Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

[DaveDodo007]

Yes, there are some on the politically correct version of the modern left that can be pains in the butt in the way you describe, just as there are academic feminists with absurd and extreme views on gender.

Neither of those smallish groups are the defining feature of the left in general, or feminism in general. They need robust criticism, but not silly over-generalisation...

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you comfortable what with having to listen and believe so your unevidence ideology it true, lol. Seriously JimC would you tolerate the same arguments from the religious as you seen to be willing to give feminism a free pass? Either facts, reality, evidence and science mean something or they don't. Choose and choose wisely.

I can live with tolerant adherents of mainstream religions, just as I can live with mainstream leftists or feminists, whether I agree with all their ideas or not. You really know fuck-all about any ideology I may have (I tend to be centrist in many areas of politics...). My contribution to this thread has not been advocating any form of ideology, but cautioning you that your rants typically overgeneralise from a handful of cherry-picked examples of inflexible feminist or leftist ideologues.

Show me the feminists calling out the 'radical feminist's' then you may have a point, I hear nothing but crickets. Self loathing mangina cunts don't care about boys falling behind in education and lads at university losing their rights to due process. How the fuck are you allowed to be a teacher as you are a fucking ideologue who rejects any evidence that is presented to you unless it adheres with your cult.

[DaveDodo007]

OK.. for the sake of argument I'm going to agree they're transphobes (and only for the sake of argument because it isn't that important), but I don't see them not getting called out on what other people call their bullshit - which was your objection if you recall. I'm really not following you. Who's saying they're not feminists? If they are TERFs we already covered they're a radical subgroup, but still feminists. My policy is to ignore them if possible, but call them on their shit if it's unavoidable. Occassionaly I might feel generous to a phobe and try to help them work out their shit. Atheists are just people and can surely be as ignorant, gullible, and moronic as any theist. We agree on that much.

Yay! You choose to ignore them, how very noble of you. We should also ignore the bigotry they fester because they are feminists and feminism is good even when they are bigotry transphobic assholes causing real harm to people already suffering extreme prejudice. Seriously do you even read what you type, do you believe what you type. I have heard bigots don't believe the are bigots because they rationalize their bigotry with some made up story of oppression. Though you carry on kissing transphobic feminists ass and continue to oppress people that are already the very high end of societies suicide rates. Though fuck them right all that matters is the cult of feminism is advanced. I think am going to throw up.

[rainbow]

Do you suffer from Small Bollock Syndrome, DaveDildo?

[Jason]

Seriously do you even read what you type, do you believe what you type.

Do you? I didn't say bigotry was good for feminism; I did say a few things over a couple posts. Allow me to recap:

1)You can't label all feminists transphobic bigots because a few are - that's the fallacy of composition
2)You can't label all feminists transphobic bigots because they aren't all attacking the transphobic bigots all the time
3)Ignoring the transphobic bigots, on forums for example, is often the best response to their bullshit imo
4)Ignoring the transphobic bigots does not indicate tacit support - they're being shunned into reform effectively
5)The people you call transphobic bigots who are mainstream are regularly challenged - it is the nature of the conversation
6)I think engaging with a phobe is an act of generosity, as it can be very draining - especially if they are visceral and abusive in their attitude - and I don't fault anyone for avoiding it

Those points recapped, it seems you want to defend the vulnerable - and that's a noble goal - but I have issue with how you go about combating transphobia with illogic and anger. You might want to think about how you may be doing more harm than good. You might also consider that even bigots have right to free expression in every western society that I know of - we owe much of our civil liberties to the existence of free expression and I think it's a fine thing.

I'd like it if you'd define feminism for me - not because I'm ignorant, but because I want to have a solid starting point for conversation going forward - we can come back to your accusation that feminism promotes transphobia, but I'd really like to know what else you think it does, tries to do, and maybe what you think it has accomplished in the past century for western civilization.

I think am going to throw up.

Please use the baggy provided.

[Forty Two]

International Men's Day is not something men should aspire to, in my opinion. However, the spirit behind the movement to have an international men's day doesn't seem to me to be as laughable as many feminists seem to portray it. I men, men die earlier and have less money spent on the health care issues that affect them most as compared to women. Men receive longer prison sentences for the same crimes (63% longer - and women are twice as likely as men to not be jailed at all when convicted). Men are something like 98% of workplace injuries and fatalities. Men are generally subject to the draft where women are not. Men are victims of violent crime in far greater numbers than women. Men are "forced to choose" between being a father/husband and having a career, etc. Men are legally discriminated against relative to child custody, child support and alimony/spousal support in family court. Men are as likely as women to be subjects of domestic violence but have almost no government resources to turn to to help them, and they are, in fact, generally ignored in that regard. Men have vastly higher suicide rates. Boys are prescribed psychotropic medications at twice -- double - the rate as girls. The vast majority of homeless people are men, and there are almost no resources dedicated to help them, but there are vast resources dedicated to help needy women. In domestic violence cases, men are far more likely to be arrested - even where they are the seriously injured party. Men are about 49% of the population, and work over 60% of the work-hours. Regarding the "murdered by spouse" stat above, there is evidence of bias in the system where men are 9 times more likely than women to be convicted when they have been arrested for spousal murder. Nine times. Women also initiate most domestic violence. Women receive more financial aid than men, including in college, and women make up 60% of the college population but are treated as minorities for the purposes of admissions standards, benefits and financial backing.

Men's issues are serious issues. International Men's Day is a symbolic, pointless gesture, of course, but the issues themselves are not contrived.

The notion, too, that our "culture" privileges men over women is really rather absurd. My paragraph above focused on legal privilege of women over men, but, western culture privileges women too. Women don't buy engagement rings or equivalent. Women spend half as much on Valentines Day as men, and much of what they do spend is spent on family members and friends other than their spouses/significant others. Men are still culturally pressured to be chivalrous and "real men", but at the same time scorned for it. Our consumer system is geared toward women - just look at the stores in any mall in the western world - the vast majority of stores and products are geared toward women. Women (and children) are first to be saved, and last to be exposed to danger. Ladies first. There are things you can say to a man, but you can't say to a woman. Men should give up their seats on public transport for women. Men should had their jacket to a cold woman and endure the cold themselves. Men should pay for dates. These and more are all cultural norms that privilege women.

I think a lot of the pushback by some men against the extreme feminism we see much of these days comes from the resistance to being accused of having an easy life, no challenges and being part of some strange "patriarchy" that rules from above. The reality is that men are not strolling around getting more for less, while women face all the challenges and do more for less.

[Forty Two]

Oh.. and how do you feel about homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders - particularly our political agendas of equality.

So I'm a right winger so clearly I must hate the other and be a puritan, well trust me I'm anything but that. I don't give a shit what you do in your bedroom and whom you do it with as long as it is consensual.

So.. you feel all sexuality ought to be kept in the private domain, or is it just homosexuals, bisexuals, and trans that need to keep it in the bedroom? Do you support equality under the law for same-sex and transgender couples?

I support equality for everyone and always have and always will. Though if you really claim to be pro transgender then feminism isn't for you as they are mostly TERFS.

Equality in what way?

I don't support "equality for everyone" in many contexts. For example, I do not support equality in employment compensation as between someone whose worked 20 years on the job and someone who is a new hire. I don't support the idea that unskilled workers should have to get to the same pay as scientists or other highly educated professionals, or actors or rock stars. I don't think that Miley Cyrus should be paid the same as a singer in a local bar doing cover tunes. I don't support equal taxation -- taxation should be progressive.

Equality of dignity -- equal treatment under the law under similar circumstances -- equal opportunity -- these things are positive goals, but lofting "equality" as the only beneficial "end" to seek is not something that would result in a pleasant society. Other interests, such as a degree of liberty, are important for human dignity. Free speech may mean that the most articulate, well spoken, and literate will be heard and taken seriously more than the uneducated and those that were unlucky enough to be born with lower IQ's or lower verbal/written skills. However, liberty interests would militate in favor of allowing inequality - allowing those who are more intelligent or more well-spoken, to earn an unequal share of the public eye.

[Forty Two]

Oh.. and how do you feel about homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders - particularly our political agendas of equality.

So I'm a right winger so clearly I must hate the other and be a puritan, well trust me I'm anything but that. I don't give a shit what you do in your bedroom and whom you do it with as long as it is consensual.

So.. you feel all sexuality ought to be kept in the private domain, or is it just homosexuals, bisexuals, and trans that need to keep it in the bedroom? Do you support equality under the law for same-sex and transgender couples?

I support equality for everyone and always have and always will.

You evaded my question though, at least the main part of it. Do you think sexuality ought to be kept in the bedroom or is it acceptable in the public domain? Since you are pro-equality I'll assume your answer applies as much to heteros kissing and groping on a park bench as homos.

A person's sexuality can be public, regardless of their orientation or gender, etc. I.e. -- there should be equal treatment under the law as to what conduct in public is acceptable. If kissing or hand holding in public is allowed, then the genders/sexes of the participants ought to be meaningless.

[Forty Two]

Yes, there are some on the politically correct version of the modern left that can be pains in the butt in the way you describe, just as there are academic feminists with absurd and extreme views on gender.

Neither of those smallish groups are the defining feature of the left in general, or feminism in general. They need robust criticism, but not silly over-generalisation...

This begs the question. What are the defining features of feminism in general? Who speaks for feminism?

[JimC]

Yes, there are some on the politically correct version of the modern left that can be pains in the butt in the way you describe, just as there are academic feminists with absurd and extreme views on gender.

Neither of those smallish groups are the defining feature of the left in general, or feminism in general. They need robust criticism, but not silly over-generalisation...

This begs the question. What are the defining features of feminism in general? Who speaks for feminism?

I don't have to list the defining features to assert that one small group of extremists does not speak for the whole of a broad movement, or, if they think they do, they are over-reaching to an absurd degree.

I doubt that anyone would agree that Donald Trump speaks for the whole conservative side of American politics...

I doubt that anyone would agree that the slogan spouting head of some local Trotskyite band of comrads speaks for the whole of the left...

[Jason]

A person's sexuality can be public, regardless of their orientation or gender, etc. I.e. -- there should be equal treatment under the law as to what conduct in public is acceptable. If kissing or hand holding in public is allowed, then the genders/sexes of the participants ought to be meaningless.

Fair enough. If men can go about topless, then it makes perfect sense women can as well. I mean men's breasts are just as erogenous as women's - physiologically speaking. If it's ok for a man to fondle and squeeze his girls tits on a park bench while soul kissing her and grabbing her ass then it's ok for two guys to do the same. How about two guys and a girl? Or three guys? Two girls? Three girls? hmm..

[rainbow]

A person's sexuality can be public, regardless of their orientation or gender, etc. I.e. -- there should be equal treatment under the law as to what conduct in public is acceptable. If kissing or hand holding in public is allowed, then the genders/sexes of the participants ought to be meaningless.

Fair enough. If men can go about topless, then it makes perfect sense women can as well. I mean men's breasts are just as erogenous as women's - physiologically speaking. If it's ok for a man to fondle and squeeze his girls tits on a park bench while soul kissing her and grabbing her ass then it's ok for two guys to do the same. How about two guys and a girl? Or three guys? Two girls? Three girls? hmm..

I like the way you think.

Why is it acceptable for a dog to crap in public, but not a human?

For instance, as it were.

[Jason]

Public orgies.. Maybe have adults-only parks where people are free to frolic and fuck anyone and everyone. Talk politics, science, and religion while they're at it.

[Scot Dutchy]

Public orgies.. Maybe have adults-only parks where people are free to frolic and fuck anyone and everyone. Talk politics, science, and religion while they're at it.

Vondel park Amsterdam.

[Forty Two]

Yes, there are some on the politically correct version of the modern left that can be pains in the butt in the way you describe, just as there are academic feminists with absurd and extreme views on gender.

Neither of those smallish groups are the defining feature of the left in general, or feminism in general. They need robust criticism, but not silly over-generalisation...

This begs the question. What are the defining features of feminism in general? Who speaks for feminism?

I don't have to list the defining features to assert that one small group of extremists does not speak for the whole of a broad movement,

Well, let's be specific -- what view are you suggesting is being asserted that is not part of modern feminism? Do you think that the notion that women can't be sexist, for example, is an "extreme" view that is not part of feminism? Or can that be seen as part of mainstream feminism now? Those folks opposing International Men's Day, for example, succeeded. Are they extremists who don't speak for feminism? If so, then how did they succeed? If men wanted international men's day, and most feminists were in favor or at least not opposed to it, then how in the world did a small minority of extremists get their way?

I doubt that anyone would agree that Donald Trump speaks for the whole conservative side of American politics...

No, and no individual ever speaks for the "whole" of any group. That's a red herring. Nobody is saying that person X speaks for the whole of feminism. That doesn't mean that some things that are prevailing or popular views in feminist circles aren't nutty.

Donald Trump does, apparently, speak for a lot of people. I would call him more "populist" than conservative. The views he expresses are not views held only by a small, outlying group of people. If they were, he would not have the poll numbers he has. Some folks obviously agree with him.

I doubt that anyone would agree that the slogan spouting head of some local Trotskyite band of comrads speaks for the whole of the left...

Again, red herring. Of course nobody speaks for "the whole" of anything. The Pope doesn't speak for the "whole" of Catholics, because there are things that Catholic factions disagree with him about. That doesn't mean that Catholicism doesn't hold some rather dopey beliefs. Same with feminism.

There is, however, an urge in our culture to white knight feminism. If someone criticizes some feminists who barged into a men's issues conference, disrupted it, and pulled a fire alarm illegally to evacuate the building under the false claim that an emergency required evacuation, well, folks want to rush in and make sure we all know that group of campus feminists don't "represent all feminism." Well, nobody said they did represent all feminism, nor do they have to in order to be (a) idiots, (b) authoritarian crackpots, and (c) representative of some significant portion of modern feminism.

Folks like Hoff-Sommers and other "feminists" are, in fact, feminists, and yet they criticize much of modern feminism. Hoff-Sommers doesn't "speak for feminism as a whole" and neither do the feminist factions she's criciticizing. So, what? Hoff-Sommers represents a significant view within feminism, and her opponents also represent a significant view.

You can't just declare that any view that is a crackpot view is "not feminism." Feminism does have some significant factions that espouse, advocate and believe some seriously fucked up shit.

[Jason]

Red herring is not the same thing as an analogy. Asserting that they are is a red herring.