Discussion in 'Community' started by blubeast1237, Aug 1, 2014.
can we all just agree to not read or respond to this?
Here we go.
can we just admit that this was what we were waiting for from post #1?
The anticipation was so palpable I'm surprised nobody made a Rocky Horror reference.
Alright Vivec, you're up. If you disappoint us, the shame will crush you for the rest of your life.
I'm sorry, I'm just reeling from the inevitable let down that occurs when the reality doesn't live up to the expectation.
So you're saying you didn't enjoy the antici...
So you're all for feminism provided it's on your own male-centric terms.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put all of them there? [/obligatory man-hating post]
The way I interpret what he's saying is that there is a great deal of anger and thus radicalization to be found both in the rejection of patriarchy as well as the pushback against feminism. This becomes a negative cycle, not helping achieve true equality.
At least, that's my interpretation.
Yeah except the man-hating feminist is a cultural myth propagated by right wing radio and other conservative elements. There's a reason Rush Limbaugh is the one who coined the term "feminazi."
What irritates me about what he's saying is that his entire post is one massive assertion with nothing to back it up. I'm fine with people presenting their viewpoints but when viewpoints are presented as facts it makes me feel like this:
Why can't this:
Or, if you're determined to go with the former, then provide some evidence in the way of links to sources!
So the problem, I think, with assuming that treating everyone equal is the fact that the standard for equality is a male standard;not a unisex sex standard. Women shouldn't be treated as equal to men, they should be treated equal to a human being standard and with the respect as a human being and so should everyone. This is kind of echoed in relational feminist theory.
And there should be an anti-patriarchy attitude with the intent to bring it down. Its a bad system. Or, maybe its not, but I call systems bad when they are, by creation, purposed to serve only a certain group of people and everyone else is seen as an exception. But I also agree that things should be constantly reevaluated, but the current setup being what it is, I don't see a great deal of reason for a power feminist to change that mindset.
As far as moviefan's post go, there's not much substance to what he's saying so... maybe we can just overlook it?
That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Your 'unisex sex standard' has to be set to something. Now if we are going to assume that women are treated worse by society than men then presumably it makes sense for Feminists to aim to be treated the same as men, hence the word equality.
Exactly! It's one thing to fake all the moon landings in Burbank, but to send all of the men there? There's no way the city can pay for that.
That's because men control the budgets! PATRIARCHY!
His posts in a nutshell, and good idea.
you're doing that thing where you think the definition of feminist excludes any man-hating, but you don't say so explicitly. it's misleading.
No, I'm doing that thing where I recognize a bald-faced attempt to poison the discourse utilizing a lazy equating of anti-status quo with anti-male by people who can't be arsed to read the theories they're attacking.
In short, pro-female isn't necessarily anti-male. There's already a term for people who hate men, and that term doesn't start with an "f" and end with "eminist."
i understand. you really are saying that there are no man-hating feminists. ok... i mean, a quick google search disproves that, but whatever...