Maybe People Should Not Look Up To YouTube Atheist

[MindForgedManacle]

So I think you're saying that feminism has not been adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women? In which case I disagree. It's done a great deal with both. And although some feminists do take the "man bad, women oppressed" mantra, that doesn't make them them right, or indicative of feminism in general- it makes them loud. So I STILL don't know what you're arguing- it really seems that you're saying that because a few loud angry asshats say stupid shit, feminism is a bad or inadequate tool for improving the lot of women?

And here is another of your constant straw men. Have I not (I know you've seen me post it) say I'm referring to a particular strain of simplistic argumentation among some feminists? I've done so repeatedly (in fact, bot my first and second post in this thread state this as well).

And no, my reasoning for why the aforementioned simple argumentation (which I'm rather certain every one of my responses to you specified) of certain feminists is inadequate is because of their simplicity. The only way you can't have gotten this is by not paying enough attention, because I've stated it explicitly repeatedly, including here.

No. But it isn't specific to feminism, or women, and I don't see women generally crying about the responsibilities of being a citizen any more than men do.

I didn't say it was. I mean really, do you go out of your way to warp other's positions? I didn't even bring this up (simplistic argumentation) in regards to women or even feminism in general, but to - again - the feminists who make said arguments.

I can't construct straw men when I don't understand your point, and I don't understand your point because you aren't making it well.

If you can't understand me (in every post directed to you) specifically saying that I'm addressing the simplistic nature of certain feminist arguments, then we're just not speaking the same language.

And yes, many awesome feminists are men. Your point?

Because you keep (irrelevantly) drawing women into this as if I'm denigrating or insulting women, when I've constantly told you my ire was directed at some pretty common nonsense feminist arguments.

When did you make this point to me? Do I need to sift back several pages or to another thread to find it? MFM, I don't read every post you make like it's the word of God. If you made this point to someone else, I missed it. Please don't accuse me of lying.

I made it on the previous page, the first post of mine to which you responded. You accused me of some nonsense and not knowing what I as talking about. Goodness me, I didn't realize my assumption that you'd actually read my posts you were responding to before claiming them to be unclear or not having said something. I don't ask you to read them as such, but if you're going to respond to them, and I even point you to where they're at and even repeat myself, I don't see how it's unfair to ask you to actually read them.

Bold really says it. Because THAT'S indicative of the feminists here, or anywhere. But of course, there's nothing condescending or belittling in our phrasing- it would be dishonest of me to think so.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm referring to simple argumentation. What is dishonest of you is to inability to actually stick to your criticism. Your inital complaint was that I was belittling women and feminism, when I've constantly been referring to arguments (how many times have I said 'simplistic argumentation'?), and now you're saying that because I find the arguments of everyday feminists more simplistic I'm belittling people here? Okay, I'm an everyday atheist, and my arguments are rarely complex. I think I do decent, but wait, I think I've just belittled myself...

Nope, haven't been specifically following your posts in a long thread with many respondents. Sorry.

Then perhaps you shouldn't say I haven't made particular points, no?

So women made these rules, right? If this was unfair, it was because women worked hard for this legislation to screw men, right? Because the feminist movement was so huge in the 40s, right?

Ah, taking quotes out of the context of the conversation, surprising. No, as I've already said this was in a time where women were steadily gaining rights. However, it was also the case that they still bore some of the advantages of female priviledge. It wasn't legislation crafted to screw men, it was existing legislation that the then (to some extent) nascent feminist movement sort of failed to fight for changing. Again, you keep acting like I'm talking about women, I'm talking about a nonsensical expression of feminism that tries to have it both ways.

I don't know anything about this, although it's interesting, so I'll look it up when I have time. It may be that this was unfair to men, what with all those women earning huge salaries at great jobs in the 40s.

I can do sarcasm as well... Not that yours really was applicable...

Again, I am unsure as to what a few female privileges in an earlier, heavily sexist time have to do with feminists now crying double standard.

The Afganistan thing is modern day, it's not the thing in the 40s I was talking about.
Unsure? How about them not being legally responsible for their own well-being? Inelligible for serving in war (certainly not on the frontlines, which IIR persists even today sadly) or being drafted? Now, you may (rightly) say that women didn't expressly ask for those priviledges, but did men? Was it the case that women were totally against those?

And again, you say SOME feminists (who?) think that we should assume rapists guilty until proven innocent (in complete disregard for the entire basis of our legal system). How does this reflect badly on ALL feminists, since you apparently know this a loud minority?
SOME men think women need to obey them. They're getting to be a minority. Because of some vocal asshats, are all men bad?

Excuse me, but I have I not repeatedly said I hoped this was an extremist position? Given that I have, I have no clue how you could see me as saying this reflects badly on all feminists, especially given my repeated qualifications of talking about a particular brand of simple argumentation.

Because what you post is always so riveting. I'll get right on that.

Well, it tends to be a good idea to read what your critiquing...

So you'll just conveniently ignore the several posts in this thread where I specifically noted I was arguing against the nonsensical arguments put forth by some feminists, gotcha. My point was that such is unfortunately a ridiculous position that mainstream feminism seems to have little trouble accomodating to a fair extent.

If you're going to call this "mainstream feminism", you're going to have to provide significant evidence for that.

Oh boy, more not reading my post properly. Did I say that it was a mainstream feminist position? No, try reading the underlined bit again.

I'm sure you've consistently and accurately remembered every post by every person in this thread... except... oh, wait. See your apology below. You didn't do this, either.

Except I, you know, realized my mistake and actually had the courtesy to go and check if what I thought I remebered actually happened.

You have certainly not shown that this is a mainstream position.

That's because I haven't once said it was. Unless you're going to say all feminist arguments are simplistic? I certainly haven't said so, otherwise I would have specifically called out feminism, and not qualified where my criticism was aimed in every post, including my responses to you.

Yes, you were. You are also wrong in assuming that I should be on point with every post you've made in this thread. You certainly know that these threads get long and are tangled with many discussions, so your accusations of lying and dishonesty, when I doubt you've read every word every poster has made in this thread, and can accurately attribute all viewpoints, is clearly a problem. Since you clearly have as much trouble as I do with who said what in this thread, perhaps you should abandon that less than useful tactic.

The clear difference is that half of these are in response to YOU, and not other people. The only other user I've responded to in this thread directly was a single post (or maybe 2) to Esquilax. You responded to my response to him, wherein I actually mention the things you kept saying you didn't know what I was referring to.

My claims of your dishonesty were in response to your repeated straw men that I was talking about mainstream feminism, despite qualifiers such as "...directed a simplistic feminist arguments" and "hopefully this is an extremist position among feminists". Given all my responses to you, as far as I see, use these and you continued to assert that, dishonesty seemed like a plausible explanation.

Untrue. I have repeatedly not remebered posts you made to someone else pages back.

True, but I was actually talking about context of things that were said to you.

Funny, since you skipped over whole parts of my last post that didn't fit with your argument.

Such as? As far as I can tell, I responded to each part of your posts.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me; I mind you calling me a liar, dishonest, and a poor reader, when none of these things are true.

Seemed reasonable given the repeated and blatant misrepresentations. After all, referring to a particular expression of a position as 'extremist for feminists' is hardly saying it's mainstream.

Here's what your position honestly looks like to me:

Mainstream feminists think all accused rapists should be presumed guilty by everyone, including the court system. And this proves that feminists want equal rights but don't like the responsibilities of those rights. And stuff happened 70 years ago in the US, and other stuff happened in other countries, and all this a lso proves my point And you're a lying dumbass, Zazzy.

Nope, not even close. Again, did I not refer to this as "hopefully an extremist feminist position"? How can a position of an ideology be mainstream and still extremist for that ideology?
The 40s stuff was a historical context of how female priviledge is evident in some cases and not fought against (at least until much later when brought up), even if the crazy feminists will just shout 'patriarchy!' at them. I also gave a modern day example with Afganistan, where cases of female privilege in Islamic law (supported by both sexes, mind you) backfired on women who tried to better the social status of their sex.


So in other words, I already expressed my position fairly succinctly:

I don't think there's anything wrong with feminism itself, just feminism as such, i.e how many feminists present themselves and their position. Raging against the patriarchy and priviledge like a maniac will only be tolerable for so long before I just give up.