitely looking more like spite than stupidity, but I promise faithfully that whichever one you choose to explain the **** like this that you post, I’ll take your word for it.
Or perhaps it has more to do with what I actually said. I’m going with that, I think, yes, it’s definitely a case of ‘I said something else, lance, why are you confused?’
Told you so - and yet you wriggled and wriggled around that issue, with the (genuinely ludicrous) claim that I couldn’t possibly already know.
But as noted, if you don’t believe that [del]christ died for our sins[/del] all men are inherently responsible for a constructed universal system that purposefully oppresses women, then you’re not a feminist. Just claiming to be one doesn’t cut it. I give to charity and love my neighbour. That doesn’t make me a christian.
You should have quoted, lance, and then responded to what was actually said. You should also have checked the definition of ‘paraphrasing’, because that wasn’t what you were doing. You were ‘wilfully or negligently misrepresenting’, which deliberately or fortuitously favoured you. You went on to do the same to me. So we’re back to those two choices, lance. I have no intention of engaging with you again until you’ve chosen one.
Cool.
Then what more is there to talk about?
You’re irrationally aggressive. Is that just you, or is it that I used the label feminist for myself?
You have issues.
Major issues.
Do not tell me what I am. Do not tell me what a feminist is. You don’t get to do that.
Do you go around telling other people they aren’t Christians?
I get to decide what I think feminism is or ought to be. You don’t like it? Too bad. It really doesn’t matter anyway - all this obsession over labels is is a way for you to bash people who don’t deserve it. Forget about the label, just discuss the values. You believe in equality? Me too. Cool, we agree. Glad that’s over.
You must be the one true Scotsman, Jack of Words.
And that’s gonna earn you a warning, Jack. Don’t insult other posters.
Given that you have made this statement quite emphatically and repeated it at least once, would you care to provide us with a citation?
I’m (finally) confused. lance’s posts, where noted, display either incompetence or malice. How am I supposed to draw attention to that (and establish which is more to blame)? Have you read any of his, by the way? I’m “irrationally aggressive” and “have issues” - and yet no warning for lance. His insults don’t even pertain to what I wrote - they’re just random insults to throw off casual readers. His posts are, clearly, either spiteful or stupid - and it’s the posts I’m referring to.
Found this interesting thingy:
"My favorite definition of a feminist is one offered by Su, an Australian woman who, when interviewed for Kathy Bail’s 1996 anthology DIY Feminism, described them simply as “women who don’t want to be treated like shit.” "
http://www.vqronline.org/essay/bad-feminist
But as we now know, “Su” is not actually a feminist, so she can’t define feminism! What a catch-22.
That’s not really how that fallacy works. Meanwhile, kudos to the poisonous ideology of feminism for gulling you and others into believing it’s no more than ‘we just want equality’. I want equality regardless of gender - but I’m most definitely not a feminist (partly because I don’t redefine ‘equality’ as a one-sided possibility, or blame the other ‘side’ for the lack of it).
Well we now know you’re not a feminist by that definition, eh?
Now that is true.
I am a feminist. I want equality regardless of gender.
So I am living proof that you are wrong about your definition. Unless you want to pull out the true Scotsman again, but he’s probably tired.
Lance, you said earlier that you were a man, and a feminist. Then you offer us yet another definition of feminism, which says feminists are women. By that definition, you’re not a feminist. Do try to keep up. Why, by the way, do you favour one person’s definition over another? Is because she’s a lady person? That doesn’t sound like equality, lance. Or is it than anyone can offer any definition? In which case the term is effectively meaningless.
I simply figured you must be the one true Scotsman, given that you are so good at telling the rest of us we aren’t.
I didn’t offer that as THE definition, I just noted someone else’s definition, which I thought was food for thought.
And I understood exactly what you meant, which is why I said “that’s true.”
I didn’t favor it. I just thought it was interesting.
I think you’re in over your head.
No, people can disagree about the details. We all know the basics about what “feminist” means.
You think I am a feminist, because I keep saying I’m not and neither are a couple of other people I’ve addressed? I know that’s not what you said, and I’m not even ‘paraphrasing’ (not even by lance’s creative definition). It’s me putting what I have said in the context of your post, which doesn’t refer to what I’ve said.
Is it a co-incidence that so many apparently pro-feminist posts rely on either deliberate falsehood or negligent ignorance? I’m insulting your post, to be clear - I have no permissible opinion about you.