"Angie Tribeca" The least funny "comedy" show ever devised by mankind. It's like C-SPAN tried to reboot Police Squad! using video from filibusters.

From Mod Squad to that....my how the powerful sets have fallen!

I think "feminist" has turned out to be a terrible name for a movement that wants equality, "humanist" or "individualist" are MUCH better names for them IMO, while "feminist" is much more descriptive of the 'she-woman, man haters club' faction that's really based in an 'us VS them' mentality rather than an 'we/together' mentality.

To quote Rashida, it is important to become more sensitive before being less sensitive.

I agree that being a Humanist is more inclusive. However, that umbrella word covers the valid word "feminist."

Trying to erase the word "feminist," scolding women and men for labeling themselves feminist, ignoring their particular need for that label as equality is struggled for is anti-Humanist, @newtboy.

Just sayin'.

And I'm the first person to speak up for how hard it is to be a man. Men are HORRIBLE to each other, for starters. In fact, I said it just last night, more than once, during a convo on the patriarchy after watching the 2007 movie made in Turkey called Bliss." There was some serious oppression of women in that movie -- very hard to watch. And it is important that the pressures that men are under are seen as just that -- human struggles and repressed pain that is masked by some really shitty outward behavior.

No need to tear down anyone else who is trying to improve their life and society in general. It is called being a Humanist.

Please re-read. I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstood.
I'm not "scolding" anyone (well, maybe slightly scolding the She Woman Man Haters Club, but they deserve it). I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.
Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).
For those reasons, I suggest that those who support equality between the sexes should no longer call themselves "feminist", as that term was never properly descriptive of their goals, and is now terrible having been successfully co-opted by the militant, man hating, minority, female first contingent we wish to separate ourselves from.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

@newtboy

I just realized something. The internet doesn't come with a tone of voice. So the "tone" I gave you in this exchange is one that I have heard for 40 years on this topic.

I have no idea if your tone, if I heard your actual voice, matches what I have heard for 40 years.

So I apologize if I am burdening you with others' actions.

Bottom line doesn't change, though, regardless of tone.

I'm a feminist who cares about women's place in society. It is fruitless to try to talk me out of my proud self-label.

@newtboy Uh..dude, "humanist" and "individualist" are already philosophical schools of thought that have determined meanings that aren't anywhere near the realm of feminism (eg, an activist movement for equal rights).

I mean, unless you're trying to stretch humanist to not mean, essentially, secular thought distancing from the dogma of the church and individualist as not the idea of the individual has more weight than collective good or the state. But.. you might have to contend with the fact those aren't the definitions of things you believe you came up with.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

Seconded. You can subscribe to feminism and individualism, or feminism and collectivism, or any other combination of these different schools of thought - one is not 'better' than the others in the sense that a hammer isn't 'better' than a saw or a drill.

The way that the internet is turning actual schools of thought and study into 'teams' to be on is the same mechanism that drives a lot of amateur identity politics. "I don't want to be on team feminist because that team is rude on twitter, so I'll be on team humanist" is a sentiment that works great in vlogs, but which kicks all the actual thought and theory behind humanism and feminism, respectively, to the curb in favor of team politics. This is not to say that we shouldn't have 'teams,' just that we can make up those teams without discarding years of high quality thinking and actual crisp definitions.

"We" is those like me, that have always supported equality( for over 40 years in my case), but never liked calling that "feminism", as that word implies both separation and a bias, both of which EXCLUDE equality. There are many who think that. My mother is one, it's not just men.

You do not have to fight at all, I don't know why you seem to want to. Because someone suggests that it might be something to think about is not the same as saying 'YOU MAY NOT USE THAT TERM'! You may chose to not think about it if that is your choice, you may chose to think differently. No one is telling you how to think, I'm telling you how I think.

No one said "your wrong to use that term". I said there are reasons it's not a good name for a movement that is NOT based on a female centric, female dominant mindset. No scolding. My choice is my choice, my thoughts and reasons are mine, yours are yours, why are you so looking for me to be scolding you or telling you you're wrong? I'm not doing either.

It is only descriptive if the goals are promotion of purely female causes and rights, but not if the goals are equality....but that means they lose a LOT of people that have called themselves 'feminists' in the past, and not just men.

Um....OK....so forget equality for men then? Any time the equation is in the woman's favor, that's fine, huh? No thanks, THAT'S why we need another name. You can keep "feminism", as I think that's exactly what it describes, "equality for WOMEN, period". 'Humanist' as a concept (as I understand it) excludes that mindset of separate and pit against, it does not embrace and reinforce it.
Equality for people. Period.

Why is it that my stating my thoughts, to you, means I'm instructing you how to think, and stating you must "hew" to my definition? I certainly made no such conscious implication. May I, a man, not have an opinion without being labeled an oppressor of women?

No, clearly you don't understand my reason or goal in stating my thoughts and I feel that you have over-reacted based on that total misunderstanding.

Fine. Then I'm an equalitist. I care about equality and fairness for all people. You may separate and then choose sides, that's your right, your option, and your choice to make for yourself.
EDIT: Make that egalitarian...thank you @Babymech for pointing me to the correct term.

I do understand that.
Those WORDS are more descriptive of the equality movement though, and would be good if they were not already in use. There must be others not already in use that could be used by those like me, or variations of words that exist....maybe equalitist?

Egalitarian? I'm getting the feeling that you're rejecting / redefining a lot of existing concepts just to get a team monicker in place, and not really giving these concepts the props they deserve.

Yes, egalitarian. I had never heard the term before, but that is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you.

And no, not really wanting a 'team moniker' or really a team, just a term I can use to properly describe my goals. You provided it.

Yokay, glad to be of service. I think egalitarianism as an overall goal is a fine position, though maybe a little open-ended, but I don't think it should be used as an excuse not to prioritize. It seems to me that there's a risk that 'egalitarianism' without a follow-up falls into the trap of 'all houses matter.'

I'm not sure I understand 'all houses matter'.
I see nothing about egalitarianism that precludes me from admitting that women are farther behind in receiving equal treatment and rights on most (but not all) topics, but it does seem to more clearly reflect my goals, those being equality for all.

'All houses matter' comes from an old cartoon referencing the "all lives matter" argument. Everybody can agree that all houses matter, but let's prioritize action on the houses that are actually on fire, and let's call ourselves firefighters instead of houselovers.

Like I said, egalitarianism is a respectable vision, and I think it's a decent counterpoint to, for example individualism. I just see an unfortunate behavior among many self-proclaimed egalitarianists to shout down activists by saying that equal treatment is more important than prioritizing specific social remedies. Eg "it's not about gay marriage, it's about all marriage; it's not about black lives, it's about all lives, and it's not about women's rights, it's about human rights." I agree - there's nothing in egalitarianism that inherently precludes any specific activism, but I see it as fairly common and non-constructive for people to act as though it does, or that it's somehow morally superior to care equally about all issues at once.

OK, I can agree.
All houses DO matter, but the one's on fire are the one's that need action now.
Stating you are "equal" is not more important that prioritizing the needy IMO, I do see that people do it though.
It just seems to me that "feminism" ignores the needy men that also need protection, even if we need help to get to equality on far fewer issues, and I don't want to do that.

Without wishing to bang on about it - that happens a LOT on the internet. I think it's less about tone of voice and more about people being so offended by inequality that they are over aggressive in their pursuit of equality. They attack the argument before fully understanding it or allowing it to be fully expressed.

It's a really tight line to walk and I know this because I have in the past offended respectful, honest people in my crusade which was against abuse of power and authority. I hated being mistreated by people in authority so much that I became prejudiced against people in authority. The reason I behaved like that is because of how I was treated by authority figures in my formative years and the defence mechanisms I developed because of it. And in the same way, some women who are very poorly treated by men may develop barriers, prejudices and coping mechanisms in response.

(... and that's why I make a dozen edits to my posts. Sometimes I get carried away and detract entirely from what I was trying to achieve.)

I'm not saying that's the underlying cause of the misunderstanding here, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be good reasons why someone just said something you thought was sexist. Problems arise, I think, when we deal in absolutes; this person is definitely chauvinist because he's ignorant and rude, this person is definitely a man-hater because she is ignorant and rude - both may be unfair to the other.

[redacted] Because @Babymech says it infinitely better.

@Babymech , that is one brilliant analogy.

Black lives matter.

NO NO NO, all lives matter!

What? Who was saying that all lives don't matter??!!!!

I'm going to use that in the future,

Because that is it. Right there.

To restate it in a way that @newtboy might approve:

Women's lives matter.

Men's lives matter.

Feminist = women's lives matter.

Men's Right Movement = men's lives matter.

The Constitution = all lives matter. (In a perfect world.)

PS There are separatist, angry nutters in the Men's Rights Movement. Doesn't mean that their goal is wrong in concept. An example of that is parental rights. What a pendulum swing that topic has gone through over the decades. First men own the children and women have no rights. Then it was women were blindly seen as the "best" to take care of the kids and men had no rights. And after legal pushback, there are plenty of joint custody agreements out there.

Women's lives matter. Yep.

I was just about to post this exact thing, quoting you. I haven't seen the show, but holy shit was the clip they played bad... and Rashida Jones is a bad person for fulfilling her contractual obligation to shill the show.

Would you expect white people who's children were killed by police to stand at the front of a 'black lives matter' event, or would you think they might not be there at all because the movement, by name and focus, ignores their 100% paralleling issues with police and makes them feel unwelcome?
I also think 'black lives matter' is losing out on a lot of support because they made it so racial, even if the target of MOST abuse is minorities. That is not the same as saying they can't call themselves that, or demeaning them for being part of the movement, or saying the movement is un-necessary, just that it's name is, to many, divisive, and that hurts them and their movement, and a more inclusive name for the movement would have been smarter, IMO.

I will say all my arguments apply equally to Masculisim/The men's rights movement, and while I might support many of their goals and might even work towards those goals, I would not call myself a part of that movement, as it by name ignores women's issues and focuses only on men's. Certainly those men's issues need attention, but that doesn't mean I should be so single mindedly focused on one part of equality that I put blinders on to better ignore other parts that also need work.

If the parenting issue had been solved by 'egalitarianists' the first time, there would likely have been joint custody, and fairly equal (1/2 with mom-1/2 with dad) full custody decrees LONG ago rather than have us continue to ride the pendulum, hitting 'fair' for an instant on each swing, then swinging back away from it.

Equality matters.
I think you don't ever get there by fighting for one side or the other. You get there by fighting for equality where ever that goal has yet to be reached.

You matter.
THAT would be the best, most inclusive name for a movement I've ever heard.

To call feminism by another name - to rebrand it "equalism", "individualism" or "humanism" - is an attempt to remove women from the name of the movement that they created because you don't like how it sounds.

Not true if I was part of starting it. I suppose '75 doesn't really count as the 'start', but certainly was in it's early stages, and I was at many rallies and functions for 'feminism' as far back as then. ;-) It turns out that it's not a group I belong in, as I don't want to intentionally discriminate on the basis of gender....I think that's the problem, not the solution.

Individualism and humanism, as was pointed out above, are already different schools of thought, but are the types of words that are more descriptive of an equality movement was my point, but egalitarian is much closer to the school of thought I subscribe to and what I meant (thanks again Babymech). I was only a "feminist" because I believe in equality for all and see that women are not on equal footing to fight for their own equal rights and needed all the help they could get in securing them, not because I think women have a monopoly on getting unequal treatment or in needing help. So I have been out of place standing with the 'feminist' movement, I suppose. My mistake.

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.

I was thinking of what's probably called second wave, or what I think was being called 'the modern feminist movement' back then, but I'm pretty sure even that started in the early/mid 60's, well before I was involved, or even breathing....so yes, it was tongue in cheek.
I was a kid in the 70's, not a political organizer, but I did see Joan Baez twice before I was 10 at two of the dozens of woman's rights events I attended as a kid/teenager, so I say I get credit for being 'part of the movement'...especially since I continued to support, and sometimes actively work towards their goals, and consider them when voting to this day.

I understand I often fail at communication, please let me try again. My point was that when the name of a movement is so focused on one small (or in the case of feminism, large) segment of humanity, it can turn off many that agree completely with the motive.

EDIT: I do take your point, though, about end goals/primary targets. It may be an impossibility, but it would be nice to find names that can invoke both without being exclusionary. It would help people like me that get hung up on minutia and detail not be distracted by imperfect labels, and keep ammunition out of their opponent's guns.

Yes, I understand the reason the movement is 'black lives matter', and agree that they are the MOST oppressed, so deserving of the most attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution that would both be all inclusive AND focus on the most oppressed.
With "you matter", I was thinking that is a way to say that the issues that matter to 'you' also matter, that your being oppressed and receiving unfair treatment matter, that your opinion matters, and that your life matters, no matter who 'you' are, black, white, woman, man, and all people in-between. Yes, even the Koch Bro's matter, just not more than anyone else.

Of course, you and others are free to focus on any issue, or any specific part of any issue you please, or not. I usually prefer a big picture approach for me, because it's all too easy for me to get myopic and dwell on (often meaningless) detail if I over focus, one of many character flaws. I think both mindsets have their merits and their drawbacks, and I think it's a good thing to have people in both camps.

To highlight my point about over focused names of 'movements' losing them support, here's a report on a "black girls matter" protest...

Newt, srsly mate, you're overdoing the point. BB is right here, the word she chooses to define herself as is her business regardless of what that word means to you.

What matters is her attitude, and she has clearly and repeatedly espoused equality for all. I don't agree with everything she has put forward, but on that she has been very consistent. Now you're just doing what she mentioned earlier, keeping the conversation bouncing along on a thin pretext way past it's point of usefulness.

Don't overreact. If you believe in gender equality, you are a feminist.

As has been pointed out, and as you acknowledge, you were not there at the start of feminism. Why feminism is feminism is because the fight for gender equality was not initiated by men, nor has the bulk of the work been done by men. Calling it anything but feminism disacknowledges that women are the prime movers here. The fight for gender equality is the fight, spearheaded by women, to bring women's rights up to meet men's existing privilege level. It's feminism. You get credit for being part of the movement, but that's not enough reason to rename that movement, and I can't understand that argument.

Equality for all is the goal, yes. But to do this, women and non-whites are the ones who need the "boost". So that's why the movements are called "feminism", and "Black Lives Matter". Men and whites don't need "equal rights"; they already have more rights than non-white and women, aside from a few issues such as equal child custody rights, which will equalise when gender rights reach balance.

EDIT: It's flattering that my opinion about what might be right for me carries such weight that it seems like a command to some, but really, it's just one man's opinion, relatable only to those with similar mindsets. Taking it as a direction/command is on the reader, it was not written that way.

No, if you believe in and work for gender equality FOR WOMEN, you're a feminist.
Those who believe in gender equality for all are called egalitarians.

Why 'feminism' is historically 'feminism' is because it works to secure the rights of women. Period. The feminist movement has never, as far as I know, worked against unequal rights for women when the inequality benefits women...or said another way, worked for equality FOR men.

It was not ONLY women at the start, only mostly women, and you disrespect and dismiss the contributions of all those men who worked against their own self interests to secure equal rights for you. How rude and ungrateful....I bet you would be upset if women's contributions to men's issues were dismissed like that.
No, men have not done the bulk of the work, but they have been invaluable in getting action many, many times. Calling it feminism and acting like it's only by women totally 'disacknowledges' all those self sacrificing men....which is why I have a problem. If we and our votes, money, and efforts don't count and are completely unapreciated, then buh-bye.
Again, no one is even suggesting renaming the entire movement, I suggested that people WHO THINK LIKE ME might start or join another that's more inclusive from the start. If you don't think like me, it's not about you, and even if you do, it's not a command, it's barely a suggestion.

If you focus solely on those with the MOST disadvantages, you only swing the pendulum of unfairness the other direction in a never ending struggle back and forth. Only by focusing on equality for all can you come to the right solutions to inequalities.

(Expletive deleted)! Men and whites ABSOLUTELY need equal rights. Yes, in MOST cases men and whites have advantages, not all by far like you said, still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father...that is not the ONLY case where women are given advantages men aren't....another off the top of my head, domestic violence, men will ALWAYS be the one thought to be the aggressor without clear evidence to the contrary, but that's simply false, and leaves many abused men victimized twice. Same for sexual abuse/rape. Men get zero support if they've been raped, only ridicule and disbelief. Take each situation individually, or you'll continue to make that insulting, repulsive, self serving mistake that perpetuates inequality and pits men against women.

Equal child custody rights....yes, good example....how has the feminist movement worked to secure that....for men? If the imbalance is in their favor, that's FINE with feminists. I disagree strongly, and I won't be considering myself one anymore.

Your offended feelings shouldn't override the identity of the feminist movement, which has no obligation to pat you on the head because you claim you were "there at the start". So yes, I hope you find a movement with a title that fits your views more closely. If you think that feminism isn't about gender equality, then I can't help you figure that out.

"still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father..." This just isn't true; it's the kind of silly strawman that MRAs love to knock up, in fact. It's not reflected in law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

No one ever suggested it should. I only ever suggested that it's not right for ME, even though I've been supporting it for decades. EDIT: The misplaced angry responses I've received for simply expressing my opinion has done nothing but reinforce the idea that I absolutely don't belong with 'feminists'.

Thanks to Babymech, I have found that school of thought, egalitarianism, equality for ALL, the only kind of equality that's equal.

Clearly 'feminism' is only about gender equality FOR WOMEN....and I think you don't find equality by ignoring unfairness that happens to the other 1/2 of the population (that's the reason I've identified as 'feminist' before now, I care about being fair to others, even if they aren't like me)....that's what you're upset about, inequalities to women being ignored and minimized, why on earth would you do it back to men? That's not gender equality, that's gender based vengeance.
EDIT: If you wish to argue that point, I insist you start with an example of 'feminism' working against women to secure equal rights for men or I'll discount your argument at the outset.
Otherwise, I'm out.

I refrain from making a comment.

@newtboy is already making enough noise.

@newtboy

Look, man, I've been watching you dig your grave deeper with every post. I'm not really sure what you're not getting, given the patient explanations everyone has provided. No one is saying you can't want equality for all, but to get equality for all you have to start by helping groups that are clearly NOT equal in society achieve some level of equality.

Ergo, Feminists focus on helping women achieve equality. And let's be clear, when we say equality we're talking about achieving equality with white males, because they are the ones who historically and currently hold the privledged position in Western society.

So, your whole, "But what about men?" schtick is insulting to feminists precisely because men are already better off than women in most areas. Feminists have no obligation to make men's lives--particularly white men's lives--better than they already are. This is not to say white men have no problems or that in some areas (child custody comes to mind) they aren't at a disadvantage. And there are activist groups working towards improvement in these areas. But demanding that feminists work for men's issues shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is all about.

This reminds me of the whole recent Kit Harington flap, where Kit claimed Hollywood is "sexist" towards men and displayed a similar fundamental misunderstanding of what sexism is. His point was that male actors can be sexually objectified (he refered to being asked to take his shirt off on a photo shoot). But being occasionally objectified is no where near the same thing as the well documented actual sexism that goes on in Hollywood--vastly different paychecks for lead actressess compared to actors, the number and types of nude scenes actressess are asked to do compared to male actors, etc. No one is saying objectification (of either sex) isn't a problem but there's a much bigger problem for women (as usual) than there is for men and that's why there needs to be a group (feminists) advocating for women to tackle these larger problems before getting to the problem of Kit Harington's discomfort at disrobing for the camera.

One
more
total
communication
failure.
I wrote that there would only be an obligation for them to also help men IF they want to claim that 'feminism' is about pure equality of the sexes and not just working for women's rights, which is what had been contended. It was a reply to a claim, not a suggestion.
Please try reading again.

Sexual objectification is sexist, even if it's objectifying a man. What do you think the word means?
from dictionary.com
Sexist - relating to, involving, or fostering discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender

This is the exact thing I've come to dislike about 'feminism'. It seems you're saying his objectification and devaluation isn't up to par with the objectification and devaluation many women suffer from, so it's not "actual sexism", doesn't matter, and he should just shut up about it and quit his whining.....but if a woman said the exact same words about being uncomfortable being required to do the exact same actions there would be (and has been) a serious discussion of how to solve that disturbing sexist trend and a move to fire and shame the disgusting pig director/photographer that forced her to do something she was uncomfortable doing, and if someone dared to say her issues were minor, outrage and attack.

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )

Then perhaps you need a reading comprehension class. I have never even IMPLIED that others should follow my lead EDIT: UNLESS THEY ARE LIKE MINDED. I have, in fact, repeatedly said this is ONLY MY OPINION, NOT INSTRUCTIONS. I have not tried to "talk her out of" anything. I have repeated that 'others may think differently' ad nauseam.
I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you. You can't grasp that someone might have an opinion that different, but is NOT telling you or others to think the same way? That's on you.

YES IN MY OPINION. DUH. You can disagree all you like, but don't say I told you to follow, don't say I told you you're wrong to belong, don't say I tried to shame you. I did no such thing.

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality. If they also worked for male equality, I wouldn't care so much that the name is 'misleading'....IN MY OPINION. Since they don't work towards men's equality as well, it's apt....and it's not for me....it's also clearly only working for women's rights, not for total equality for all, contrary to many unsupported claims.

Go back to 8th grade and take reading comprehension.
I did not say or imply that 'only those like minded can understand', but 'only those like minded are being discussed'.
I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger. Before you reply in kind, I scored in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension....how did you score?

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you

Yup, when everyone else in the thread disagrees with what you are saying, or how you are saying it, or the other things you're doing, it's obviously everyone else that has the problem... =)

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality.

Wow, talk about painting the world in broad strokes. I guess all Catholics are pedo's too?

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger.

*giggle* Yup, it's everyone else. Not you.

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

No, the bold that I put bold html tags around so it showed up as bold...

And I'm the one that apparently has reading problems. X D

I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

Don't let your ego hit you in the ass on the way out the door. /waves!

ps. You have far more in common with the 3rd wave feminazi's than you would like to think.

Edit: pps. Downvote me more baby, just shows you for the petty little sook that you are. ; )

Aww shucks, I'm honoured you deigned to comment to me directly rather than out here... /eyeroll

ps. "sook"

To sulk, crack a sad and act like a big fat baby when you don't get your own way.

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

Somewhat appropriate methinks.

edit: Have included the "private" comment to my profile. Newt, if you think you're so justified surely you don't have to post backdoor snipes at people when they're standing right in front of you... =)

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Really?!? Too funny.


When you 3-4 repeatedly (intentionally, or from lack of comprehension ability) COMPLETELY misread what I wrote because of your being triggered, yes, it's you.

Tell me when 'Feminism' has worked AGAINST women or FOR men in it's 'sexual equality' mission. You can't. You just whine. 'No no no no no no no....you're wrong'.

Yes, it's you 3-4 who got upset and started misreading from the first post and being insulting because of your failure....it was not 'everyone else in the thread', it was the few who remained in the discussion because they were triggered and/or didn't comprehend.

Well, you completely misunderstood the "bold", and apparently still can't grasp the concept even after being corrected about the meaning, so, yeah, reading comprehension, not your strong point........I have been tested, and I read and comprehend better than 99% of Americans. Again, how did YOU score? EDIT:...or is it my fault for writing at above an 8th grade level?


This ridiculous BS with you triggered 'feminists' is SOOO not worth my completely worthless time. There's absolutely no point conversing with someone who simply can't comprehend something they think they disagree with, or who misreads over and over and fights phantom red herrings like Don Quixote with a windmill.

Thank you, come again.

PS OK, I'll go back and downvote, since you decided to call me a "little sook", whatever the hell that is (it's not English), I'm pretty certain it's MEANT to be an insult....so you're wish is my command, downvoteing the ad hom.

Oh yeah, I'm not a feminist. /grin

Yeah, I found it on urban dictionary....as I said, it's not English.
So, not only are you incredibly poor at comprehension, you're a complete douchebag....but no, I'm not unjustified, nor does it matter that you posted my private reply to you, I stand behind every word. It only goes to show you are the kind of asshole that posts private comments publicly if you think it helps you be an asshole.
EDIT: What you also failed to comprehend was I posted privately to indicate that I wasn't trying to publicly shame or lambast you for misreading....clearly the sentiment was not mutual, although you failed miserably in the attempt to shame me.
thank you come again....actually don't, I'm done with you're 12 year old girl bullshit. Fuck off, douchebag.
Smell you later, forever.

so i am sitting here drinking my coffee reading this thread and i have to say...

depressing.

so many wonderful people that i admire and respect getting twisted about?

words.

not the intent,nor over-all context..but words.

i can see where @newtboy is coming from,and what he is laying down is pretty non-controversial.i also see what @bareboards2 is laying down,and is not really in opposition to what newt is talking about.

both ideologies can reside in the same context and not be in conflict.in fact they compliment each other and ....and maybe i am reading their positions wrong..they actually agree on the fundamentals.

@bareboards2 actually addressed this by pointing out that "tone" can be misinterpreted.(good for you BB) and really the exchange between newt and BB was about their own self-identification.

yet this entire thread is almost exclusively focusing on words,and the gravitas and weight given to those words by the individual,which is subjective.

i feel newts pain.
i had a run where i was posting videos exposing hyper-militant third wave feminists and how they were using the justice system to punish those who disagreed with them,and every self-identified feminist came out of the wood work to declare their disappointment in me and defend the very thing they identified with.

what confused me was why people would even attempt to defend that absolute cluster fuck of abuse as somehow even being remotely to do with actual feminism.until i realized that many hadn't even watched the video or read the articles .so they were not defending those third wave feminists that had abused a justice system but rather defending a term that they self-identified as.

after long (and i mean long ..@Payback is still in therapy) back and forths between myself and fellow sifters.when i FINALLY got them to address the specific situation,not one...not ONE sifter..felt morally obligated to defend those feminists actions.

why?
because taken on its singular merits,those feminists were fucking wrong.

then why all the defensive posturing?
why the passive aggressive swipes at me?
and the exhaustive back and forths just to get self-identified feminists to at least admit that those particular feminists had abused their position to punish a man for simply disagreeing.

because they were defending feminism in general.
because they self-identified as feminists and failed to see the situation as it was and jumped to defend a WORD that they happened to identify with.

as a whole we can,as a society hold onto philosophies that are not mutually exclusive.
so you can be a feminist and a humanist.
or a humanist and an MRA advocate.

@bareboards2 may be a feminist but i know that if she witnessed me being harassed and discriminated against she would jump to my defense,as would @newtboy.

there are people who identify as something and yet can still be major dickweeds.so what they self-identify as does not automatically give them a pass.

so dont get so caught up in identity politics my friends.
they are just words after all.
just listen to the person talking,they will reveal if they are a total tool soon enough.how they self-identify is irrelevant.

Aww, now I'm all hurt because some prick with a high opinion of himself doesn't want to talk to me anymore... /sadface

re: the "private" comment, you don't get to write the rules when you decide to take your snipes out of public view. I never agreed to keep confidences for you, and you're even more of a fool than I had you pegged for, and that's saying something, if you thought I would.

By the way, it's "your", not "you're". One would have thought an English master such as yourself would get that. They probably should have double checked those test results.

And the icing on the cake:

Sook: English from 14thC, Scottish from 19thC. From Old English sūcan ‎(“to suck”). See suck.

sook ‎(plural sooks)

(Scotland, rare) Familiar name for a calf.
(US dialectal) Familiar name for a cow.
(Newfoundland) A cow or sheep.
(Australia, New Zealand) A poddy calf.

So yeah, it's English, and you sure do suck... = D

It's been fun, toodles!

What is really sad is that the post that seemed to set Newt off irt me is:

Newt, srsly mate, you're overdoing the point. BB is right here, the word she chooses to define herself as is her business regardless of what that word means to you.

What matters is her attitude, and she has clearly and repeatedly espoused equality for all. I don't agree with everything she has put forward, but on that she has been very consistent. Now you're just doing what she mentioned earlier, keeping the conversation bouncing along on a thin pretext way past it's point of usefulness.

Do you see any gender politics in there one way or the other? The right to self determination includes Bareboard's right to identify as whatever she wants, and that is (or should be) a standard human right that humanists would hold pretty sacred. Right?

Newt keeps trying to turn it in to "The 3rd wave feminazis are trying to tear me down" so he doesn't come off looking like the total twat he's made of himself in this thread, but that's not the conversation that occurred, at least imo.

@enoch I agree with what you said (mostly) and agree with @Asmo even more.

The one thing not included in your pretty good analysis, enoch, is my main cri de coeur -- since the very beginning, feminists have been told not to call themselves feminists. From the very beginning. Using a lot of the same arguments that newtboy put forth, but way before there were third wave feminists.

It is a very touchy and real subject to those of us who have identified for decades as feminists despite an onslaught of reasons why that is a wrong thing to do.

I'm sorry that happened to you -- I hope I wasn't one who took you on. It is entirely possible I was -- turbocharged as a lot of us are about that "word." It doesn't take much to set some of us off -- it isn't pretty, it can feel terrible, and it is out of proportion due to the long history of having the very same conversation over and over and over again.

Because I hope I am now clear -- it isn't just a "word." The word has always been a battlefield -- the right to call ourselves that without being lectured, the right to define it for ourselves as women, the right to prioritize working for rights for a particular group and be clear about the subject.

Other than that, yeah, you are correct -- newtboy and I have the right to call ourselves what we will, for our own valid reasons.

@Asmo
i hear ya,and i felt i kinda addressed that issue.

guess i didn't,or at least not very well.

you and i have disagreed before and after some further discussion and/or clarification it became clear we were arguing two totally separate points,but our assumptions led us to believe we were in conflict.

but we were not.

i have had the exact same thing happen with BB,but because she was willing to slug it out and respected me enough to listen.we came to a much richer understanding of each other.

same goes for newtboy.

seewhatimsayin?
i am not choosing sides here,nor am i applying my own moral metric to the discussion.i am simply pointing out that assumptions,based on our own subjective understandings,can corrupt the conversation.

which can lead to unnecessary ugliness.

and that is depressing.

words are inert.just symbols on a page until they are observed and interpreted.that interpretation is predicated upon our own understandings,which are highly subjective.this can lead to misunderstandings of a persons intent and motivation and the only way to combat this is to actually talk with one another with respect...even if we disagree.

Yes....that.....all of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/what-does-a-lifetime-of-leers-do-to-us.html?emc=edit_th_20160605&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923&_r=
0

This is a GREAT article. Includes loads of people calling themselves Feminist, too!