The end-of-feminism thread - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Zyx
#13596723
Konulu wrote: I am not attacking whatever arguments you are trying to make but rather the experiences that have formed your arguments.


Certainly, you must realize how ridiculous this is. You should live up to the logical standard, Konulu. Just because we discuss 'feminism,' it does not mean that you must deliberately pursue logical fallacies.

Of course I am always with you in sophistry,
By Kon
#13596724
Why are we discussing feminism? What is the point here? Do we plan to extend ourselves into extensive "academic" careers in feminism? Do you honestly believe that your aid to the struggle of women against oppression should take the form of insulting women on the internet? Do you think your views have value on this topic just because you've read a bunch of theory?
User avatar
By Suska
#13596730
If the category "feminism" has internal contradictions, this is a problem for the category. What's the commonality that makes feminism an actual category?

yiwa-feminism is pro gender equality, and anti gender stereotype. What you apparently want is people to address particular people for their particular qualities rather than ignorantly classify them based on a prejudice. So this is a very special form of nominalism, one in which the male category is an exception. That is; in all things but gender the particular instance is the important thing. The motive for this exceptionality would be an historical abuse of gender roles by males, I presume. A perceived imbalance to be rectified by an imbalancing maneuver. Since this is a categorical position I'm not seeing nominalism anymore. I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand. Should people address each other as a class? Or should we reject stereotypes?

I think this matter is inseparable from sexuality, feminism is how loose women respond to criticism, just as gay rights is how homosexuals respond to it. It's little more than rationalizing the sexual revolution - hedonism. In gender matters I just don't see how sexuality cannot be the primary issue. Women want to be immodest without being penalized for it, as they imagine men being treated.
By Kon
#13596732
yiwanism= intrinsic value
old white guy feminism= wtf
By Zyx
#13596735
Honestly, Konulu, once upon a time, the discussion would have facilitated the pursuit of truth, what any "wannabe" Philosopher would so pursue. Today, I more wish to polish the truth than discover it. All the same, good conversation comes through when participants are learned and opine properly. It was ironically unlearned women who disturbed the conversation and sunk it from a conversation relating to the truth of the female condition and brought it to a series of insults untypical of most.

To put the topic in a better perspective, suppose that the OP was a thesis on how Stalin regarded a particularly close subordinate and how this relationship led to some progress in a district of Moscow's. If someone later comes in to tell of how Trotsky was better than Stalin and one happened to disagree, the more specific and interesting question becomes neglected and the Trotskyist can be exposed as a troll though undetectable by the early researcher. On this, someone may come in and say "For what do you have this Trotsky/Stalin debate, do you wish to revive them from the dead?" But in actuality, the original purpose of the conversation was broken away from but only temporarily, in the viewpoint of those speaking, so to say, the conversation purposes to approach or polish the truth, to look into and observe the human condition, and the predominant speakers only sink away from the topic to either defend their honor or give charity to those not as fortunate to be so educated. On the latter point, a proverb justifies: To those much is given, much is expected.

So if we break from the analogy we can expose what had happened. "Commercial Feminism" was pronounced negative and we gathered to agree and share insights thereupon, but some took it upon themselves to insult men and their capacities so some men took to responding. We made an error, of course. Not realizing that these soi-disant feminists would 'troll' us from our conversation, but such only needs to be archived in history. As to your questions, it can be evident that conversation with bright individuals expands the facilities and makes for positive changes in the outlook and perspective of people. My personal work with the feminist question, more particularly the 'sex' question, has been an incredibly positive experience.
User avatar
By Suska
#13596737
yiwanism= intrinsic value
old white guy feminism= wtf

Is this directed at me? What does it mean?
By Zyx
#13596739
Suska wrote:Is this directed at me? What does it mean?


Konulu expresses a typical liberal way of flirting. Giving inherent value to women of color and chastising White men as though he understands.

I do not believe that yiwahikanak is in your age group, Konulu.
By Kon
#13596743
Zyx you are one weird dude.

I don't believe feminism is something that can be pigeonholed into categories like that; every woman has a different opinion on trostky.

I may be misunderstanding something here.

Is this directed at me? What does it mean?


No, Zyx.

My intent is that a woman's notion of feminism has more value in a discussion of feminism than an "academic" notion of feminism.

Giving inherent value to women of color and chastising White men as though he understands


I am saying I do not understand, which is the second thing you fail to understand, understand?

That is not how I hit on women Zyx, I do it by pretending to be interested in the things that they like. Now back to that conversation about the Cree.

Edit: Is pant's Yiwa? Or is the board being over run by First Nations women?
Yes bannock is delicious, especially when roasted on a fire so there is a pocket you can fill with things.
Last edited by Kon on 09 Jan 2011 21:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13596748
Konulu wrote:
Edit: Is pant's Yiwa? Or is the board being over run by First Nations women?
Yes bannock is delicious, especially when roasted on a fire so there is a pocket you can fill with things.


Pants-of-Dog is my lover (for those of you who haven't been able to figure that out by now), I'm at his house right now, and I didn't log out before replying as I normally would :lol:
User avatar
By Suska
#13596751
I'm sorry you thought I was joking Pants, I'll rephrase my position.

I don't think you can separate gender from sexuality and I don't think you can separate sexuality from humanity's future. Of course I'm all for individuals dealing with individuals on an individual basis without prejudice, what I'm wondering is how a prejudice is meant to bring this about.
By Zyx
#13596753
Konulu wrote:I don't believe feminism is something that can be pigeonholed into categories like that; every woman has a different opinion on trostky.


This was pretty brilliant, even if only intentionally so.

Ibid. wrote:My intent is that a woman's notion of feminism has more value in a discussion of feminism than an "academic" notion of feminism.


Nonsense. That's like writing that workers have the best grasp of industrial oppression.

Ibid. wrote:That is not how I hit on women Zyx, I do it by pretending to be interested in the things that they like.


You are missing out then. It's an age-old Trotskyist tactic.


Suska wrote:I'm sorry you thought I was joking Pants, I'll rephrase my position.


Do not fall for that, Suska. The comments of Pants' were originally of yiwahikanak, then yiwahikanak edited it to "nm" then to "laughing at your post." It was a cover-up.
By Kon
#13596770
Nonsense. That's like writing that workers have the best grasp of industrial oppression


This is not going to end well, ask those guys in Barcelona.
User avatar
By Suska
#13596794
I'm still looking for some reply from the local feminism experts that consists of something more than an accusation of homophobia or an emote intended to belittle me. Thanks in advance.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13596847
Two useless pages of rank-pulling ago, Pants wrote:I find it interesting that so many men are in this thread defining what feminism is.

No one can say with any certainty what any particularly abstract word "is." It's just a word.

What we are discussing in this thread is what the word 'feminism' has been used to accomplish.

It's pointless to discuss what feminism "really" means because it's really just letters and sounds and a vague reference to females.

You don't have to be a female to realize what has transpired in the name of feminism. And being a female makes you more biased because you have been branded to identify with the product: females have had there gender leveraged into being a productive cell of free enterprise.

This has been the main social change accomplished in the name of 'feminism.' Which is a word which we have all been affected by - males, non-academics, and gay Muslims alike.
Last edited by QatzelOk on 09 Jan 2011 23:44, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13596903
There is a serious imbalance in the ratio of males to females in the userbase so the women get swamped. PoFo feminism has a long and pronounced history thanks to the continued support of a minority female population, however, it doesn't seem to me like the ratio of inequality shows signs of decreasing.

What do you guys think is the cause of PoFo sexism?
By Zyx
#13596904
MB. wrote:What do you guys think is the cause of PoFo sexism?


There is no PoFo sexism. skinster, Rei Murasame and Kylie are respectable people. It's feminazism which is disagreeable. What looks like sexism is really a distaste for feminazism.
Last edited by Siberian Fox on 18 Jan 2011 20:01, edited 3 times in total. Reason: Personal attack deleted. Warned.
User avatar
By Donna
#13596906
Suska wrote:I think this matter is inseparable from sexuality, feminism is how loose women respond to criticism, just as gay rights is how homosexuals respond to it.


Suska, "criticism" is a very bad choice of words. We are talking about political ideologies that emerged radically: for second-wave feminists it was a response to sexual exploitation, something that you have barely mentioned in the entirety of this thread. For homosexuals it was a response to police abuse, raids, suicides and mass outings. 'Criticism' is something most people deal with and it exists in the form of speech or expression, not as a police officer beating a tranny or an 80 year-old judge going soft on an incestuous father. That isn't 'criticism', those are antagonisms that will inevitably produce a radical antiphon. I'd like to think that you don't actually propose these kinds of abusive situations for women, gays and children, and that your real objection is to the bourgeois appropriation of identity politics, which admittedly desecrates sexuality in numerous indefensible ways.

Suska wrote:It's little more than rationalizing the sexual revolution - hedonism. In gender matters I just don't see how sexuality cannot be the primary issue. Women want to be immodest without being penalized for it, as they imagine men being treated.


Potemkin made some excellent observations of the sexual revolution: what happened is that the sexual revolution was at first more of an opening of masculine sexual space outside the patriarchy, something that likely goes back a bit further than the familiar scenery of the late 60s. This only resolved one antagonism while co-opting another and in turn manifested negatively toward women and homosexuals. Some of Sayyid Qutb's harangues are perceptive of this, even though in the United States at this time persecution of homosexuals was at its modern zenith and the policing of sexual exploitation was itself practically a cultural fantasy, projected onto gays, blacks and immigrants. As the 60s began to gain its surroundings, feminists and gay liberationists (the concept 'gay rights' as it is understood today did not exist then) soon found themselves correcting the excesses of the first wave of the sexual revolution. Was the "sexual revolution" a success? You can only really hold it up to any other revolution and most of them have their pros and cons; but they almost always result in more or less permanent changes to society.
User avatar
By Suska
#13596909
Ztx, I get it like this is Gorkiy and yiwa is offensive, but this is getting embarrassing, you had your swing and you missed, and you continue to miss. All you're doing is chewing on the thread.

Donald, if you don't mind I'll field serious comments here

MB. Are you saying a rejection of feminism is sexist?
User avatar
By MB.
#13596920
Suska,

Feminism is about revolution. I tend to support revolutionary movements. If you reject feminism you are probably some kind of crypto-fascist.
User avatar
By Suska
#13596925
MB.

But many of the males of PoFo are revolutionary anti-feminists, that means feminists are probably crypto-fascists, right?
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]