37
38

"Twox is slowly becoming anti feminist." (np.reddit.com)

yourdadsbff が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]IAmAN00bie -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (120子コメント)

Edit: hi SRSS

To be fair the Time article seemed inflammatory. I had never heard of Myths 1-3. Myth 5 has been debunked hundreds of times on Reddit. Myth 4 they make it sound like it is still up in the air due to the nature of a small sample size and definition.

That's because it's written by Christina Hoff Sommers. That's literally all she does. She calls herself an "equity feminist" but her beliefs are way more in line with MRAs than any academic or mainstream feminists. She's also a libertarian who posts a lot of videos for the American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank. She gets paraded around by MRAs like she's "the only sane feminist calling out everyone else" like all the time.

The drama is meh. The whole thread is people reading a title and not spending a second thinking it seems. Nothing unusual for reddit.

Yeah, I expected more drama from TwoX from that. Not much to look at here.

Also the misunderstanding of the word feminist. Just because it's a women's sub doesn't automatically make it a feminist sub. There's redpillwomen which is about as anti-feminist as you can get on reddit I'd guess.

I think the point about TwoX becoming a default is that there's now a lot more people there who are trying to bait or push their anti-feminist agenda there. More so than used to happen, at least.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's because it's written by Christina Hoff Sommers

Did you have any actual response to her arguments other than that her views are contrary to mainstream or academic feminism and that her ideology contradicts yours?

I'm not usually one to invoke logical fallacies, but what does the fact that she's libertarian have to do with whether these specific arguments are correct or reasonable?

[–]bridgesfreezefirst 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (105子コメント)

That's because it's written by Christina Hoff Sommers. That's literally all she does. She calls herself an "equity feminist" but her beliefs are way more in line with MRAs than any academic or mainstream feminists. She's also a libertarian who posts a lot of videos for the American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank. She gets paraded around by MRAs like she's "the only sane feminist calling out everyone else" like all the time.

I'm neither a libertarian nor an MRA, and I am as suspicious of American Enterprise institute as anyone, but Sommers' affiliation with AEI does not negate the truth value of what she says. She is really more of a moderate-to-coservative Democrat who opposes what feminism has turned into, and the dishonest arguments that most modern self-styled feminists resort to.

Just because she's critical of what you believe, that doesn't automatically make her wrong.

[–]IAmAN00bie 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (88子コメント)

I never said that makes her wrong.

But people keep parading her around like she's the "voice of reason within feminism" when she's hardly even feminist at all.

[–]IsADragon 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (27子コメント)

It's kind of weird seeing people all the time go

If you believe women should be equal then you are a feminist

And now there's an increasing number of people going "omg she's not a feminist". I mean is there a particular reason why she can't be a feminist, especially when no one challenges calling TERF's feminists even though they are a disgusting blight on the name.

[–]IAmAN00bie 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (25子コメント)

If you believe women should be equal then you are a feminist

First, there's a lot of different people making all sorts of different claims. That definition is the one we're taught in school, and the one most people would say "huh yeah I'm a feminist!" if you told them that.

But that's not modern (third wave) feminism is. Third wave feminism is largely based on the ideas of intersectionality, Feminist Theory, etc. Examining gender roles in society and determining how they affect us in all walks of life, and differing branches of Third Wavers seek to 'dismantle this patriarchy' in different ways.

The reason CHS isn't really a feminist is because she's someone who believes that, basically, (third wave) feminism is not needed because women have full legal equality (in the West). She doesn't believe in oppressive social structures. This is consistent with her libertarian beliefs.

especially when no one challenges calling TERF's feminists even though they are a disgusting blight on the name

Anyone can call themselves a 'feminist', but if your beliefs are largely outside of the mainstream you're much less likely to be accepted by others.

CHS is like the only "equity feminist" out there... in fact she's the one who coined the term for herself.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

So you would agree that the criterion for being a feminist is no longer simply that one stands for equality?

[–]srdbro 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

she's hardly even feminist at all.

If you believe women should be equal then you are a feminist

But that's not modern (third wave) feminism is.

So, she's a feminist, just not a "third wave" one.

[–]OctavianRex 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Alright, please start calling out feminists when they use the "people should be equal thing". This shit needs to get settled.

[–]BlackHumor 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To be honest, it's really not the case that "if you believe women should be equal then you are a feminist".

Other feminists say that a lot but I doubt anyone actually believes it. I think that the people who say that have the mental qualifier that to truly advocate for women's equality you must advocate for the politically controversial parts of feminism, not just that women ought to theoretically be equal. That itself is not an unreasonable belief (I personally think that), it's just when combined with "anyone who believes in women's equality is a feminist" it's kind of dishonest.

[–]dustfeather 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (20子コメント)

when she's hardly even feminist at all.

I would LOVE to see what is a "real" feminist according to your universal law.

Because everytime I asked the question the response was very simple: Everyone who fights for equality for women AND men.

[–]Losering 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We will never know what a real feminist is. Everyday I see people on reddit screaming from both sides, "that's not Feminism!" and "only my brand is the real feminism!" and "you don't get to decide what feminism is!"

[–]Mimirs 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No such thing. "Real feminist" is as essentialist and full-of-it as "real man". There is instead a broad set of philosophies, ideologies, and movements loosely joined together by discourse.

[–]Outlulz -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of what I know of her I can't remember her saying anything positive about feminism. I saw her get retweeted talking negatively about feminists regarding #gamergate saying they're female chauvinists. She comes across more as anti-feminist than feminist. I don't know much more about her other than feminists seem to hate her and MRAs seems to use her as an example of what a "real" feminist is (because she's always criticizing other feminists).

[–]bridgesfreezefirst 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (37子コメント)

But people keep parading her around like she's the "voice of reason within feminism"

Sommers is not without her biases. But she's a damn sight better than many of the sensationalist clickbait writers featured on Jezebel, Buzzfeed, HuffPo, Guardian's Comment is Free, or any other vaguely lefty website I could name.

when she's hardly even feminist at all.

What gives you the authority to determine who is or is not feminist? This isn't like religion in which one must adhere to a specific creed in order to be counted as a member of the congregation.

[–]Mimirs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

She is really more of a moderate-to-coservative Democrat who opposes what feminism has turned into, and the dishonest arguments that most modern self-styled feminists resort to.

Perhaps we could just say that she opposes specific feminisms? Talking about a monolithic "feminism" or "most feminists" seems like it's just continuing the problem of people ignoring nuance in favor of easy generalizations, and seems to rely on empirical assumptions that at this point there's no evidence for.

[–]littlegreeen 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Always ALWAYS consider the agenda behind any source you read.

[–]bridgesfreezefirst 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, no kidding.

[–]badsitrep 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

And in this thread, we get to see /u/IAmAN00bie get BTFO.

B T F O

T

F

O

[–]deep_your_throat 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wonder if s/he even has a life, based on his history s/he basically spends all day lurking those subs to try to find anything offensive so s/he can post it here.

[–]totes_meta_botTattletale 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.

[–]circleandsquaresomething about waldo -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hey, now we know why the vote totals flipped so suddenly and the people who normally get downvotes here for spreading MRA nonsense are getting upvotes.

[–]BlackHumor -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Agreed with you on CHS.

Her whole shtick is anti-feminism. It's not that she has a fringe conception of feminism, it's that feminism for her is a rhetorical cover for her anti-feminism. If you accept her claim she's a feminist you might as well call Joe McCarthy a communist.

[–]srsmysavior -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

She's only anti dishonest-sobsister-feminism.

Once upon a time feminism used to be about equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender. That's what CSH is in favor of.