Those reading the thread title, and this post, will probably be aware that this thread was launched in response to a derail of another topic, starting here. Frankly, this particular derail is one I'd have preferred to see go away of its own accord, but since it doesn't seem to be doing, I thought I'd take it to its own home, ask one or more salient questions along the way, and drop in a few of my own thoughts on the matter.

The first question, which is illuminative with respect to the direction I'm heading here, is quite simply this. When did the idea of treating women as fellow human beings become such a contentious subject in modern discourse?

My understanding, is that this question is settled. It's settled on the basis of a large body of banally obvious evidence that women are fellow human beings, a body of evidence that is so banally obvious, it shouldn't need pointing out. The issues that are uppermost in the thoughts of women might not be perpetually congruent with those uppermost in the minds of men, but there's usually a substantial overlap of common interest. Such as having enough food to eat, access to fuel and shelter, access to healthcare, etc. Indeed, any genuinely rigorous analysis of the topic should reveal that the common ground we have as human beings outweighs the differences by a large margin. So, given that we live in an era where, in the developed world at least, we've all had the requisite education on the matter, what's the problem with this elementary concept? In particular, since when was this elementary concept in any way ideological?

Well, the problem isn't with this elementary concept at all, but with the historical baggage we're carrying around with us as a species. We as a species spent so much of our recorded history, carrying around with us and implementing actual ideologies, that expounded assertions about the status of women (pretty much all of them condemning women to inferior status), that this state of affairs imposed upon the common humanity concept an "ideological" status it never really possessed. The common humanity concept, supported by vast amounts of banally obvious evidence, only became "ideological" in the pathologically ideological climate of the past, and arose from the determination of vested interests to maintain the status quo with respect to the maintenance of the requisite past ideological assertions. Sweep away those unsupported and all too often wrong ideological assertions of the past, and hey presto, the requisite clarity of vision should materialise.

But sadly, it hasn't.

One of the reasons it hasn't, is because counter-ideologies have arisen to fog the discoursive arena. My view is that the biggest mistake made, by what one might call the more determined pursuers of the common humanity concept, is to try and combat the ideological bullshit of the past, by erecting more ideological bullshit in the present. But wait, since when did two bullshits make substantive fact? Er, never.

Instead of constructing ever more convoluted ideological castles in the air, followed by the inevitable taking up of residence within, we should be saying to ourselves, that ideology itself is part of the problem. It's part of the problem, because at bottom, ideology consists of unsupported assertions treated as fact, regardless of whether reality agrees with this or not. It's one of the reasons that politics has such a bad smell emanating from it, but that's a separate question to be addressed in depth elsewhere.

Quite simply, why should we need a fucking ideology to tell us how 50% of the population should behave toward the other 50%? Basic human empathy should do that job for us without any outside interference. Simply asking basic questions such as "would you want someone else treating your mother this way?" should be enough. Or, for that matter, "would you want someone treating your father this way?" Reciprocity and empathy are usually perfectly sufficient to tell us what to do and what not to do - anyone watching those capuchin monkeys in the famous "unequal pay" experiment should be aware of this, not least because capuchin monkeys, last time I checked, didn't publish polemical tomes erecting ideologies to live by.

That's the lesson I want to expound here. Namely, we don't need ideology full stop. If anything, ideology has been a pernicious and venomous influence on human affairs, and should have been ditched as such long ago. There is no reason to keep it around, it's now a drag anchor on our progress, and the only people who fail to be aware of this, tend to be those addicted to an ideology themselves.

As a corollary of the above, I'd like to think that those who are genuinely concerned with seeing the common humanity concept rise to the fore, will in future recognise that one deals with bullshit not by adding to it, but by exerting the effort to subtract the existing bullshit from our lives. In short, the last thing feminism needs is to be an "ism".

So, can we get on building a future based upon recognition of the observable facts about ourselves, and toss the made up shit into the bin once and for all?

I haven't seen the other thread. I did, however, study the history and ideas of feminism for six or seven years. In any event,

No, we don't need a fucking ideology, and yes, it is obvious, and apart from some obvious atavistic conservatives who are easy to spot at a difference, reasonable people seem to agree.

But "we" do have feminism, which isn't an ideology. It's to an ideology what Hinduism is to religion. It's more like a set of LEGO blocks. You can construct almost any ideology you like, so long as the blocks are feminist. It has been used to construct some extremely different ideologies over the centuries, many of which conflict with each other.

Which is about what you'd expect. This is what happens when there are so many people. There is just no way of constructing a single ideology that fits everybody with that many people. Sometimes it can work with small groups of people, such as how some forms of feminism appealed to 60's US suburban housewives, and some appealed to New York radical women, and so on. So you get schools and waves of feminism. Even then, though, they say wildly different things, which are in conflict.

And there's no way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Here's what happens. Any individual that calls themselves "feminist" has a precise idea of what "feminism" means to them. And then any statement about anything that is or has ever been in feminism that isn't glowing, they immediately interpret as being against women. And then they call you a misogynist. Every. Single. Time.

This wouldn't be such of a problem, except that you don't even have to talk about feminism. If you say anything about men and women at all, a thicket* of idiots will descend and force the conversation toward feminism per se. And then it will be all, blah blah blah, you're blaming feminists, you're painting feminism with a broad brush, you're a misogynist, yada yada yada.

It's completely inescapable. In 30 years, I haven't found anything that works, which is why I find it pointless to talk about it.


*Wikipedia says that "thicket" is the collective noun for idiots.

Calilasseia wrote:When did the idea of treating women as fellow human beings become such a contentious subject in modern discourse?

The problem seems to be this third wave nonsense which says nothing about solutions. It is a movement designed for perpetual complaining.

The good news is in western society we have achieved equality under law.

So many humourless anti-feminists whining that feminism is humourless, or sexist arseholes complaining that feminism seeks to favour one gender over another, not to mention endless whining about how feminism is just for complaining. It's so rare to see criticisms of feminism that don't apply to the complainer.

Maybe I'm just easily amused, but such lack of self-awareness gives me a small LQTM moment every time

OlivierK wrote:So many humourless anti-feminists whining that feminism is humourless, or sexist arseholes complaining that feminism seeks to favour one gender over another, not to mention endless whining about how feminism is just for complaining. It's so rare to see criticisms of feminism that don't apply to the complainer.

Maybe I'm just easily amused, but such lack of self-awareness gives me a small LQTM moment every time

How would you suggest someone who wanted to criticize feminism go about it then?

I agree with most of your post but this bit troubles me, who (especially on ratskep) is making this claim or even saying it

Calilasseia wrote:

The first question, which is illuminative with respect to the direction I'm heading here, is quite simply this. When did the idea of treating women as fellow human beings become such a contentious subject in modern discourse?

Modern feminism is about equality like Islam is about peace, and pro-life is about life.

If you really are for equality, just use a different word.

epepke wrote:
But "we" do have feminism, which isn't an ideology.

I would like to hear your definition of what an ideology is then.

DaveDodo007 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:So many humourless anti-feminists whining that feminism is humourless, or sexist arseholes complaining that feminism seeks to favour one gender over another, not to mention endless whining about how feminism is just for complaining. It's so rare to see criticisms of feminism that don't apply to the complainer.

Maybe I'm just easily amused, but such lack of self-awareness gives me a small LQTM moment every time

How would you suggest someone who wanted to criticize feminism go about it then?

Not hypocritically?

Rationally?

With self-awareness about whether the criticism applies equally to the person making the criticism?

You know, with reasoned arguments, and supporting evidence, and without bucketloads of butthurt and personal attacks.

In the thread this was split from, you humourlessly accused feminism of being humourless, and here Jerome complained about feminism existing to allow people to complain. It's just something I've noticed a lot of over the years, and it amuses me - that's all. I was pointing it out so that others may either avoid such self-referencing criticisms, or have a laugh themselves.

Like so Davedodo:

DaveDodo007 wrote:

Fallible wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:I can only judge feminism on what feminism says and does

Yes, you're using a strawman definition of feminism. That's what I said.

as it has no consensus or leadership, are you really telling me you haven't heard or read any feminism articles and books?

It's like you didn't read my post and just made stuff up in your own mind to respond to. No, I am not really telling you that, as evidenced by the fact that I have never told you that.

I judge feminist by what they say and do, not some dictionary definition, have you read the dictionary definition for communism? How does that pan out with reality.

Yes, you're using a strawman definition of feminism. That's what I said.

I will follow Cali lead but first I must respond to this. All you have done is say strawman to my points, you and Sendraks seem to think saying strawman is a magical word that wins the argument. At least when I said strawmaning critics of feminism I went on to distinguish between bar room boorish behaviour and legitmate criticism of feminism. Sendraks knowledge of feminism seems to me to be the dictionary definition and only that. He hasn't displayed any deep understanding of feminism that I can see. Has seems to have not studied academic feminism, gender studies, third and fourth wave feminism let alone the first and second. If you are for equality why not be a humanist or an egalitarian. If feminism is about equality why are the equity feminist being ostracized by the gender feminist? It's a fucking ideology and a hateful one at that.

OlivierK wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:So many humourless anti-feminists whining that feminism is humourless, or sexist arseholes complaining that feminism seeks to favour one gender over another, not to mention endless whining about how feminism is just for complaining. It's so rare to see criticisms of feminism that don't apply to the complainer.

Maybe I'm just easily amused, but such lack of self-awareness gives me a small LQTM moment every time

How would you suggest someone who wanted to criticize feminism go about it then?

Not hypocritically?

Rationally?

With self-awareness about whether the criticism applies equally to the person making the criticism?

You know, with reasoned arguments, and supporting evidence, and without bucketloads of butthurt and personal attacks.

In the thread this was split from, you humourlessly accused feminism of being humourless, and here Jerome complained about feminism existing to allow people to complain. It's just something I've noticed a lot of over the years, and it amuses me - that's all. I was pointing it out so that others may either avoid such self-referencing criticisms, or have a laugh themselves.

Feminist are humourless though if you disagree then please point me to the ever so witty feminist. I made plenty of claims in the post Cali linked to, feel free to show how they are not reasonable. I don't know anybody who is against equal rights for everybody in real life (or on ratskep) let alone women. They exist, especially in religion but to use that as an excuse to hate men when most men in the Western world agree with equal rights is just insane. You want to support equality then be a humanist or egalitarian but fuck the man hating feminist cunts.

Cheers Thomas.

I have a few more subtle observations for you to consider, to try to answer your questions, Calilasseia.

* One, might be called something like "dynamic delusions." Or even better, "delusions of dynamics." This is a phenomenon which derails all sorts of discussions. It occurs primarily in situations where one or more participants aren't nearly as clear in their own minds what they are and aren't concerned about, as they argue. It happens in discussions of feminism all the time, as each participant reacts to what they are convinced they've heard or read from each other, which isn't accurate at all, due to a failure to define terms, AND to the powerful vector of back-story which impedes coordinating terminology. The delusion begins in the exchanges where people think they ARE on the same page, and grows from a phantom threat, into a solid and real one, as people add layers of rhetoric over the initial misunderstanding.

It's a LOT like making a paper-mache globe, over the outside of a balloon, if you've ever done that or seen it done. The balloon provides a temporary false solidity to serve as a foundational shape to layer the wet -with-paste paper strips over. After a layers of strips are laid and dried, the balloon can be deflated and removed, and the globe will remain, even more solid than the balloon ever was.

In an argument, the same thing happens when people add real, solid points onto a seemingly solid foundational starting point, which is then forgotten, and is therefore never examined closely enough to recognize that it is unsupported. If enough time has gone by, the mistaken deductions which relied on it can appear to be axiomatic on their own.

* another phenomenon of human behavior, which some of our more reprehensible and dishonest members recognize and purposely use against us, is that of feared transferrence, or of feared connectivity.

In this situation, people don't argue against feminism because they disagree with it at all. In fact, they often support it, but don't realize such. Yet they will argue fiercely against it, even to the point of rage, because they have come to fear that something which they ACTUALLY hate or are terrified by, is intrinsically tied to feminism.

It can be as simple as that the number one person they hear and see promoting feminism, is very unattractive, and the witness fears that it is feminism which caused them to be so.

Much more insidious, are the intentional linkages which unscrupulous politicians promote, such that feminism is an essential element of Communism, for example, and therefore support of feminist ideals leads to support of communism. The thing is, the real agenda of those encouraging this non-existent connection, has nothing to do with respecting women as equals or not, at all. It has 100% to do with their desire to hold down wages, and deny worker rights to have a say in working conditions, for fear of losing their unjustly high profit margins.

I watched back in the '70's, as those promoting feminism and other causes, actually played directly into the hands of these connivers, by eagerly forming alliances between all the various so-called "liberation movements," and insisting that for the sake of security and a false sense of movement strength, that everyone had to pretend to blindly support ALL of the details of every ally's agendas as though they were essential to their own cause. By doing so, they themselves caused the lie of these linkages, to become real in the minds of the masses of previously undecided people in the middle of it all.

Even now today, this happens all the time, and has been made into a formal, tie-wearing, pre-printed placard carrying political party plank in some cases.

This is both why there seems to be so much strength and intensity and anger behind the opposition to female equality, as well as why it is so difficult to directly address WHY people hold such strong views: because really, they don't. The only REAL part of it all, is their fear of whatever it is they think is inherently LINKED to feminism, and which they often wont even mention while discussing the subject.

DaveDodo007 wrote:Feminist are humourless though if you disagree then please point me to the ever so witty feminist.

Tina Fey, Margaret Cho, Tim Minchin, and on a personal level: most of the feminists I know

DaveDodo007 wrote: I don't know anybody who is against equal rights for everybody in real life (or on ratskep) let alone women. They exist, especially in religion but to use that as an excuse to hate men when most men in the Western world agree with equal rights is just insane. You want to support equality then be a humanist or egalitarian but fuck the man hating feminist cunts.

I don't know any feminists who hate men as much as you seem to hate feminists. In fact I don't personally know any feminists who hate men at all.

I don't get it. You say that everyone you know is for equality, but feminists are man-hating cunts. Can we conclude from that that you don't actually know any feminists? Because that would explain a lot

DaveDodo007 wrote:
You want to support equality then be a humanist or egalitarian

Both the definition and the goal of feminism is the social and political and economic equality of the sexes and so is entirely compatible with both humanism and egalitarianism. There is no divide between the three. How individual feminists wish to describe themselves is therefore incidental for changing the label does not change the philosophy. So the point is academic

surreptitious57 wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:
You want to support equality then be a humanist or egalitarian

Both the definition and the goal of feminism is the social and political and economic equality of the sexes and so is entirely compatible with both humanism and egalitarianism. There is no divide between the three. How individual feminists wish to describe themselves is therefore incidental for changing the label does not change the philosophy. So the point is academic

Really, so explain to me how advocating for one gender achieves equality for all. Also how do TERF feminism help gender fluid people. I'm seriously sick of this accommodation of bigots.

DaveDodo007 wrote:
so explain to me how advocating for one gender achieves equality for all. Also how do TERF feminism help gender fluid people

Feminism seeks to reverse the gender imbalance in society created by patriarchy for it has a disproportionately negative effect upon women. Radical feminists who deny trans the right to be who they want to be are not true feminists as such because true feminists believe in equality for all regardless of gender

So, while feminism and feminists are generally considered bad words on this site, it's still probably understood that some people here do or likely do identify as such.

So, why is it OK for Dave et al to shriek about the evils of feminism and his hatred of feminists knowing full-well the hate and lies he spews are directed at people on this very board supposedly protected by the FUA?

surreptitious57 wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:
so explain to me how advocating for one gender achieves equality for all. Also how do TERF feminism help gender fluid people

Feminism seeks to reverse the gender imbalance in society created by patriarchy for it has a disproportionately negative effect upon women. Radical feminists who deny trans the right to be who they want to be are not true feminists as such because true feminists believe in equality for all regardless of gender

So unevidence social constructs and the no true Scotsman falacy are all right now that none religious people are using them. OK that's fine. Fuck me I'm beginning to like religious people more and more.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:So, while feminism and feminists are generally considered bad words on this site, it's still probably understood that some people here do or likely do identify as such.

So, why is it OK for Dave et al to shriek about the evils of feminism and his hatred of feminists knowing full-well the hate and lies he spews are directed at people on this very board supposedly protected by the FUA?

I don't hate anybody as hate is a negative emotion, it is like taking a poison and expecting it to affect the focus of your ire to suffer by osmosis. You don't understand the FUA as I'm allowed to attack a group (ideology), any group (ideology) and I have no time for man hating feminist cunts and never will have. Fuck feminists, fuck the man hating cunts for ever. twats all of them. Problem?