You assume the feminist movement, as it stands today, is still worth defending. The behaviour of the feminists above says otherwise.
This was a university lecture. Universities are unique places where an exchange of ideas, no matter how controversial, should be allowed to take place. If Farrell’s views are so idiotic, then the group protesting should have no problem defeating him in open debate. Their tactics are those of bullies.
I think you misunderstood my comment about the guy. Many of the attendees were harassed and intimidated from attending. You’re defending this behaviour?
PCG’s tone and post is exactly the type of hostility expressed by the crowd. That kind of bullying is pathetic.
This is not an entirely feminist problem, this is clearly anti social behaviour by group of extremely dissident women who probably had highly individualistic agenda of their own. It’s the role of prominent universities to take care of such obnoxious groups from disturbing the peace, and ensuring such incidents don’t take place. That’s a slightly better option than asking ‘feminism’ to bend over backwards to act apologetic and denounce the movement as some kind of reaction against extreme minority. I don’t understand why entire movement of feminism is getting blame when the movement itself is an umbrella movement holding many diverse difference of opinions, influence, aims and objectives within.
I would be more concerned about why these male pressure groups aren’t getting much attention, perhaps it’s time to learn from feminism and make alliance with different pressure groups. I don’t see why those male focused pressure groups cannot co-operate and merge with moderate feminist groups to finally make a movement a lot universal. That’d be a once step towards a achieving a ‘humanistic’ organisation.
As with your third paragraph, you can label it whatever and however way you like. At the end of the day, it is feminists who dominate the field when it comes to researching, advocating and assisting women’s cause in their communities, so perhaps their feminists conscious do play a role. More power to feminists who genuinely work on Human Rights issue, I don’t see why anyone would oppose this. As with feminism being replaced by humanism, humanism is a philosophy while feminism is a successful example socio-political activism. I don’t think this argument ever went away, humanism (I like the word egalitarianism) vs feminism has always been one of the major arguments against women’s movement. It was there over hundred years ago, and it’s still here, but we have yet to see a popular egalitarian movement that had effectively managed to replace feminism, even when the vast majority of feminists from yesteryears were staunch socialists.
SHOWS his views on incest. Which he states can be positive experience for most father’s and some daughters. I believe this is what the ladies protested. They said it should be termed rape. Not positive experience. Here is some context for you.
I agree, the university needs to act. If they do so however, the headlines will read that feminists were silenced from protesting. The culture is so hell bent on the narrative women being victims that any criticism against them is seen as misogynistic. You can claim that moderates are exempt from such behaviour but I’d argue that even the moderates are irrelevant. If research shows that men are more disenfranchised in Western society than women, then why do we still need feminists? If moderate feminists truly do care about equality for all sexes, why do they not denounce the extremists within their ranks? Oh wait, they do.** Both of the professors I listed above are feminists. **They just made the mistake of criticizing the movement they helped champion.
I’d like to know which issues, if any, still exist that are not a matter of political partisanship or human rights, requiring special attention from women’s groups. Clearly there are second wave feminists who think the movement has been corrupted as of late. What exactly is feminism still fighting for? Women can vote. No one questions a woman’s right to work? What’s the beef? You can march to change laws, but once that happens, it’s time to put down the guns, lest you get trapped in the quest for an eternal enemy. That’s what has happened to feminism.
As for your point about feminists dominating the advocacy of women’s issues, I’d like to see stats but I’m inclined to agree. However, feminism is not just a social movement. The package comes with theories and philosophies about the nature of sex and gender, about the roles women have supposedly been forced into (even if many of them now choose to adopt these roles). This dialogue is dominated by a few, packaged under the umbrella you love to defend, and pushed on the masses, who accept and dare not question it for fear of being labelled misogynists. Once again, I’d ask you, are women still considered second class citizens? Who’s worse off in society, men or women?
Feminism has not been the only popular egalitarian movement. The civil rights movement was pretty successful and it was inclusive of all minorities and sexes, whereas feminism was concerned purely with women’s rights. Once again, said rights were achieved decades ago but the agenda continues, facts be damned. The reason humanism won’t thrive is that we continue to believe that women (in the West) are the oppressed in society. I would encourage you to read literature showing that the opposite is the case.
First of all, I’m disappointed that you resorted to finding dirt instead of debating the merits and stats of his ideas on gender rights. In any case, he is a social researcher, who commented on his research about incest, namely that many people he interviewed in incestual relationships reported that it was a positive experience.
Secondly, your point about defending the crowd’s hostility, is entirely without merit. Again, without actually reading what he wrote about rape (or incest), they aggressively protest his talks. Their “reasons” for protesting were fabricated and outright lies. He does **not **advocate rape, which is the crowd’s sole purpose of protesting. His talks have Q&A sessions in which any of these protestors could have asked him to clarify his quotes, or challenge his ideas.
Lastly, what does the protest of religious advocates on campuses have to do with this? I would oppose aggressive religious protests as well. You can stand outside with signs if you wish. You can chant. But **don’t **physically intimidate people who wish to attend. **Don’t **prevent the lecturer from actually offering their opinion, which is exactly what these protestors did. When that didn’t work they pulled the fire alarm.
Ghost I have been constantly calling for Context. I stated earlier that in one video ladies were talking abt rape. So I tried to find the reason they would say that in the context of Farrell. I am disappointed you would dismiss that as an attempt to “dig up dirt”.
I didn’t just offer example of religious protest. I also offered example of protest in congress. To show people do try to shout down the other. Sometimes justifiably.
He may not advocate rape. But he should clearly categorize incest as rape. Which he didnt.
As for Q and A 50 pct time to each side. Most of time spent on his talk. If u truly want a debate put him on one side. And have student debate him on the other. An sure there will be no protest then.
Things r not black and whute. One should not view said protest without context. I provided that. Unfortunately u label that dirt digging. I respectfully disagree.
^ Some people knowingly engage in incest, so calling it rape is a absurd. His **research **was about these people. By that logic, most Muslims who marry their cousins, against Western conventions, are engaging in incest, and therefore, rape.
My point was that you can protest without impeding the event. Their goal was clearly to impede the event, which no one else in this thread is defending. I will never support the stifling of ideas.
Technically we never needed ‘feminism’ or Woman’s Movement. This whole argument has been recycled so many times with different shapes and forms, that it’s all deja vu to my eyes. Why tirelessly attack feminism for not speaking against the rights of men? You yourself have admitted that feminism can only talk about woman’s issue, then why expect them to do so? It’s like how men in Interwar years blamed and belittled Women’s Groups for everything when their Trade Unions failed them. I’m sure it’s not intentional, but it does feel like some kind of cover for male pressure groups’ inability to raise a well structured case, and mainstream awareness in regards to plight of male suffering? I don’t think using feminism as a punching bag is really going to help bring the allusive humanistic movement. It’ll create further gender divide, hostility and promote a whole new brand of politically motivated sexism and intolerance. There’s really isn’t any need to get so frustrated towards feminism and its popularity, the movement wasn’t developed overnight. So if there are male pressure groups fighting for Rights of Men, they must remain patient, consistent and organise themselves and reach out to the public just like their female counterparts did. Instead of using feminists as target, I think you should really be putting your weight behind those male groups who talk about the issues you would like them to talk about it. I promise you that you will not find any opposition from me, whereas I cannot guarantee whether I’ll be spared the wrath anti feminist voices here.
As with your third paragraph again, the original point was in made in response to the argument that all feminists are busy playing man haters to get media’s attention. The little anecdotal experience was added to highlight that there are feminists who are still true to their original aims and objectives of fighting injustice and female exploitation on grass root level in regions with unique socio-economic set ups, and cultural diversity. I see no reason why their efforts sincerity and hard work to the cause should be undermined just because they stick a particular label on themselves? At the end of the day, it’s a fight for protecting Human Rights, so lets just appreciate it whether it comes from a male or female activist. In a free and democratic world that champions freedom of speech and freedom of ideas, I see no basis whatsoever for arguments that feminism should cease to exist or why do we have feminism. It clearly represents a large group, is well established and sufficiently backed. If its popularity is diminishing, reputation and objectives in tatters, then surely a vacuum is being created. I would most certainly like to see how and when feminism is replaced, and with what. God knows I’ve been waiting for this for a long time.
You’ve made a pretty embarrassing contradiction there. How can you call feminism an egalitarian movement and then go on to say, feminisms has always been concerned with Women’s Rights? Either it’s egalitarian or it always talked about women’s issues.
I love politics. It’s my passion, dream and career, but unfortunately, I have never been interested to affiliate myself with gender politics, and code and decode it’s philosophies, just like I don’t do identity politics. But just to wrap up my contributions in this thread with a one final point - challenges create opportunities. Constructive criticism has always helped feminism a great deal in the past. Every time the movement lost its steam and momentum, critical lashing is all what it needed to put itself back on the track. I do hope and wish that modern feminists take constructive criticism on board, and redefine its position of various issues.
Your first paragraph is easily answered: feminism challenges the tenet that Men need any defending. The assumption of male privilege is inherent in many feminist circles, hence, for any other group to flourish feminism must give up its hold on the public sphere. Do you deny that male privilege appears repeatedly in feminist writings?
My criticism of feminism for its silence on men’s right was in response to your assertion, and that of many feminists, that the movement stands for the rights of both men and women. Going back to what I mentioned earlier, they often base this on the premise that the only difference between men and women is physiological. I don’t think feminism will ever speak for men. It is concerned only with women. And since it has achieved its goal of affecting legislation (while conveniently being silent on pre-60’s family court legislation that benefits women), it needs to move aside and stop enforcing false notions of women as victims.
Why does “feminism” need to be replaced? Because the umbrella term also shelters extremists. When you operate under the assumption of being the victim, you can shape the discourse as you wish without any opposition. The proof is there for you to see, people can’t even criticize the movement without being labelled rape apologists and being intimidated. Modern day feminists have morphed into a strangely misguided group, as you yourself have admitted, and insisting on the defense of this group shelters the extremists. Like you said, feminism is well established and sufficiently backed, and relies on the premise that women are still oppressed by the patriarchy. If this is no longer the case, then mainstream feminists need to admit this. As it stands, feminism is not needed. It has never operated without the principle of women as victims, and I severely doubt it ever will, hence my opposition to it in the West.
I should have been clearer in my last point, I don’t think feminism is egalitarian, those were your words. I think feminism was always concerned first and foremost with women’s rights. And many of its leaders were rather extreme.
Your final point is idealistic but ultimately futile. Many former feminists *are *criticizing and challenging the movement’s core assumption, and look at the backlash they’re facing. I’ll say this again, both of the speakers being protested against are former feminists. Do you need any more proof about what happens when you challenge mainstream feminism? And you think there’s hope for this movement? I wish you well.
Also, just to add, I enjoyed reading your posts Jolie. I think we agree for the most part but differ on what should emerge post current wave, and whether or not that needs to be feminism.
Comment without even listening to the full statement of the OP.
Again Generalities. But you already made up your mind.
Context pretty self explanatory, if you care to go through the videos and articles dligently. The deliberate ’ not knowing’ of context isn’t really believable.
You do not ‘know’ the context of the events, and based on that, you don’t buy whats being said by the OP.YET, you already half-believe what the gentleman ‘appeared to be’…based on one protestors words.
Well, CoughCough might think you are a hate group, and doing exactly what you support here. You deserve to be shouted down as per him. Why take so much offense?
Plenty of context provided by the OP, the links. Yet you fail to see it. And since you are an ardent believer of ‘intelligent speech’, why not look for context to refute the OPs context? Either accept it, or challenge it. Whats with all this pretending to ‘‘not know’’?
Again. You challenge the context provided by the OP, but do not make an effort to find out or refute it.
So, dear southie.
What you are doing, in a nutshell, is refusing to see the point, challenging it just for the sake of it, and not bringing anything refute the claim at all. All you did was repeatedly continue to ‘‘fail to see the context’’, despite it being repeated a hundred times (figuratively).
What does all of that say? You are being intellectually dishonest, or you simply are unable to process simple statements or engage in discussion. All you did here was harp on and on about the topic with your preconceived ideas and jumped on your kind of bandwagon/herd behaviour.
I don’t usually do this kind of posts. but i gotta give it to you. you sure made me do this.
You may not. I respect that. U asked me earlier the connection with religion. Note that Harvard University had to cancel a speaker after protest from a religious group. So one group censors another speaker in a Uni. See the similarity? Hence the example Relevant to this thread.
Also I used William Farrell as key word in my search..And maybe criticism. And found link. The link I posted is Relevant cause needed to find out why rape was mentioned by one of the ladies
U used cousin as example of incest not being rape. Farrell research specifically describes father daughter u know what as incest. And did not Call it rape. U ok with that?
When I get a chance I will post at least one instance where such protests are reasonable.
Code Pink is an organization focusing on peace. I tried to paste a link. For some reason paste didn’t work. Those interested can see them in action. Disrupting speeches to make a point abt ending wars. And courting arrest.
Part where I agree is that “feminism” is full of people or women who love to jump on any bandwagon which has a lable of non-discrimination without thinking…
…or simply hate men for whatever reason they have. May be some bad personal experience or whatever.
Perhaps just to rile up gullible women to start pity for themselves…and gain fame around the world.
**
And ‘feminism’ is nothing more than a joke these days.**
I can even go further that so called ‘feminism’ has not given any** noticeable ‘benefit’** to women.
But:
Where I completely disagree is when CC or like minded people try to highlight those who want to sell the idea of men being discriminated too, and somehow try to make people join in the name of ‘equality’ to start a** new idiotic ‘revolution’**.
I mean who are these so called equality champions talking to?
No thank you.
Men don’t need to follow the stupid feminist ideas or even something close to it.
Most men do have some pride unlike the feminists.
Last thing men like myself, would want some skinny chick giving lecture on how men also need pity from world community. :no:
