- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: T/F: Feminists are, by and large, joyless and bitter and...
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:47 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:47 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Thank you for proving my point. A rando Salon.com journo is a "pillar of feminism?" Especially when her article is explicitly cast as a dissent from "mainstream feminism," which someone with the most basic English comprehension could use to infer that her views are not mainstream feminism?
Seems the pillars of feminism really don't have a lot of tolerance for alternative ideals.
Defining words by cherry-picking the angry blogger du jour turns internet debates into pathetic digital safaris where you try and find the most outrageous, easily toppled blowhard to argue against instead of the person in front of you.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:50 pm to Iosh
quote:There doesn't need to be one offered, and all words are highly dynamic. Human activity is also highly dynamic, labels applied there will necessarily be even more so. The same phenomenon would occur in a thread about liberals, conservatives, Louisianans, Latinos, fat people, and Zoroastrians. That's the magic of linguistics. If "feminist" has no single unified set of connotations, and its meaning is varied by situation or context or personal epistemology, that only makes it like every other word.
I've not seen one offered and this thread is inconsistent as hell.
quote:Without question.
For instance, you said "most feminism up to and including The Feminist Mystique [sic] (60s-70s)" which is not very useful in that it uses the word in its own definition, two decades is not a particularly useful demarcation, there was stuff being produced even then which was "social and anthropological,"
quote:Good thing I used the word "most."
and the stuff on either side is hardly a unified voice, there are feminists on either side I can think of that you would likely want to push back and forth. I'm especially unsure why you would want to include The Feminine Mystique in your definition since it's like the ur-text in pushing the boundaries of feminism beyond simple legal equality (there's an entire chapter devoted to how 1950s-style consumerism reinforces the patriarchy, for instance).
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:54 pm to genro
quote:All of those threads would suck too, and usually do. Starting threads around labels that act as a shorthand for baskets of ideas instead of the individual ideas means the thread instantly descends into tribalism impervious to logic because people can play the linguistic shell game where they move things in or out of the basket labeled "liberalism" or "conservatism" as needed to maintain their position. For instance, the default "liberalism" basket here (and on most conservative boards) comes with complimentary Marx and Hitler, for no better reason than they make a zesty rub for the red meat.
The same phenomenon would occur in a thread about liberals, conservatives, Louisianans, Latinos, fat people, and Zoroastrians.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:06 pm to Iosh
quote:We've discussed the ideas.
Discussing labels that act as a shorthand for baskets of ideas instead of the individual ideas
In my view, the label-over-idea phenomenon tends to occur when the ideologists are perceived as more influential, in a sense of both personal experience and the larger culture, than the ideology itself. Makes sense, right? We can see this with any group. Now feminism is no longer as clear an ideology as it once was, or perhaps (granted) as we now perceive it was. Other evolving ideas (including Marxism, socialism, liberalism) are not perceived to have this degree of divergence and "branching." You have some education on the matter and you can't explain fully what feminism is. No one can. So what are we left with? Feminists.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:23 pm to Iosh
I read the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. Did you? Did you also read the critiques by her husband who said she was a lying piece of shite?
BTW, your writing style is horrible. Do you know what succinct means?
BTW, your writing style is horrible. Do you know what succinct means?
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:30 pm to genro
quote:Not really. There aren't any overwhelmingly influential "feminist ideologists." There's a massive school of professors (with some big fish like hooks and Curry) and a more massive swarm of bloggers, each with their own view on what feminism is. There's no real push and pull to discern. You can try to find some the most common areas of ground, but there's always exceptions and it's a tricky thing to measure influence. In general, there are just as many feminisms as feminists. This allows free and easy cherry-picking among people already disinclined to favor feminism.
In my view, the label-over-idea phenomenon tends to occur when the ideologists are perceived as more influential, in a sense of both personal experience and the larger culture, than the ideology itself. Makes sense, right?
For instance, two cherries in this thread are "feminists hate domesticity even when freely chosen" or "feminists don't care about Muslim oppression." I have no doubt these are provable in the sense that someone, somewhere in the bowels of academia or the Internet labels as a "feminist" and says these things. But I'm pretty confident saying they're both minority views among self-described feminists.
(And man, feminism is clear as crystal compared to Marxism or liberalism. Liberalism has been diverged and branched longer than feminism has even been a thing.)
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:31 pm to Iosh
quote:
You know what's funny is I have never been to DU and Freep in my life. To me, they only exist as incantations for righties and lefties to excuse their petty tribalism. "Yeah, well, DU/Freep are worse!"
That's not really my point. DU is home to some of the most close minded people ever. If one of their members goes off script there are immediate calls for them to be banned. How can intelligent dialog exist in a place that rejects different opinions outright just because they aren't in line with the majority of posters?
Here lots of ideas are put forth for consideration which makes for a better discussiin all around.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:40 pm to Iosh
quote:Not everyone's perception of a group is based in political and academic influence. Why should it be? That's a very lawyer-centric response. Perhaps I didn't explain fully, but "personal experience" covers a far wider gamut. Again, apply this to any group. Are you claiming interpersonal perceptions should only be shaped by academia? Any talk of blacks outside African-American studies and lobbying groups is wrong? Or racist? Or dumb? Or... what?
There aren't any overwhelmingly influential "feminist ideologists." There's a massive school of professors (with some big fish like hooks and Curry) and a more massive swarm of bloggers, each with their own view on what feminism is. There's no real push and pull to discern. You can try to find some the most common areas of ground, but there's always exceptions and it's a tricky thing to measure influence. In general, there are just as many feminisms as feminists. This allows free and easy cherry-picking among people already disinclined to favor feminism.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 3:52 pm to genro
quote:No? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I'm only saying they'll be different for everyone. Everyone's perceptions are going to be shaped by whatever experiences they've had, and whatever assortment of reading they've done, "should" doesn't enter into it. The only thing you can control is how those perceptions are discussed.
Again, apply this to any group. Are you claiming interpersonal perceptions should only be shaped by academia? Any talk of blacks outside African-Americans studie and lobbying groups is wrong? Or racist? Or dumb? Or... what?
I don't think it's very useful to discuss "feminists" at all. It's barely useful to discuss "feminism" as opposed to, say, specific issues like drunk consent or the utility of gender roles. I mean, look at the title of this thread. "T/F: Feminists are, by and large, joyless and bitter" is not a discussion. It's a circlejerk. All I'm doing is commenting with some amusement on the inconsistent shape of the circle and the self-righteousness of the jerking motion.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 4:29 pm to Iosh
Ah, but a shitty OP can [d]evolve into a worthwhile discussion. Not everyone is a troglodyte. You could ignore the cretins, who apparently constantly conform to your perceived tropes of the paleolithic era, and simply advance the discussion yourself. And man, if we're talking about the utility of discussion pertaining to threads on this (or any) board, you're fighting an uphill battle. Or I guess you're not fighting a battle. There's an infinite amount of laughter to be had, as it were.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 4:34 pm to Pinecone Repair
I stopped reading this thread a long time ago.
Anyone care to give me cliffs on these tl;dr posts? TIA.
Anyone care to give me cliffs on these tl;dr posts? TIA.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 4:58 pm to MSCoastTigerGirl
quote:Humans are forming all their ideals and decisions on, at best, base perception and freudian egoism. At worst, they're not independently forming decisions at all (ie, free will doesn't exist ). Rationalizations are formed later (often within milliseconds).
I stopped reading this thread a long time ago.
Anyone care to give me cliffs on these tl;dr posts? TIA.
The more intelligent humans are flattered by their apparent obvious superiority, and fall into the delusion that they are "above it all." The essential delusion that their decisions and beliefs are, to the core, more validly based. In fact, they are rationalizing all their decisions after-the-fact to the same full degree as the unintelligent, and modern neurological and psychological tests support this. They are just better at rationalizing.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 4:58 pm to MSCoastTigerGirl
quote:
Anyone care to give me cliffs on these tl;dr posts? TIA.
Everything is good except Iosh is an Idiot. Everything he opposes is 'not useful.' That's called anti critical thinking. The Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 5:02 pm to Iosh
quote:
I read the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. Did you? Did you also read the critiques by her husband who said she was a lying piece of shite? BTW, your writing style is horrible. Do you know what succinct means?
Bump for the idiot to answer.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 5:08 pm to Zach
quote:
Everything is good except Iosh is an Idiot. Everything he opposes is 'not useful.' That's called anti critical thinking. The Jesse Jackson school of rhetoric.
Gotcha.
Thanks.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 6:15 pm to Iosh
quote:
Thank you for proving my point. A rando Salon.com journo is a "pillar of feminism?" Especially when her article is explicitly cast as a dissent from "mainstream feminism," which someone with the most basic English comprehension could use to infer that her views are not mainstream feminism?
Defining words by cherry-picking the angry blogger du jour turns internet debates into pathetic digital safaris where you try and find the most outrageous, easily toppled blowhard to argue against instead of the person in front of you.
Yet, you're doing the exact same thing. Redefining "feminism" to support some point you want argue just because you argue with anyone and everyone who posts an opinion on the board. Radical feminist seem to be arguing that "mainstream feminism" isn't feminism at all.
LINK
It seems varying streams of feminism have been co-opted by radical groups who proclaim palatable feminism isn't really feminism since it supports the existing power structure. Mainstream feminism isn't dominant, it's just accepted by the power structures.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 6:32 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Thank you to those participating in this thread.
There was a request for a feminist definition for the purpose of the question, any one of the following:
a) women's studies professor/instructor
b) Gloria Steinem
c) "Pay for my birth control" Flake
There was a request for a feminist definition for the purpose of the question, any one of the following:
a) women's studies professor/instructor
b) Gloria Steinem
c) "Pay for my birth control" Flake
Posted on 9/14/14 at 6:55 pm to MSCoastTigerGirl
quote:
I stopped reading this thread a long time ago.
Anyone care to give me cliffs on these tl;dr posts? TIA
Sorry, I ran off to re-organize my favorite room in my house, my kitchen. I'm not even joking about that. My kitchen is awesome .
Anyway,I see that Zach (and genro) brought you up to speed.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 9/14/14 at 6:57 pm to Pinecone Repair
Hey, who do I have to frick to get a goddamn sammich around here?
Posted on 9/14/14 at 7:30 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Yes dear.
Do you like mayo, or no? Do you want it cut in half or in triangles? Crust or no crust?
Do you like mayo, or no? Do you want it cut in half or in triangles? Crust or no crust?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News