Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Feminism
Thread: Feminism This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT»
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:08 PM

being a female doesn't make an argument any more valid, meroe. just like being a male doesn't make an argument any more valid.

i can sense a lot of anger towards men when you say things like:

meroe said:
rape isn't something men truly understand. But the actual act of violent penetration isn't comprehended by guys, because its really something that they will never experience.  Yes men can be raped, but only effectively by another guy or group of guys.


if you were to make things generic, and put instead:

"_______ isn't something men truly understand. The actual act of ________ isn't comprehended by guys, because its really something that they will never experience.  Yes men can be ________, but only effectively by another guy or group of guys",

does this not look sexist to you? does this not look a little one-sided? including any word, or group of words, does not change the message you send, by posting things like this. this is no better than a sexist male saying:

"_______ isn't something women truly understand. The actual act of ________ isn't comprehended by gals, because its really something that they will never experience.  Yes women can be ________, but only effectively by another gal or group of gals."

do you see what i'm driving at?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Nitramar
Nitramar


Adventuring Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:14 PM
Edited by Nitramar at 20:17, 17 Jun 2014.

mvassilev said:
Someone may be particularly interested in or good at talking about feminism and be less focused on gay rights, or vice versa. As long as they're not getting in each other's way, what's the problem? Especially considering that specialization helps, because different groups have different problems.


The only problem I have with this is on a principle level. Dividing people into groups just feels like the wrong way to approach the problem that individuals are treated differently (after all, it is individuals that matter, right?).

Also, what if women are doing worse (on average) than gays (purely hypothetical)? These groups are not each other's "opposites" so it's not easy to say if supporting one of them will help overall or not. So, for example in this case, improving the conditions of women make the conditions of gays relatively worse compared to women (since not all gay people are women). If you support both, it might work, except if the groups happen to want conflicting things.

It is also possible to for example support women's rights while outright hating gay people. If the objective is equal rights for all, then these different group movements should at least be coordinated by some kind of a parent movement. And as I said, there are an infinite amount of possible groups, whichever ones you choose to help, you are ignoring most other groups, which does not signal equal treatment to me. Of course, if the objective is only "better rights for us, screw those others", it's a whole other discussion entirely.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
meroe
meroe


Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
posted June 17, 2014 08:16 PM

Yeah I actually get this all the time Fred.  I do understand what you are saying, as I have upset people before.  I tend to try and condense what I write, basically because I can't stand walls of text.  And as a result nuances and such are lost.  

However, I did explain, or try to explain that I wasn't saying that men were too dense to understand the horror of rape.  What I was trying to get across is that because of the simple biology of sex between men and women i.e. penetration.  Rape can be hard  for many guys to fathom.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:19 PM
Edited by fred79 at 20:20, 17 Jun 2014.

sexist, uncaring, or stupid guys, yes. you do know how rapists are treated in prison, don't you? they are seen as the scum of the earth, even by scum. as they should be.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
meroe
meroe


Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
posted June 17, 2014 08:22 PM

Yes I know.  So?  What I should be concerned about a convicted rapist having difficulty in prison now?  I'm no bleeding heart liberal.  Why the hell would I care about a rapist?
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:24 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 20:26, 17 Jun 2014.

Nitramar:
The problem is, people are already divided into groups, both naturally (biologically, for example) and socially, and acknowledging these differences doesn't necessarily mean endorsing them. One can even acknowledge these differences while working for their abolition. Indeed, it's difficult to talk about these differences in how people are treated without acknowledging the common traits that cause some people to be treated differently. Different people have different problems with different solutions, and what may help gay people may not do much for women (while not hurting them), and vice versa. Acknowledging this is in no way contrary to individualism.

Fortunately, equality isn't zero-sum, and making women equal doesn't require hurting gay people, and equality for gay people doesn't hurt women.

What you say does bring to mind one conflict, though - TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). These radical feminists are gender essentialists and have really negative views of trans people. But that's relatively unusual, as pro-trans people tend to be feminists, and vice versa.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted June 17, 2014 08:24 PM

Quote:
Of course, if the objective is only "better rights for us, screw those others", it's a whole other discussion entirely.

This again. They may not be necessarily sworn enemies but their agendas may not be fully compatible or even in conflict. And to repeat myself, when it actually comes to politically changing things rather than some general slogan of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" (a sidenote: when this was the slogan of the French Revolution, women couldn't vote or own property), it becomes about priorities, funds, taking reaction from group A or group B, taking votes from group A or group B (you can't have both), so, it inevitably becomes about what you focus on.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:24 PM
Edited by fred79 at 20:25, 17 Jun 2014.

@ meroe: huh? i'm not sure we're communicating thoroughly. what i'm saying is, rapists are hated by guys just as much as by women. they are hated by criminals, just as much as by law-abiding citizens. what i am saying is, they aren't generally liked. men are just as much on your side with this, as women are.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
meroe
meroe


Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
posted June 17, 2014 08:30 PM
Edited by meroe at 20:31, 17 Jun 2014.

fred79 said:
@ meroe: huh? i'm not sure we're communicating thoroughly. what i'm saying is, rapists are hated by guys just as much as by women. they are hated by criminals, just as much as by law-abiding citizens. what i am saying is, they aren't generally liked. men are just as much on your side with this, as women are.


Fred, I never thought differently lol.  So I don't understand where the confusion has arisen.  I don't think I ever stated differently either.

*fireball*
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:32 PM

lol, my mind is full of ****. so, how about those tomatoes? are they a plentiful crop this year?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:38 PM

Feminists tend to acknowledge oppression on a lot more grounds than gender though. People also face oppression due to race, religion, sexuality et cetera and these often converge. You should all look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality which is like the big thing among feminists right now. It's all about how all kinds of oppression converge and relate to each other.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Nitramar
Nitramar


Adventuring Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:54 PM
Edited by Nitramar at 20:59, 17 Jun 2014.

artu said:
They may not be necessarily sworn enemies but their agendas may not be fully compatible or even in conflict.


I thuoght I said that too. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or arguing against me. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you (wouldn't be the first time).

Quote:

And to repeat myself, when it actually comes to politically changing things rather than some general slogan [...] it becomes about priorities, funds, taking reaction from group A or group B, taking votes from group A or group B (you can't have both), so, it inevitably becomes about what you focus on.

If you talk about legislation, the only thing you need to do is remove any part that talks about some specific group of people and rewrite the law so that it applies to all individuals (I'm not saying it's easy or that it would always work in practice).

If you talk about social conventions, attitudes and observed behaviour, then it's more difficult.

Just something I thought of though: suppose I'm an elderly jewish gay woman with one leg (obviously I'm not, but just for the sake of the example). Now, suppose I'm being treated badly: how do I know if it's because I'm female or if it's because I'm old, handicapped, gay or whatever, or if it's just randomly something else?
If a man does it, is it automatically because I'm female? Whay if women treat other women badly, does feminism solve these issues?


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 08:59 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 21:01, 17 Jun 2014.

Nitramar said:
suppose I'm an elderly jewish gay woman with one leg (obviously I'm not, but just for the sake of the example). Now, suppose I'm being treated badly: how do I know if it's because I'm female or if it's because I'm old, handicapped, gay or whatever, or if it's just randomly something else?
It depends on the specific way in which you're treated poorly. If people are making jokes about your nose or bank account, it's because you're Jewish, if people think you're irrational and more emotional, it's because you're a woman, and so on.

And yes, women can be sexist against women, by internalizing societal sexism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Nitramar
Nitramar


Adventuring Hero
posted June 17, 2014 09:02 PM
Edited by Nitramar at 21:06, 17 Jun 2014.

mvassilev said:
If people are making jokes about your nose or bank account, it's because you're Jewish, if people think you're irrational and more emotional, it's because you're a woman, and so on.

Way to assume things there. I would say: if they make fun of your nose it's because you have a funny nose and you should therefore promote the rights of people with funny noses, not Jews.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted June 17, 2014 09:09 PM

There's nothing wrong with my nose Mvass.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 09:16 PM

Nitramar said:
Way to assume things there. I would say: if they make fun of your nose it's because you have a funny nose and you should therefore promote the rights of people with funny noses, not Jews.


just a heads up. you're probably not going to reach artu or mvass in the point you're trying to make. i've tried many, many times myself. they both never seem to get it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted June 17, 2014 09:25 PM

Let me simplify, Nitamar. I take it, you object to specified movements against different types of discrimination and opression by saying, they should unite under one big goal of equality.

I object to that by saying 3 things.

1- A goal so general would only work as a slogan or a song lyric, actual activism and protest or legislation will always be shaped by sociological specifics anyway.
2- The people who are not united are not that way because they can't think of uniting, there are real distinctions and differences of opinion and ideology among them. If some alien race threatened to kill us all or some catastrophic event forced us to unite for survival, we'd unite pretty quick. Historical pattern indicates that. But when the conflict comes from the differences among us already, it is not something to expect. Even feminists are divided among themselves by a dozen sects, there are Marxist feminists for example, who theorize that the root of the problem is the ruling class, how can they unite with people who are not Marxists, if that's what they think?
3- What constitutes equality and how it should be materialized is also a matter of debate among these groups. A feminist, a socialist and an anarcho-capitalist understand different things when they hear the word "all is equal". Their idea of what equality is and how it should be applied by the state radically differs. The word can be common among many groups but what they understand from that word is something else entirely.

So, basically your premise is based on an overgeneralization.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 09:30 PM

i respond to that by saying:

you may say i'm a dreamer.

but i'm not the only one.

maybe one day you'll join us.

and the world will live as one.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Stevie
Stevie


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 17, 2014 09:30 PM

fred79 said:
Nitramar said:
Way to assume things there. I would say: if they make fun of your nose it's because you have a funny nose and you should therefore promote the rights of people with funny noses, not Jews.


just a heads up. you're probably not going to reach artu or mvass in the point you're trying to make. i've tried many, many times myself. they both never seem to get it.


I second this.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Nitramar
Nitramar


Adventuring Hero
posted June 17, 2014 10:01 PM
Edited by Nitramar at 22:08, 17 Jun 2014.

artu said:
Let me simplify, Nitamar. I take it, you object to specified movements against different types of discrimination and opression by saying, they should unite under one big goal of equality.


They should do that, if that is their ultimate goal. If not, fine, they can do what they want but I would no longer see a reason to support them, since I am not a part of their groups and thus I (or in my view, the world) would not in any way benefit from what they are doing. If they don't cause me any harm, I don't mind it but I don't directly support it either, that is: I'm neutral. "Not supportig" != "opposing".

I think you are again overreacting to what I said. I didn't mean to directly object to these movements, I just meant that I'd prefer a more general equality movement to these particular movements.

Anyway, I'll comment on your 3 things...

Quote:

1- A goal so general would only work as a slogan or a song lyric, actual activism and protest or legislation will always be shaped by sociological specifics anyway.


Aren't those sociological specifics exactly what I'd be striving to change though? Also, did I ever say it would work in practice? If it could work in theory, I think it's worth trying to achieve, maybe it can be partly achieved. And too general? If you compare two laws: "Men and women should be paid equally for the same job" and "Everyone should be paid equally for the same job", why is the second one too general? Anyway, I still think it's a more justifiably acceptable goal, too general or not.

Quote:

2 [...]


Ok, thanks I think I got it now. But does this actually support feminism in any way? If you can't motivate it by saying that it's part of an effort to improve overall equality, then why should I care about this kind of equality specifically?

Quote:

3- What constitutes equality and how it should be materialized is also a matter of debate among these groups. A feminist, a socialist and an anarcho-capitalist understand different things when they hear the word "all is equal".


True, but there is clearly only one way to treat two people equally in each situation: treating them equally. What that means is: everyone gets the same pay for the same job, everyone gets the same sentence for the same crime, etc. Btw, I didn't even say I supported that idea (I think), I just argued with that as my premise because I assumed that was the only reasonable motivation for equality between any two groups. Again, if that is not the case, forget everything I said. But then I'd like to have another reason as to why I should support feminism.

Quote:
So, basically your premise is based on an overgeneralization.

Yes. The whole premise is based on complete generalisation. Not very realistic, and "fair" only in a way which sounds nice on paper but which most people would in reality not find fair. Still, it seemed like the only reasonable motivation to me, besides selfishness (which of course, might also be justified but obviously some people might react negatively to that, as we have seen).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0797 seconds