Feminism, Sexism and Other Misunderstood Things

[Sara NoH]

I am a feminist.
I am heterosexual.
I occasionally wear dresses.
I usually shave my legs and underarms, unless I'm in a hurry.
I believe in equality for all.
I believe every person has basic rights.
I don't believe a fetus is a person. I believe it's a potential person which should be more valued than say, a dog; but less valued than an existing person.
I don't believe anyone is superior to anyone else.
I don't believe all____ are inherently_____. People are different, there are usually exceptions.

At it's core, I think feminism is about equality. It's not about superiority, it's not about man-hating. What do you think feminism is about? What do you think makes a feminist? Why are you or aren't you a feminist?

[Abreo]

God you take everything seriously don't you? I wasn't being defensive, it was pretty tongue-in-cheek. I thought the "I had to say it" gave it away. I'll learn to be more blunt.

So I'm not entirely sure I'm following that first paragraph correctly but I'll attempt to respond anyways.

Everyone does have their own definition of feminism, I acknowledge that up there, but when everyone's definition at least deals with gender equality the word still has meaning in conversation. When you expand the definition to possibly become synonymous with another word all you're doing is taking away meaning from feminism. Suddenly it can mean, really, anything. When the meaning of a word becomes too vague there's no point in using it since labels are meant to cut down on the amount of explaining you have to do.

Also There's a difference between defining terms and beating a dead horse as a means of distraction, and this section of the discussion feels like the latter.

Distraction? From what?

[Gabrielle]

Ubereil, jumping in with another semantical definition argument does absolutely nothing to help. It could be considered either, and don't you dare send me a dictionary.com reference or some crap like you usually do. I've had enough disputes with you over written definitions versus colloquial usage before, I'm not about to have another one that could damage our friendship.

[Gabrielle]

And Abreo, you can't expect to make a comment on a forum with a topic like this that even implicitly dismisses and condescends to the fundamental beliefs of some of the people involved to go unanswered. So if you're surprised I and anyone else reacted, that perhaps speaks to some sort of misunderstanding of how debate (either in person or online), values, and belief systems function. There were already passionate things being said, and any comment here is within that broader context. As such, the entire environment needs to be considered before a comment is left. Again, every word matters. So to reiterate, maybe you didn't mean to make it sound that negative, but regardless, it did; so alas, that's the reaction you got.

[Abreo]

I've been on this site for over a year and this is the only time I can remember that someone negatively reacted so strongly over something I said and I've been way harsher towards someone's beliefs than arguing that their label is wrong.

I do consider myself a feminist, and an egalitarianist but I got to say I think I understand now why people think feminists suck. All I said was I disagreed with feminism being used in place of egalitarianism and I was accused of using strawmen and red herring arguments as though I was hoping to tear apart feminism  with such arguments when I wished to do no such thing.  That isn't my fault, thats not due to a misunderstanding on my side. It seemed to me to be, more than anything, to be an attempt to make me look like a total dickhead just because I disagreed with Brianna.

Counter-arguments were welcomed but seeing as everyone acted like I was an asshole for no real reason tells me that this sort of thing probably happens in other situations and someone less knowledgeable about what feminism really is than myself might decide that feminism is stupid because feminists are a completely insufferable group of people. I couldn't blame anyone who makes that mistake now.

This may be a subject you care about but that doesn't mean you're excused from overreacting.

[Gabrielle]

Abreo, I ask you to one final time to consider what I said about the microcosm of the definition debate existing within the context of the overarching discussion. When the proponents of feminism on this thread keep getting attacked from all sides the way they have been, albeit by people other than you, perhaps, it's hard to see a disagreement with their ideals as something not meant to be an attack, per se. In the broader context of the entire discussion, it wasn't an overreaction because it didn't take place in a vacuum or as an isolated incident. It was in the midst of a barrage of insults and condescending remarks about how a feminist doesn't get it simply because they're a feminist (in varying and divergent ways, of course, such as the equal pay part)- and the argument you put forth, again, contained that message within it, even if that wasn't what you meant for it to do. This is the main point I've been trying to make with you, and if you can't accept it or understand what I mean by it, then you're missing the reasoning behind my objection entirely, and we'll likely continue to talk past one another until the cows come home, unless a formal agreement to stop happens (or one of us simply stops saying anything). 

Also, in general, accusing someone of "overreacting" is often used as a mechanism to get them to react even stronger in debate. Sort of like how telling someone to "calm down" almost invariably results in them saying, "I AM CALM!" or screaming, "Don't tell me to calm down!" Again, whether that was your intent or not isn't the issue. It's the fact that words, especially in an online discussion, matter. It's another rhetorical device for veiled condescension, and I don't think you meant for it to be one- so just be aware of that in the future. 

And I'm about to pull a total seniority thing... but I was one of the first fifty people to sign up for this site, and let me tell you, if you think the discussion here was the worst you've seen, you haven't dug around these forums enough. I haven't bothered to look in the archives, but if you went back to before you got here, you'd find a lot of terrible stuff that provides perfectly stereotypical examples of how "The Internet" sucks. From that perspective, I'm actually kind of jealous, because you haven't yet become disillusioned with the utility of any sort of online discussion as I have by now. 

Which makes me wonder what the heck I'm doing here again in the first place. And that could probably be used as fuel against me, but I'm in no position to say I'm better for leaving OR for returning, and I'm no worse if I take off again and don't answer.
 

[David N]

I agree with Kenny here. Feminism, as far as I know it, is about gender equality. Whether it is from a strictly female or male/female/transgender etc. perspective I think is debatable, but not that it is about gender equality. Once you open it up to racial and sexual equality, it loses its focus and becomes general equality, which again I don't think it is. It's not a fallacious opinion or a stereotype to say that feminism is an approach for gender equality, mainly through women's perspective: that's just what it is.

[Brianna Marie]

You say it is through a women's perspective, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. 

There's this theory in sociology that basically says white people should only study white people and black people should only study black people because otherwise they might not fully understand why people do things the way that they do because apparently there's some difference between the races. And if a white person studies a black family (or whatever) then that is a white perspective on whatever they are studying. Is it like that? Or something else entirely?

[David N]

By that I mean the purpose of Feminism is to seek rights for women to create gender balance.

[Rangdangdora]

I agree with your note about feminism (should be) about equality not  superiority. Some "feminists" seem to get to carried away and it becomes  "Look at me, look at me, I have a vagina so I hate you all!!". I also agree with your point about fetuses. My personal belief is that it is the woman's choice. FULL STOP!!

[Übereil]

First implying that marketeers losing there jobs is good offends me, because my mother puts food on the table through marketing. If she lost her job i would not be posting this status, I would be out working a job at age 15, so think about them as people not marketeers, because thats what they are people doing a job.

Let's look upon that logic from another point of view:

"First implying that crack dealers losing there jobs is good offends me, because my mother puts food on the table through pushing crack. If she lost her job i would not be posting this status, I would be out working a job at age 15, so think about them as people not crack dealers, because thats what they are people doing a job."

Yes, crack dealers puts food on the table. In order to do so they start and they fuel crack addiction though. In order to put food on the table crack dealer ruins the lives of others. When I said what I said I didn't say so because I didn't consider the point of view of the crack dealer, I said so because I also considered the point of view of the pepole the crack dealer exploits. Exploiting pepole to put food on the table isn't justified. It's better that you starve, because if you do then those you exploit won't.

Comparing crack dealing and marketing is difficult, to say the least, becase the consequences are so very different. I do stick to marketing being mostly harmful though. Not inherently, because there is nothing inherently wrong with informing others about what your product can do (or that you have a product in the first place). The problem is that the majority of marketing isn't about information, it's about skewed information and manipulation. And at that point marketing becomes exploitation, since the point of it is to get pepole to buy your product where they wouldn't, had they had accurate and unbiased information. When their tool for manipulation is to play on sexist ideas it gets even worse.

Your mother puts food on your table through marketing. I can understand why and I don't blame her. But I still think it's problematic, and I still think she ought to find some other way to do it.

And that's without questioning the overall structure of our society.

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

how is it exploiting to market to people? your logic makes no sense. Telling some one to by febreeze and pushing crack on someone are two different things. One is trying to get you to remember the name of a product so when u go to purchase you buy the advertised product. The other is almost forcing people to by crack. So please explain, because i cannot fathom how you connected the two.

[Josh Braun]

Telling someone to buy crack is the same as telling someone to buy febreeze. Pushing crack is the same as pushing febreeze.

 

You used two different verbs, which is wrong and completely different.