I have met a femnazi - I stated that I thought issues such as lesbian rights were detracting attention, concern and resources away from more important issues such as gun crime, pedophiles walking the street, violent renegade security firms like something from a Sci-fi film, crack cocaine, street prostitution and incompetence in the public sector which are all massive issues where I live.

She looked at me as if i was a war criminal and sneers at me whenever she sees me on the street.

That sounds more like a debate over gay rights. Plus, she's right that those problems are unrelated. Lesbians won't take away your guns, increase the sale of crack cocaine or increase government corruption.

[Zgarbas]

That's because they're all about different sectors. Also, lesbian rights are not necessarily a feminist thing, unless you're really into the subtle issues of gender role enforcement. Anyway.

lesbian rights(especially since civil partnerships are legal) is mostly a social issue regarding how one can get ostracized for their sexual preference. And all those guys who are raping lesbians to show them that their penis is made of heterosexuality. As someone who got chased by a guy who yelled about how lesbians don't exist, they just haven't tasted his penis, I can see how that's an issue. Public attention alone can change this.

Whereas the rest are issues which can only be solved by the system, since it's not like the locals can solve that. Street prostitution is actually a feminist issue, sort of. It varies.

So yeah, you're basically saying that people should ignore the things that they can change in order to pay more attention to things which are, frankly beyond their control. Unless you expected her to magically become one of them superheroes.

vix86: Whenever I hear something about the inequalities that feminism has brought I am reminded of the anecdotes about how the minorities can get away with anything by pulling the racism card. Anecdotes which are always miraculously more predominant than the actual phenomenon.

btw, as a completely random fact, it's not LGBT anymore since the LGBs decided that the Ts are a completely different issue.

Zgarbas Wrote:That's because they're all about different sectors. Also, lesbian rights are not necessarily a feminist thing, unless you're really into the subtle issues of gender role enforcement. Anyway.

lesbian rights(especially since civil partnerships are legal) is mostly a social issue regarding how one can get ostracized for their sexual preference. And all those guys who are raping lesbians to show them that their penis is made of heterosexuality. As someone who got chased by a guy who yelled about how lesbians don't exist, they just haven't tasted his penis, I can see how that's an issue. Public attention alone can change this.

Whereas the rest are issues which can only be solved by the system, since it's not like the locals can solve that. Street prostitution is actually a feminist issue, sort of. It varies.

So yeah, you're basically saying that people should ignore the things that they can change in order to pay more attention to things which are, frankly beyond their control. Unless you expected her to magically become one of them superheroes.

vix86: Whenever I hear something about the inequalities that feminism has brought I am reminded of the anecdotes about how the minorities can get away with anything by pulling the racism card. Anecdotes which are always miraculously more predominant than the actual phenomenon.

btw, as a completely random fact, it's not LGBT anymore since the LGBs decided that the Ts are a completely different issue.

The issues I mentioned could easily be soothed with the money which is spent on gay issues in Liverpool. Kids easily get guns and a famous paedophile was only recently locked up. I think that where I live LGBT issues have way too much media coverage and resource and issues like gangs of teenage lads shooting each other and drug gangs torturing each other and paedophiles working in nurseries don't receive enough. If it makes you feel better a gay man tried to "strongly convince" and I just laughed him off - it is more common than you may think. BTW your fact isn't random.

Eikyu Wrote:That sounds more like a debate over gay rights. Plus, she's right that those problems are unrelated. Lesbians won't take away your guns, increase the sale of crack cocaine or increase government corruption.

How was she right? she just sneered (I love this word, it is an awesome example of phonetic symbolism!) at me and didn't say anything.

Sometimes it's just exhausting and not worth it to have to have these debates for the hundredth and thousandth time. Especially when you realize for the hundredth time that your rights as a human being are just an abstract debating topic.

If I were saying, right now, what I actually thought, half of y'all would be considering me a feminazi. Instead I will file the debate under "exhausting and not worth it."

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I have met a femnazi - I stated that I thought issues such as lesbian rights were detracting attention, concern and resources away from more important issues such as gun crime, pedophiles walking the street, violent renegade security firms like something from a Sci-fi film, crack cocaine, street prostitution and incompetence in the public sector which are all massive issues where I live.

She looked at me as if i was a war criminal and sneers at me whenever she sees me on the street.

I have a similar experience. Someone I knew was slamming me because I didn't share her obsession with (her interpretation of) women's rights. I pointed out that she herself didn't care as much as I did about environmental issues, which could be seen as more pressing threat to humans and the earth in general.

Her response: "I would rather have all of the life on earth wiped out than for half of the human race [women] to continue to live in constant suffering the way they are now."

zigmonty Wrote:

vix86 Wrote:As an aside, I do find it amusing that we derailed yet another thread into a discussion on feminism.

Are you serious? Can't we just forget the original thread ever existed?

It was far more entertaining than this sleep-inducing discussion of feminism.

I love the phrase "constant suffering"! I had what has been described as an "awful" childhood but am grateful for living in the first world and having good friends and actually don't suffer when I am eating croissants or chatting to friends. I have enjoyed most of my life.

I just think it is hysterical but sad how these women say these things and if a man criticizes them, this man is a sexist. If a man came out with the tripe you quoted he would probably be labelled with aspergers/schitzophrenia or just a basket case.

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:

Eikyu Wrote:That sounds more like a debate over gay rights. Plus, she's right that those problems are unrelated. Lesbians won't take away your guns, increase the sale of crack cocaine or increase government corruption.

How was she right? she just sneered (I love this word, it is an awesome example of phonetic symbolism!) at me and didn't say anything.

What I mean is that I can understand that she was angry because gay rights and gun crime don't have anything to do with each other. The same applies to those other things you listed. It's not like gun crime would decrease if lesbians stopped claiming rights. Your argument that lesbian rights detract "attention, concern and resources away" is completely bogus. It's not like the government is spending so much resources on helping gays that they have to fire policemen.

Eikyu Wrote:

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:

Eikyu Wrote:That sounds more like a debate over gay rights. Plus, she's right that those problems are unrelated. Lesbians won't take away your guns, increase the sale of crack cocaine or increase government corruption.

How was she right? she just sneered (I love this word, it is an awesome example of phonetic symbolism!) at me and didn't say anything.

What I mean is that I can understand that she was angry because gay rights and gun crime don't have anything to do with each other. The same applies to those other things you listed. It's not like gun crime would decrease if lesbians stopped claiming rights. Your argument that lesbian rights detract "attention, concern and resources away" is completely bogus. It's not like the government is spending so much resources on helping gays that they have to fire policemen.

In Liverpool we have a gay pride which I fully, and thoroughly agree with. Also in Liverpool there was a MASSIVE culture of sexual abuse in catholic schools and penitentaries. Some of the hardest, meanest, most dangerous bastards who would eat me for breakfast went to these schools. Yet they have had no formal apology and are therefore imho isolated from society and do what they do.

They have had no support and no recognition of their suffering. Children live in diabolical areas of Liverpool where debt collectors and drug dealers and doormen are more respected than the police. I feel sorry for every one of those kids. I feel that gays should be proud of their identity but I just think more should be given to help deprived children and that most women have rights now.

thecite Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:

vix86 Wrote:As an aside, I do find it amusing that we derailed yet another thread into a discussion on feminism.

Are you serious? Can't we just forget the original thread ever existed?

It was far more entertaining than this sleep-inducing discussion of feminism.

Heh, well, that's a matter of interest (and i think i may have missed the previous rehashings of this topic). The initial topic was just sad though...

Yeah... i think i do have to bow out now though. Arguing with IceCream is fun... people blaming gun crime on lesbians is just... wow...

Also, sorry if i offended you, Fillanzea. Wasn't my intent.

[Zgarbas]

Look. Gays don't need the police aside from once a year when they would require protection(and most places don't require all that much protection anyway). Parades don't cost an absurd amount of money and don't require much planning and resources.

Rehabilitation of an entire area like that, however, does. It requires a long-term plan on getting those door men and drug dealers caught, and operations like that can take years before they show any results. It also requires extreme amounts of funding to care for those families. It also requires those families wanting the help in the first place, since poverty and anti-system go well together. It is years of dedicated work, funds and planning. You can't compare that to the funds spent on a day for the gays to feel accepted.

Also, those children can't really care for themselves. They need their parents, more often than not (not always, but it's pretty common) that's just their mothers. Who pre-feminism would have been as good as dead in the first place since single motherhood was a one-way ticket to death on the streets. Pa-dam.

So yeah. Paedophilia is an isolated case since it's not like pedophiles hang out together. Unfortunately the only way to find paedophiles is either privacy-threatening or only realising it once the deed is done. If the child talks. So this is not really something the police can do, and it requires as much social awareness as anything else, but it is directly related to family matters. The cops can't go door-to-door and ask the kids if they were touched by anyone.

The abuse in catholic schools is unfortunate but again, people have to talk about it and the people who could talk about it are the people who are brainwashed enough to send their kids to catholic schools.

Drug dealing gigs take years of dedicated investigation, work, more work, money, etc. to smash. Taking care of the ones off the streets never helps, since they are only the underdogs of the underdogs and rarely know anyone beyond their level.

Debt collectors are debt collections because they were smart enough to get people into debt. You can't make borrowing money illegal.

The people's lack of respect for the police is partly to blame for the situation in the first place, since instead of contacting the police they choose to continue to live in that situation and never talking.

Gun control is mostly related to the black market. The police can't really interfere before the deed is done since they can't go door to door and look under people's beds. Street gangs and the like are a different thing, but they usually use corruption and bribery to get away with stuff, something that unfortunately is very hard to control.


So yeah. please, do explain how the money the government spends on the gays(how much is that anyway?) could help any of these situations.



GODDAMNIT Internets. Why can't I just scratch my head and leave the ridiculous remarks alone?

BTW: If you think that people shouldn't focus on what matters to them and should focus on the corrupt system instead, why did you become a translator instead of a politician? Why did you bother learning Japanese instead of fighting crime?

"its not like paedophiles hang out together" http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool...-27498364/

Paedophiles are known as pack animals.

I will reply to your other posts later.

Just as an observation: I find that there is close to zero overlap between the categories of "feminists" and "women who expect men to shower them with gifts and pay for everything".

I firmly believe that women generally still get the short end of the stick in society, though I'd agree that there are matters in which they get preferential treatment - child support being the obvious one. Bear in mind, though, that this, is based on a gender stereotype, too: the idea that women are/should be more nurturing than men, and are therefore better suited to being the primary caregiver.
Hence, in addition to feminists directly arguing for more equality in custody cases (of which there are quite a few, even if it's often - quite understandably - not a *primary* concern), those feminists that are trying to break down stereotypes of gender roles are actually indirectly helping with equality in that context, too.

It's a perfect example of how "partriarchal" stereotypes about how men and women also hurt men - another being the treatment of male rape victims, who can expect far less support (both in the form of official support structures and in their private life) than female victims - for a man to be raped is often treated as "emasculating" and worthy of ridicule.

I absolutely see the value in activism focussing on men's issues (as in "approaching gender equality from the masculine side", not as in "destroy feminism!!11!1", of course ). As long as their tactics aren't based on minimising and derailing women's issues they *will* have lots of feminist allies - and will find that they have more in common with mainstream feminism than what separates them.

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I have met a femnazi - I stated that I thought issues such as lesbian rights were detracting attention, concern and resources away from more important issues such as gun crime, pedophiles walking the street, violent renegade security firms like something from a Sci-fi film, crack cocaine, street prostitution and incompetence in the public sector which are all massive issues where I live.

She looked at me as if i was a war criminal and sneers at me whenever she sees me on the street.

Yeah, that's a common reaction if you tell someone that you regard a cause that matters to them as an unimportant distraction and drain of resources.
Not sure what it has to do with "feminazism", though.

alizarine Wrote:Just as an observation: I find that there is close to zero overlap between the categories of "feminists" and "women who expect men to shower them with gifts and pay for everything".

I firmly believe that women generally still get the short end of the stick in society, though I'd agree that there are matters in which they get preferential treatment - child support being the obvious one. Bear in mind, though, that this, is based on a gender stereotype, too: the idea that women are/should be more nurturing than men, and are therefore better suited to being the primary caregiver.
Hence, in addition to feminists directly arguing for more equality in custody cases (of which there are quite a few, even if it's often - quite understandably - not a *primary* concern), those feminists that are trying to break down stereotypes of gender roles are actually indirectly helping with equality in that context, too.

It's a perfect example of how "partriarchal" stereotypes about how men and women also hurt men - another being the treatment of male rape victims, who can expect far less support (both in the form of official support structures and in their private life) than female victims - for a man to be raped is often treated as "emasculating" and worthy of ridicule.

This. Thank you. When I say I'm a feminist, I mean that I want equality for everyone, men included. When I hear women make disparaging remarks about 'all men' I get pissed. Just like when I see some of the above commenters dismissing feminists as being unfair and not wanting real equality. You are right, it's not fair that men get drafted for the military, and women don't. It's also unfair that courts don't consider who is the more competent parent, and instead award custody immediately to the mother. I do speak out when I see discrimination happening against men because it's not right. I don't like being discriminated against because of what's between my legs, and I hate to see it happen to other people.
Plus, as said above, this patriarchal attitude can hurt men just as much as women, and I don't like seeing people being mocked, or hurt, or having to change who they are because of unnecessary gender stereotyping.
That being said, I'm backing out of this one. The posters here seem to have made up their minds that feminists only care about women's issues, and not human rights issues that affect everyone.

alizarine Wrote:Just as an observation: I find that there is close to zero overlap between the categories of "feminists" and "women who expect men to shower them with gifts and pay for everything".

I firmly believe that women generally still get the short end of the stick in society,

HonyakuJoshua Wrote:I have met a femnazi - I stated that I thought issues such as lesbian rights were detracting attention, concern and resources away from more important issues such as gun crime, pedophiles walking the street, violent renegade security firms like something from a Sci-fi film, crack cocaine, street prostitution and incompetence in the public sector which are all massive issues where I live.

She looked at me as if i was a war criminal and sneers at me whenever she sees me on the street.

Yeah, that's a common reaction if you tell someone that you regard a cause that matters to them as an unimportant distraction and drain of resources.
Not sure what it has to do with "feminazism", though.

Women have positions of power and many universities I know of are scared to sack female academics and teachers for fear of being sexist. I think anyone who thinks women get the short end of the stick in society is wrong. A single male is many, many times more likely to be homeless than a single woman. This woman was intolerant of me when I politely phrased an opinion that was against her's and continues to sneer at me. Her intolerance and blinkered view and attitude towards me leads me to label her a feminazi.

[Zgarbas]

Mate, if your polite phrasing of an opinion was the same as your recollection of the event then it was worth the sneer.

So basically, let me understand your train of thought.

A woman gets away with everything, but if a man says anything wrong then he is seen as sexist(which he totally isn't, no sir-eee). And that is why feminism sucks.
A woman does not like you, therefore she is a feminist and feminism sucks.

Right.

Zgarbas Wrote:Mate, if your polite phrasing of an opinion was the same as your recollection of the event then it was worth the sneer.

So basically, let me understand your train of thought.

A woman gets away with everything, but if a man says anything wrong then he is seen as sexist(which he totally isn't, no sir-eee). And that is why feminism sucks.
A woman does not like you, therefore she is a feminist and feminism sucks.

Right.

Why was it worth a sneer? I did phrase my view politely - far loopier ideas and ideologies than mine are treated with respect...

I think *some* feminists are misguided because they only care about woman's issues. I know feminists personally who couldn't care less about the local issues I described and I think the ones we see on TV only speak about womens' rights and very little else.

I honestly believe that women have enough rights in society and there a lot more important issues. I have never seen Germaine Greer, for example, speak seriously on any other issue apart from feminism.

You haven't replied to my point about paedophile gangs.

zigmonty Wrote:people blaming gun crime on lesbians is just... wow...

That's not what I said.

[Zgarbas]

1. it wasn't a remark about paedophilic gangs, but rather about a certain situation about two people who cooperated. Which is still something that is hard to track.
2. A feminist speaker, which has enough to talk about as it is, has no good reason to digress into other issues. yes, there are many issues. However, one person cannot focus on them all. You choose one and you stick with it.
3. I have already bothered with this far more than I should have.

Seriously, you want Germaine Greer to start talking about stuff she hasn't researched and basically will not be an expert on? Would you expect your average Japanese professor to be called on to speak about the Cree Indian culture too??

No, the media'll call up an expert on another subject when they want to discuss another subject, not just "someone famous" who has a cause. I hope, anyway.

Zgarbas Wrote:2. A feminist speaker, which has enough to talk about as it is, has no good reason to digress into other issues. yes, there are many issues. However, one person cannot focus on them all. You choose one and you stick with it.

Chomsky focuses on theoretical linguistics and politics

George Galloway campaigns on a number of left wing issues and is still anti abortion.

These are just two examples off the top of my head of politically active people who do not care about just one issue as I think *some* feminists do.

IceCream Wrote:Seriously, you want Germaine Greer to start talking about stuff she hasn't researched and basically will not be an expert on? Would you expect your average Japanese professor to be called on to speak about the Cree Indian culture too??

No, the media'll call up an expert on another subject when they want to discuss another subject, not just "someone famous" who has a cause. I hope, anyway.

I am just saying that I think *some* feminists, and Germaine Greer is a good example, focus too heavily on womens rights when there are horrific things going on such as the deaths of cockle pickers on Morecambe Bay. Just out of interest, without googling it had you heard of this case?

PS thanks for the blog comment!

George Galloway is a politician, not an academic. So he has a background in taking views on a number of things. He, however is not an expert on any of them, just a man with a voice.

Chomsky hasn't done anything in Linguistics for a number of years, has he. His most well known work on linguistics was done well before he became a public speaker on politics.

I'm not saying that it's *impossible* for someone to be a mouthpiece for more than one cause, in fact there's many social commentators that are. However, it's also not a big deal to donate your time to one issue if you feel like it's important enough, just like it's not a big deal if you love your job and don't decide on a career change half way through.