0
0

DISCUSSION[Discussion] Can we please stop calling SJWs "feminists", they aren't. (self.KotakuInAction)

AmazingSully が 投稿

Okay, so I got into a discussion with someone the other day as he was whining about feminists, and I noticed that you guys do it here a lot too, and I need to make this plea... please stop calling the SJWs feminists.

Feminists are not a problem. As the definition of a feminist goes, feminists believe in gender equality, plain and simple... so I hate to break it to you, but virtually all of you are feminists, as am I, as was my friend who was complaining. Feminists aren't bad, we actually love them, and what they stand for.

The people we have a problem with are not feminists, they don't believe in equality at all. My girlfriend made a wonderful point to me, she said "My problem with these self proclaimed feminists is that they look at every situation from a "how does this benefit women" perspective, not, "how does this create equality"." She also said "They're not real feminists, and calling them feminists is insulting." And this is where I think we really need to take a look at our own behaviour.

Okay, so a while back there was an anti SJW hashtag that was trending, something along the lines of looklikeafeminist or something (I actually forget the tag). The response was actual feminists taking issue with the claim, and not realizing they weren't the ones being targeted by the tag. When we refer to SJWs as feminists we allow them to hide behind the definition of "feminism", a truly noble and dignified pursuit, we give them credit in the eyes of regular people, because how can feminism be bad? How can equality be bad?

I love "SJW", it's a good term, and when you come across one of those self-proclaimed "feminists" I think you should correct them. Remind them that they aren't feminists. When you see someone bemoaning feminism, you should correct them... tell them "Hey, no, you don't hate feminists, you hate SJWs. Feminists believe in equality and you are probably a feminist". Remind people that calling an SJW a feminist gives them power. They are not feminists.

I want to know your thoughts as well.

全 86 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]thekindlyman555 23ポイント24ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm going to repost something I wrote a few days ago because I think it's relevant here:

This actually brings me right to one of my biggest issues with feminism, which is that it seems as though most of the more moderate feminists don't seem to want to denounce and distance themselves from the radicals, and it's one of the main reasons why I don't call myself a feminist and even occasionally consider myself an anti-feminist. It's not because I believe women are inferior or should have less rights than anyone else, but because the moderate feminists who I can agree with on many things remain allied with the absolutely crazy Tumblr feminists or the radfems who literally want to commit mass genocide against men. Feminism doesn't seem interested in the least in separating itself from the fairly large number of misandrists in it's midst and therefore come off as if they tacitly agree with them because they aren't denouncing them and even occasionally cheer them on. A lot of feminists seem to have the mindset that the ends justify the means and can therefore rationalize the existence of some of the most hateful people on the planet being part of their movement and doing horrible things in the name of feminism.

If I saw gamergate members cheering on the harassment of women I'd be appalled and I'd probably distance myself from the movement. But I haven't seen that at all in the 6-7 months I've been here. Quite the opposite in fact.

If I start seeing more feminists distancing themselves from their misandrists and calling them out as being misandrists and not feminists, then maybe I'll change my mind but for now feminism is polluted and I'm not going anywhere near that shit. It's your movement that you're allowing to be polluted, and most of you aren't doing anything about it.

[–]KDulius 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This. More of this

[–]neophytezen 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, that's actually a problem. But I don't see how distancing yourself actually acomplish anything. People using the term "equalist" fail to see that nothing stops toxic people to co-opt the term and using it to push a harmful agenda. Attacking feminism as a whole ideology, only pushes moderate people to the side of the extremists. And yeah, I actually prefer to call out misandry while still calling myself a feminist.

[–]thekindlyman555 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Feminism is not my movement to clean up. I've never claimed to be aligned with it so it's not my job to root out the crazies. It's perfectly fine if you still want to identify as a feminist and you still call out misandrists and sociopaths. I don't share that conviction. Maybe once feminism gets cleaned up a bit I'll change that stance but for now I'm just an observer.

And just because I may talk about feminism in broad strokes as being largely a problem right now doesn't mean that I won't still try to engage in discussion and debate with reasonable feminists. I may disagree with your opinions on certain issues but I won't attack you or pre-judge you (to the best of my abilities) just because you identify as a feminist.

[–]JymSorgee 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Mainstream liberals deny, ignore and refuse to call out SJWs. Does that mean the bulk of GG and KiA can no longer be called liberal?

[–]higgldeepiggldee 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

It can no longer be called mainstream liberal, since the rest of liberalism has decided to turn its back on liberal ideas. It's sort of like how mainstream Labour in Britain abandoned working class people in favor of immigrants (that's what I've heard. Not a Britbong here.)

[–]JymSorgee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I went through that experience in the 90s.

[–]thekindlyman555 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Liberalism, in my opinion, isn't a movement like feminism is as much as it's a set of ideals that hold value to me. Freedom of speech, creative freedom, personal liberties, and other such values are what liberalism is to me. I denounce anyone who doesn't value liberal values as not truly being a liberal. There is a very significant difference between liberalism and progressivism, and believe that the latter has been invading the former.

[–]JymSorgee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd agree with you in that. Of course most liberals and most liberal outlets and representatives refuse to oppose the SJW mindset. Which is precisely what can be said of feminism. Which is why I say SJW not feminst. If for no other reason that that it instantly defeats the dictionary argument. If you are a dictionary definition feminist you are not a SJW. If you are the real (unfortunately even the dictionary has surrendered on the word liberal http://i.word.com/idictionary/liberal ) you are not a SJW. Everything you have said about feminism is just as true about liberalism.

[–]Funadius_IV 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not that simple. From an earlier post of mine:

There are countless people who are sincerely against racism, sexism, and other types of bigotry, yet do not label themselves as any type of "~ist."

People who hold extreme ideological views try to do a bait and switch with such people. For example, the old "If you believe in equality, then you're a feminist" bait that feminists like Anita Sarkeesian like to put on the hook. They want people to accept and wear their label, and by doing so come under their authority.

Then comes the switch where it's not just a sincere belief in equality that counts, but a commitment to a specific ideology, where your personal choices don't count.

You can choose to call yourself a feminist if you want to, but if you want to be a feminist along CH Sommers' lines, you'll have to call yourself an "equity feminist" to distinguish yourself from those who believe they are the real feminists and CH Sommers isn't one at all—precisely because CH Sommers wants equality for all and doesn't play favorites.

So already we have different forms of feminism saying the other isn't real feminism even though both claim to be for equality.

The idea that just believing in equality makes you a feminist is simply not true. Any form of feminism has a specific ideology, makes specific claims, and lobbies in specific ways about specific issues. You should have to agree with most if not all of that before you take on the label, and even then it would be of that specific type of feminism.

[–]KDulius 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

SJWism is rooted very firmly in Second Wave (and even SOME first wave) feminist actions.

Like moderate Muslims, moderate Feminists need to do more to get their rabid ideologues off of their pedestals and do something other than NAFALT everywhere. Even the likes of Emma Watson has said things that show that blatant misandry permeates even "nice" feminists that have microphones

[–]richmomz 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the problem is that moderate feminism has already achieved most of the goals it set out for itself during the "first-wave". The result is that most of the moderates have moved on to other things after accomplishing their objectives, leaving the Radfems at the wheel of what used to be a very reasonable and socially progressive movement.

[–]EastGuardian 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, SJWism is rooted very firmly in the late second wave and had started to grow from the third wave. Ironic that the third wave started as a reaction to the excesses from the late second wave. Had early third-wave feminists decided to listen to the voices of reason instead of the radicals, this mess would have been stuck in the '90s!

[–]usul1628 14ポイント15ポイント  (5子コメント)

You've bought the motte and bailey narrative. Feminism has always been about advancing women's interests without strict adherence to other principles. If the equal rights argument was the motivator feminists would have folded up shop decades ago or at least moved on to other countries.

[–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Feminism has always been about advancing women's interests

In the early 20th century, Feminism was actually needed because women were disadvantaged through the law; and in the Middle East, it's clear that furthering women's rights is blatantly needed.

[–]usul1628 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course, like today, feminism was a vehicle for ruining everyone's fun. Prohibition coming the year after women's suffrage wasn't an accident on the part of women's rights advocates.

[–]2yph0n 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually, that's not true.

There are a movement lead by women called "Anti Suffrage movement" because getting the right to vote means that now women can be conscripted into the army.

It was a tradeoff.

[–]thekindlyman555 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except in true feminist style, they gained all of the benefits of equality and none of the responsibilities.

[–]clyde_ghost 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the point is though; whilst an equality movement might be needed in several countries, there becomes a disparity between other countries that have adopted feminists original calls for equality. Whilst the legal framework is now in place for equality of opportunity, many are claiming the need for forced equality of outcome. In fact, if Milo's numbers are to be believed (I've no resin to think they're not), women are doing substantially better than men and yet are still we hear nothing but calls for women to be given more and to create a greater disparity.

[–]richmomz 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

A better term for their ideology would be Gynotheism. They're more akin to an extremist cult than anything resembling a socially progressive movement; calling them Feminists is an insult to actual Feminists.

Edit: I also like the old classic term: "FemiNazis" - mostly because it pisses them off and highlights the fact that they are, in fact, extremist moral authoritarians who advocate abuse and pseudo-science as a means to further their insane socio-political goals.

[–]Unplussed 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Femi-fascists, since people tend to get hung up to much on "nazi".

[–]mbnhedger 9ポイント10ポイント  (16子コメント)

The majority of SJW's we are dealing with gladly call themselves feminists or use tenants of feminism. If you want us to stop associating feminists with SJW'S tell the SJW'S to stop ruining the name by throwing it around.

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

*Tenets

/pedant

[–]thekindlyman555 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What if he was talking about the people who live in feminism, huh?

[–]mbnhedger 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I blame the autocorrect on my phone.

[–]AmazingSully[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Well I'm saying you should tell them... we should all tell them. We should also stop giving them the legitimacy of being called feminists, because they aren't. If we call them feminists, that means we accept they are... and they aren't.

[–]2yph0n 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Its up to the 'REAL' feminists standing up to them. Not up to us.

But unfortunately, people like CHS are in the minority of feminists.

So when the majority of western feminists is THIS type, its simply the evolution of the movement.

[–]AmazingSully[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

And people would argue the MAJORITY of GG are harassers. That doesn't mean it's true. Show me data saying that CHS is in the minority and I'll accept your argument.

[–]2yph0n 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Because the majority of feminist publications ARE anti-men.

However WAM said that less than 1% of the GG tweets are considered to be negative.

CHS have been bombarded by SO many feminist publication its not even funny.

[–]AmazingSully[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well WAM didn't actually say that. Someone who was pro-GG made that very incorrect claim.

[–]2yph0n -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

WAM actually did say that. It was in their research.

[–]AmazingSully[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Actually it wasn't. I read the research. Someone who was Pro-GG made that claim by taking the results from their sample and comparing that to the entire population.

They had a sample of approximately 500 harassing tweets, 12% (or 60 something) were on the GGautoblocker. People then said well there are 9000+ accounts, so that 0.66% of GG are harassment. WAM never made that claim, and in fact the figure is incredibly misleading. You can't compare total results to a sample.

[–]Esyir 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually, you can. Provided the sample is sufficiently large and the sampling process unbiased, a sample can represent the population. B that is the point of sampling to begin with.

[–]AmazingSully[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You are misinterpreting my words. Here is essentially what happened.

You have a sample of 800 people in the world of say 1 million (I have no idea how many harassment reports twitter gets). You find 500 of these people don't like chocolate. 12%, or 60 of them are associated with a group, let's say that means they are from Wisconsin. And for argument sake let's say Wisconsin only has a population of 10,000. You cannot then say that this study showed that only 0.6% of people from Wisconsin dislike chocolate.

That is what the 0.66% claim says. Only instead of liking chocolate we have harassers, and instead of Wisconsin we have GG.

[–]LuminousGrue 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How is that different from being told that we're all misogynists?

[–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

We can't tell them to stop, that achieves nothing; we have to actively make an attempt to dissociate them from the term.

[–]mbnhedger 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then it has to be done from the feminist side of the issue. They are the ones remaining silent or actively embracing the extremists running rough shod over the conversation. Either was, asking KiA to change it's stance is not going to be productive for either faction.

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

The only real feminists are those who support gender equality.

This only works if you don't consider feminism as a movement, rather than a philosophy. It's the movement of feminism and its members that people object to, because self-identified feminists have a nasty habit of attacking people who dont agree with them whole-heartedly.

Just yesterday a feminist called me a sexist simply for stating that the interpretation behind the wage gap was flawed, and then went on to claim my sources had internalized misogyny. You might say people like that aren't true feminists, but that person believed that they were fighting for equality. Trying to correct them only makes them double down and tell you how their brand of feminism is the correct one.

I suggest you look up "motte and Bailey" arguments for more info. It's common for SJWs to constantly change their professed stance to something less objectionable when confronted by pushback.

EDIT: something else I wanted to add: people should be allowed to self-identify however they want and with whomever they want to associate with. We don't go around saying "hey, do you support ethics in journalism? Then you're a gamergater!" People like TB can support journalistic reform without having to accept a label. Likewise, telling people who self-identify as feminists that they're not real feminists, or people who deliberately avoid identifying as feminists that they're feminists, is just wrong.

[–]Abelian75 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

motte and bailey

This is a good post about the motte and bailey stuff I would highly recommend reading: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/

[–]Chris23235 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's up to the feminists who don't want to be associated with the SJW crowd to speak up, unless they don't kick out these people from their midst, I don't see any reason not to label them as feminists. First and foremost a feminists are person that label themself as feminists.

[–]BlockPuppetCuck of /r/Polygon 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ironically Feminism suffers from the same problem #GG does: anyone can call themselves a member and act "on the movement's behalf".

[–]Unplussed 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except the majority of the bad ones do honestly identify with the group and aren't just agitating.

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

and the lack of self awareness from people in this thread is staggering.

[–]BlockPuppetCuck of /r/Polygon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. Don't lose faith though Sully, education is key.

[–]mgod19http://i.imgur.com/nigrDxc.jpg 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

because how can feminism be bad?

When the idiot feminists you're talking about use it to bully, manipulate and corrupt feminism itself. And no matter what you say, those people still are feminists. You can decry them all you like, but the label still sticks to them like glue. The well is far beyond poisoned. They fucked up your movement, they represent the bulk of it now, people like you are in the minority.

[–]IIHotelYorba 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hey. I'm an anti-feminist. This is why.

I like most people who call themselves feminists. My Mom calls herself a feminist. Most people who call themselves feminists are very casual observers, with a strikingly shallow knowledge base (of things like historical or academic feminism.) They almost always confuse the basic concept of advocacy for women with the specific historic, literary and philosophical mindset of feminism. This is because like Christianity, feminism is quite long lived and has succeeded at absorbing most competition and similar ideas.

Feminism isn't just "nice ideas about women going to work etc." Feminism is a body of philosophical theory that DEEPLY delves into trying to explain WHY helping women should be prioritized. This is not "a few bad apples," this is what it taught as standard in academia in feminist and women's studies classes.

So, that reason? Patriarchy theory. Patriarchy theory is the core thesis of feminism, it's justification. Patriarchy theory is a global, historical conspiracy theory that claims ALL men as a class oppress ALL women as a class. (Many of you are no doubt seeing the comparisons with Marxist philosophy, which is the branch of philosophy these ideas are adapted from.)

This is hate.

All men do not do anything, any more than all black people, all muslims, all anyone. Saying all of one group does X bad thing without proof is hate.

I tend to compare it to white nationalists who may largely spend their time building housing and fundraising for school books. It would be just fine if their ultimate justification for doing it all wasn't "to preserve the white race from the black menace."

The same goes for feminism. Helping women is great, helping women "because they must be defended from men" is inexcusable bullshit that should be eradicated if you give a single fuck about the implications for your sons, fathers, brothers, husbands ...yourself.

So the next time you get worried about people besmirching feminism's good name, look up any of the nice things they advocate for. Look up who started the idea. Trace it back to its (typically) academic origins, and read the book/academic article justifying why whichever current push is important. Tell me the justification is hate free and not filled with language about how men must be taught not to rape, or how we do everything against women's will, or how our very feelings and anatomy are an affront to civilization.

While you're at it look up intersectional feminism, and tell me if you think it's beliefs seem similar to SJWs. Like exactly the same as them, because SJW is and always has been a euphemism for intersectional feminism. (This is the type of feminist Sarkeesian/McIntosh are, a combination or "intersection" of female, race, gay, trans etc issues.) SJWs aren't just obsessed with social justice issues, their beliefs are specifically feminist in nature, language and construction, especially when compared to other social justice belief systems.

[–]gabrielmodesta 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't label myself as 'anti-feminist', however, the research you have done clearly mirrors my own... so for the most part - yes this.

I have never, ever seen an "SJW" position expressed that I could not directly tie back to the basic tenets of 3rd wave feminism and intersectional theories. It's... identical.

Oppress the historical oppressor, to balance the scales. Trust us, we'll stop when the scales have been balanced.

Neat huh? And I have a son that's going to head off to college someday, I sincerely hope this has blown over by then.

[–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

You might get posts saying ''Feminism now is broken'' but I agree with you.

CH Sommers considers herself a Feminist; we need to help take Feminism back.

[–]Wylanderuk 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

No I really don't, I quite enjoy watching it rip its self apart thank you very much.

I might agree with individual feminists and I think Prof Hoff Sommers has the patience of a saint , but as a rule feminism can go piss up a rope.

[–]EastGuardian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In my opinion, why not take it back? To be honest, there have been people trying to take it back.

[–]levelate 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

yeah, feminists never dox folks, attack folks, disrupt peaceful assembly, lie, cheat, misquote, misrepresent statistics......wait...wait just a second, feminists do all these things.

face it buddy, your pet cult/ideology is poison, and no amount of your 'but, but....they're not feminists' is not gonna change that.

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

Replace everything feminist with GG in this and see if the narrative sounds similar.

[–]tracker2208 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Words change meaning over time. Even if the dictionary definition hasn't officially change feminism doesn't mean the same thing today as it did in the 70s. The truth is there hasn't been a valid feminist cause in a really long time (not counting abortion, that's a complicated issues with human rights of the unborn, and maybe getting tampons tax exempt). What feminism is now fighting for in the first world countries is superior right economical, social, and political rights, or at the very least all the rights but none of the responsibilities. Most who consider themselves feminist don't realize this and it's too radical of a concept to grasp at one time, so I'll never correct anybody over what they call themselves. So while some feminist might not be a problem, feminism is.

[–]treebog 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The truth is there hasn't been a valid feminist cause in a really long time (not counting abortion, that's a complicated issues with human rights of the unborn, and maybe getting tampons tax exempt).

Are you serious?

[–]tracker2208 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In places like the US, UK, and Canada women have achieved political, social, and economic equality. So with equality achieved they've moved on to stupid things like "ban bossy" and fighting feminine hygiene humor. There's just no where else to go. Period.

[–]VermaakODST 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They're Third-Wave Feminists. They're Radical Feminists. They're Extremist Feminist. Call em whatever you want, but they are feminists none the less.

[–]STOTTINMAD 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I honestly see Feminism as the other side of the coin to Gamergate. It's become so splintered over the years. They don't know what they stand for. I am no feminist, and never will be.

[–]Reyvaan 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

yes, they are feminists

just that they belong to the 3rd wave of feminism which are all about victim-hood, misandry and supremacy

the 1st wave feminists are about equality but they have long forsaken equality for female-supremacy

[–]XenoKriss 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I simply call them Radfems.

[–]Rottim 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

notallfeminists

[–]snoopyzanus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I first read this as NO TALL FEMINISTS.

[–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield / https://i.imgur.com/6X3KtgD.jpg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Archive links for this post:

I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

[–]urbn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not all SJWs are feminists. Not all feminists are SJWs.

[–]Belzarr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What should we call them then? Femme Supremacist?

[–]clyde_ghost 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Whilst I completely agree with what you're saying in terms of taking back the name, there is a lot of feminism that IS the problem here. It's unfortunate because I think it goes against much of what feminists say they want, but the current outrage culture has feminism as its cornerstone.

In that respect, Feminism is a lot like GG. It's a leaderless movement (the leaders are mostly self-proclaimed) with no centralised organisation. Because of that, anyone can call themselves a feminist and you can't stop them doing it, no matter how reprehensible their actions may be.

[–]AmazingSully[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's my point, they are exactly like GG. And GG calls out harassers. We have the harassment patrol for instance. It's fairly possible (and likely), that the same issues GG has with image are the same issues feminism has. I'm suggesting we don't allow them to splinter. The SJWs will claim that the ethics in games journalism angle is to give credibility to our harassment campaign, in the same way the SJWs use feminism to give credibility to their harassment campaign.

I'm saying, don't accept the SJWs claiming to be feminists (those who harass claiming to be GG) to call themselves feminists (the GGers who believe in ethics in gaming journalism)

EDIT: I just want to add, if we aren't willing to do it for them, why should we expect they'd be willing to do it for us?

[–]snoopyzanus -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

they are exactly like GG.

Except that unlike GG whose bad reputation is a result of a deliberate smear campaign, where (to my knowledge) no identifiable member of GG has been proven to have done any of the terrible things GG has been accused of, feminism's bad reputation is the result of the many things provably said and done by identifiable individual feminists and feminist organizations.

And GG calls out harassers. We have the harassment patrol for instance.

Beyond C.H. Sommers, Camille Paglia and Cathy Young, where is the feminist equivalent of GG's harassment patrol?

If GG were like feminism, the vast majority of the active participants in GG would be decrying the words and actions of the harassment patrol and claiming it wasn't actually part of GG, the way the above women are accused of not being real feminists because of what they say and do.

I am willing to believe that there are a great many "coffee shop" feminists whose involvement extends to little more than a chat about gender issues over a latte, but no matter how much they just want equality and believe that's what feminism is all about, if they are not active they are worse than useless.

Why? Because they provide a beard for the radicals and allow the radicals to punch far, far above their weight as they act as the voices of the whole movement when it comes to lobbying. Their silence and inactivity while still wearing the label "feminist" gives tacit support to the actions of the radicals, who are the feminists who are making demands and lobbying for laws, policies, and for the entrenchment of their ideology.

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

I would say SJWs co-opting feminism was a deliberate attempt to make their argument more credible, not to smear feminism, but to use it to legitimize their actions, the same thing we are accused of doing with ethics journalism.

As for the feminist equivalent of GG's harassment patrol, you just aren't seeing it, but I can assure you it exists, as I provided one example of myself and my girlfriend decrying the words and actions of those co-opting feminism. the same way the harassment patrol isn't seen by the majority of people outside of GG.

As for if GG were like feminism claim that the majority of active participants in GG would be decrying the words and actions of the harassment patrol, that's the wrong analogy. The majority of feminists aren't SJWs, the proper analogy would be that the majority of harassers would be decrying the harassment patrol... and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what ayyteam managed to accomplish in a piece by a buzzfeed "news reporter" not that long ago.

Regarding your "if they are not active they are worse than useless", that's a ridiculous claim considering all of the progress that has been made in the years. That's like saying someone who believes in journalism ethics but doesn't participate in GG actively is worse than useless. Frankly that's revolting.

I'd also make the argument that they aren't the only ones providing a beard for the radicals... by accepting what they call themselves we are also providing a beard for the radicals, which is EXACTLY the point of my posting this thread. One could also use this exact argument against us and claim anybody who supports GG but doesn't actively participate in the harassment patrol is worse than useless. A lot of people have lives, and don't want to put up with the headache and drama surrounding all of this. It's reasonable, and to ignore that is a problem.

[–]snoopyzanus 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

We are looking at this with very different frameworks.

Let me explain some of my framework. Firstly, I am distinguishing the active feminists (the lobbyists, protesters, etc) from the inactive ones (the ones who just chat about feminism with their friends).

You seem to be conflating the two, but the difference matters. Take the example of you and your girlfriend decrying SJW feminists. If you are just saying this to each other and to your friends, then this is still inactive coffee shop feminism.

Where are the moderate feminist counter-protesters when radical feminists turn up at a talk about the issue of male suicide to stop people getting in, screaming "You are fucking scum!" at people who want to hear the talk?

Where are the moderate feminist lobbying groups fighting against feminist groups who have made non-gendered issues into gendered ones, so only women and girls are given help?

There is no organized mass resistance against the radicals by the moderates.

You say that SJWs are trying to co-opt feminism, but they are comfortably nestled within it, whereas people like C.H. Sommers have been made outcasts for daring to take on the "harassment patrol" role.

And this was what my analogy was about, not about SJWs. Prominent feminists rejected and shut out C.H. Sommers, claiming she isn't even a feminist, and there was not a groundswell of support for her from the moderates to neutralize that. They aren't pushing the radicals out and steering active feminism back toward supporting real equality.

Regarding your "if they are not active they are worse than useless", that's a ridiculous claim considering all of the progress that has been made in the years.

If someone hasn't done anything, then they haven't made any progress, have they? Again, you're conflating active feminists with inactive ones. (I think that a lot of the good attributed to feminists would have happened, or did happen anyway, but that's a debate for another time. Technology, birth control and formula has done more to liberate women than anything feminism has ever done.)

I'm saying coffee shop feminists are worse than useless because if they are silent and inactive, then they only voices to reach those in power are the radical ones, and they will be assumed to be speaking on the behalf of feminism. There is no great mass of active, influential moderate feminists who are like C.H. Sommers. There is a great mass of coffee shop feminists. That is a problem.

I'm not saying everyone has to be active, but if the vast majority of feminists who are active are radicals, who are the only feminists influencing laws, programs and policies, then how can the inactive ones claim to be the "real" feminists?

You are saying that SJWs aren't feminists, but their ideology is in many ways identical to that of the active radical feminists.

I will be more than happy if the true moderates rise up and take over active feminism; but I think you will need to accept that it's not a simple division of SJW/good, moderate feminists, but that the entrenched active radical feminists with the most influence are walking hand in hand with the SJWs.

They would need to be dethroned and replaced. You can't just deny their existance and expect the moderates to take over.

I'm personally for equality of opportunity and against any form of bigotry, but I don't wear a label. I think there are a lot of people like this. They don't have to accept the feminist label either. I would feel dirtied by it. I think reality is in actions, not words. I look at the actions of feminism to judge its reality.

*Grammar edit.

[–]AmazingSully[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sorry I don't know how to quote, but a couple of things I want to address.

"You are saying that SJWs aren't feminists, but their ideology is in many ways identical to that of the active radical feminists."

Radical feminist = SJW. So you basically just said SJW ideology is in many ways identical to that of an SJW. I'm saying they aren't feminists, period, they do not believe in equality based on gender, thus they aren't feminists, and don't share any ideology in common. They simply claim to be feminists.

"I look at the actions of feminism to judge its reality."

And I'm sure many people could say the same thing about GG and come to an incorrect conclusion. You may believe you are judging the actions of feminism, but you aren't, you're judging the actions of the radicals and holding everyone accountable for it. That would be like hating muslims because of ISIS.

"If you are just saying this to each other and to your friends, then this is still inactive coffee shop feminism."

Yes, because feminism is virtually unneeded in the western world. Feminism has accomplished what it needed to over here, so why would people need to be "active"? This is what the vast majority of feminists aren't active and the radicals have been able to come in and co-opt the name. Using it to legitimize their stance. I'm saying we need to push back against it.

A lot of the arguments people have been making in this thread are identical to the arguments aGG has made against GamerGate. I find it alarming considering how quick we are to point out the lack of self awareness of the other side. KiA has become a massive echo chamber, yet we laugh at aGG for staying in theirs.

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

I agree with the sentiment, but who exactly is in control of feminism? Groups and movements aren't judged by the expressed goals, they're judged by the members. There are fringe feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers who do good work and are mostly hated by other feminists. The mainstream feminists, who are in the majority, are the ones causing problems. Anita made Time magazine for being one of the most influential people. CHS is routinely run protested at campuses for calling out fake statistics, which has become the hallmark of feminism. When you ask someone how women are oppressed today, their most likely response will be the debunked wage gap. The rational feminists are the movements pariahs. The truth of the matter is that we already have gender equality. Women have all the opportunities of men. If not for complaining about minor details and having a random tweet to complain about, feminism is mostly out of things to fight about. The reason the fraudulent statistics are so highly regarded within feminism is because there's nothing in reality to be mad about so they need to look outside of reality to justify the movement's existence. All the rational feminists are now combating the irrational ones to take back the label, but what will the rational feminists do with the label when they have it? At least in western society, mainstream feminism are the last real fight rational feminists have.

[–]Abelian75 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I understand this line of reasoning, but I admit I've come to feel that the name itself is sort of a problem. I'd ask yourself why it's so important to you to keep the name, rather than just fighting for equality. And then consider that this need in and of itself might be dangerous and exploitable.

To some extent I feel like this sentiment that one has to be able to call themselves a feminist in order to be a fully good person (and by extension, if feminism is currently terrible, that it's necessary to "take it back") is itself part of the problem. Any ideology that has this sort of chokehold on basic goodness, while actually saying very little ("Women should not be considered less than men" is not a terribly bold or radical claim) seems extremely prone to becoming corrupt. There's almost no content to the ideology's "friendly" (motte) face other than "Are you not a total fucking douchebag? Then you're a feminist!" And so everyone naturally assumes anyone who isn't a feminist is a complete fucking asshole.

So I dunno. I'm not totally on board the anti-feminist train, particularly since there are areas of the world where it likely is needed. But I do see it as sort of a One Ring of sorts. Its draw is so powerful that it seems exceptionally hard to root out bad behavior that hides behind it. It's so good at making anyone speaking against it seem to be the worst sort of human imaginable. That's a hell of a lot of power.

(Ironically, I suspect it's a dangerous label because benevolent sexism is a real and powerful force. People want to protect women. They're going to be drawn to a label that is all about making sure women are safe and ok, and they're going to want to stop anyone that appears to be attacking them.)

Edit: To some extent this is of course a semantic debate. We're just arguing over what word to call the thing that we all believe. In this case, though, I'm not sure the semantics are arbitrary.

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

The problem is with image. My reasoning for why it's so important to keep the name has nothing to do with "someone has to call themselves a feminist in order to be a fully good person", fuck that's ridiculous and I never suggested that in any way. My reasoning is that the name feminism gives them credibility to the majority of people.

Most people associate feminism as a good thing, again, most people see it as fighting for equality. So oftentimes people will back people who are spouting nonsense and hate because of the fact they are doing it in the name of feminism.

Look at GG. There are people who discount whatever we say, simply because of our name. It's ridiculous that it is the case, but it happens, and the opposite happens to feminists (and sometimes the same because feminism is becoming so splintered).

My argument was that by refusing to just concede that they be called feminists (and thus giving their argument credibility it doesn't deserve), we should fight that. Force their credibility to be based solely on their actual arguments and actions.

Semantics or not, it matters a great deal.

[–]Abelian75 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, yeah, I didn't really read this sort of conscious strategy in your original post. I'm torn on whether I agree, but it's a sort of destroy the ring/use it against the enemy disagreement, not a disagreement that there is a strong tactical argument for holding on to the name. I'm just not sure whether it's a viable long-term strategy. But I do genuinely mean "not sure", I change my mind about this pretty frequently.

[–]trander6faceImported ethics to Mars 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My repost

Wow these SJWs ride on the backs of other peoples' hard work

They stole feminism from the old wavers like Based Mom and riding on the goodwill earned by feminism till today

They score oppression points just by sharing the gender/skin colour of a previous unrelated person who went through some serious shit

They barge into any community which runs on meritocracy and demand to treat them special otherwise hold the whole community as hostage

The point is SJWs are not feminists.... they do not struggle for the people who are truly oppressed... they fight the patriarchy where it is non-existant (West) and be sympathetic to the places and culture where patriarchy does runs rampant (Saudi)

Its time people should stop associating SJWs with feminism

[–]EastGuardian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

SJWism believes that everything in the world is sexist, homophobic, misogynistic among every other negative buzzword that it can cram.

[–]Unplussed 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, feminism is "The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."; equality isn't the goal, just the smokescreen, and people like you keep trying to blow the smoke.

[–]Anadis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know whether the majority of feminists are crazy, I merely know that the crazy ones are the ones leading the movement. Even worse the ones who aren't crazy are incapable of detecting the ones who are. The problem is that even the non-crazy feminists don't practice skepticism, so the crazy ones can easily recruit them for whatever witch hunt they come up with. Remember Tim Hunt?

[–]Doc-ock-rokc 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

fauxinists is a good one i've heard other real feminists use

[–]Klytemaestra 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

As the definition of a feminist goes, feminists believe in gender equality, plain and simple... so I hate to break it to you, but virtually all of you are feminists

This is an Affirming the Consequent fallacy and a false statement. The concept of gender equality predates feminism by thousands of years.

[–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield / https://i.imgur.com/6X3KtgD.jpg [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Archive links for this discussion:

I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

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

Are there "Men's Rights Soldiers?" what about "Muslims in the West Fightsquad"? No? Any "Gay Rights Gladiators"? Hm

Ah, It's because only self-aggrandizing ideologues who think they're fighting the holy war would label themselves something so incredibly stupid. Even the Crusaders hid their bigoted war behind a nice title.

Never forget. Social Justice Warriors

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

If feminism would allow neutrals, I'd be all on board.

As it stands, "anti-feminist" is treated as "anti-women"; I used to identify as feminist, but as I told my friends, over time I met too many feminists.

That said, one of the interesting things I noted about GG is I started seeing more moderate feminists, and that's moderated my view on feminism a good deal.

[–]jlitwinka -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I agree. Calling them feminists is like calling the trolls who send harassment claiming to be part of Gamergate, members of Gamergate. A select group of people have co-opted feminism to push their agenda. People like C.H. Sommers are proof of that.

[–]2yph0n 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

No mainstream called out the /#killAllMen feminists.

This type of feminism IS the mainstream.

[–]Unplussed 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except that the "bad feminists" don't falsely claim to be feminists in order to fake feminists look bad, they proudly identify as them.