Well that escalated quickly

[GodlessTickler]

My point is there is not one universal definition. Anymore than there is a universally meaningful definition of "Christian" sure you can say that means someone who follows Christ, but how people do that is very different.
What I mean, as I just explained, is equality, and it is only according to that definition that I would say someone is a bad person. Any bigot of any form is not something that impresses me. Again, personal opinion.

 

[C.A.B.]

My point is there is not one universal definition. Anymore than there is a universally meaningful definition of "Christian" sure you can say that means someone who follows Christ, but how people do that is very different.
What I mean, as I just explained, is equality, and it is only according to that definition that I would say someone is a bad person. Any bigot of any form is not something that impresses me. Again, personal opinion.

That's why its important that when throwing around the cudgel of judgement that one understands that the recipient of said judgement may not be clued in on what your definitions are. Judging someone an asshole based on a preconceived set of principles without discovery with the other party involved could also be considered bigotry. Its all semantics. And very silly.

 

[GodlessTickler]

Well I felt I had been fairly clear on my "equality" bit, prior to my poorly worded "shitty people" comment, but actually semantics is a very interesting subject and I'll have to agree to disagree that it's silly.

 

[GodlessTickler]

And also just as I don't mind being called ignorant (in the MANY areas I am ignorant of) I will gladly accept the label of biggot in a certain sense. Most people are if you think about it, because bigotry is an intolerance of people with different views (and of course a plethora of other differences) so for example if you are intolerant of racists one could argue your bigoted against racists. That's ok with me.

 

[C.A.B.]

And also just as I don't mind being called ignorant (in the MANY areas I am ignorant of) I will gladly accept the label of biggot in a certain sense. Most people are if you think about it, because bigotry is an intolerance of people with different views (and of course a plethora of other differences) so for example if you are intolerant of racists one could argue your bigoted against racists. That's ok with me.

The only certainty is that there is no certainty. The onus is on you to make sure you know what you are judging, and the ash-heap of history is full of folks that were sure they were in the right.

 

[GodlessTickler]

I don't see a lack of clarity in the least, and if there was I would think I've cleared it up by now... I however do not find a need to write a formal proof for each statement made on an Internet forum. Especially when communication is so rapid and your free to ask questions if you wish.

I'll worry about formality when I submit to a peer reviewed journal, for this forum I am happy with fairly general statements and I'm also happy to correct as I go. I don't consider myself infallible... For example my "shitty person" comment was a bit pedestrian. And did lack the proper detail, but I don't see anyone who is massively unclear on my meaning at this point.

 

[C.A.B.]

I don't see a lack of clarity in the least, and if there was I would think I've cleared it up by now... I however do not find a need to write a formal proof for each statement made on an Internet forum. Especially when communication is so rapid and your free to ask questions if you wish.

I'll worry about formality when I submit to a peer reviewed journal, for this forum I am happy with fairly general statements and I'm also happy to correct as I go. I don't consider myself infallible... For example my "shitty person" comment was a bit pedestrian. And did lack the proper detail, but I don't see anyone who is massively unclear on my meaning at this point.

Good.

 

[Bator]

Let me be clear, I am a feminist. I support equality for all people

Those 14 words made you a complete and utter hypocrite. You have just described a humanist. If people want equality, the word "Feminism" needs to be changed, it carries too much negative baggage with it. The word itself is derived from the word female and comes across as males are not as important, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. It has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with divide and conquer and order out of chaos, just the same as race baiting and it's all being done by design. We are just too dumb to notice.

 

[GodlessTickler]

Considering that the FIRST definition in the MW dictionary of feminism is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" then I don't think I will be too concerned about being a "complete and utter hypocrite" just because you wish to brand me as one. Especially when I have been clear in every post exactly what my working definition of feminism is.

I get what your saying I really do. That's why at I said once for example "it depends on your definition of feminism" but the definition I chose, referenced and have been using, is 100% accurate and valid regardless of people's distaste for it.
I also mentioned I fundamentally prefer a more catch all term like "equalist" but I I can't think of such a term that's accurate and has common acceptance.

I don't really mind being called things as I mentioned in ignorant of a lot, bigoted about some things, but I REALLY try to avoid hypocrisy. I'm sure I fail occasionally, but I don't think this is such an occasion.

 

[GodlessTickler]

Humanist I do like by the way, good point there.
I always relate that to the whole school of thought of secular humanism... But it's perhaps the best word for this conversation as well!

 

[Sodahead]

I am pretty sure I have told my boyfriend if I ever we're to flat out hit he should and has my full permission to hit me back. This whole women can beat up men and men are suppose to just stand there and take it is bull shit in my personal opinion. There are some women out there that are pretty strong and some I feel are in desperate need of an attitude adjustment.

This

 

[Sodahead]

Both tropes are regressive and should be avoided.

Seeing more men in "nurturing," traditionally female roles and more women in slapstick, traditionally masculine roles would go a long way in breaking down harmful gender norms. So... men should stay in the kitchen and women should get a kick in the snatch, basically.

Or comedic roles should not be based on gender binaries at all. Rather, base comedic roles on an individual's ability regardless of gender. That would go a much longer way than simply doing the ol' switcharoo

 

[Sodahead]

Well of course, but you have to start somewhere. Inverting tropes is a great way of showcasing how something old and worn out can be fresh and interesting depending on who is involved.

As for the arguments about the semantics of feminism, it's true that a lot of people who don't read much on the subject tend to equate feminism with radical feminism. However, I'm struggling at the moment to think of a progressive movement that successfully changed it's name while keeping it's purpose. Any help?

Fair point. As long as it's tongue in cheek enough to be considered ironic, and not simply trying to revers gender roles, then it can be a funny premise