NEWS: School's Back In Session!

Why is the onus on feminists and/or adherents to a particular school of thought to educate others, rather than on those who speak from an uninformed point of view to edify themselves?

Well, which group is advocating for change?

But it's one thing, and reasonable, to ask progessive groups or feminists to provide the burden of proof for specific issues on which they mean to enact change. It's another, and in my view inordinate and obstructive, to demand that they continually provide elucidation about their very existence.

If feminists knew what they believed in -- note, I'm deliberately not saying if they "agreed" on what they believed in, I'm saying if they knew what they believed in -- then maybe we could say that after all these years, it's kind of incumbent upon everyone else not to be blindly and wilfully ignorant.

But hey, apparently in 2006, blowjobs are still a controversial feminist issue. Doesn't this suck?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the sight of feminists arguing about the politics of blowjobs in 2006 a really depressing and pathetic sight.

Or how about feminists arguing in 1999 about whether males should be allowed to enrol in womens studies classes. Or what constitutes appropriate behaviour from feminists towards each other. (Not to mention that there's so much bad analysis in that last link, of things like "power" and "hierarchy", it hurts to read it. But that's another story.)

I'm at the point of saying "Could all feminists please depart to an island for a year, sort out what the fuck you think that you think, where you think you'll agree, where you'll agree to disagree, and where you'll continue inevitably to hit one another over the head, and then get back to the rest of us, so that we may finally know what the fuck you think you're all on about."

I really don't think feminists should do what they constantly do, which is continually blame other people for "not getting it."

Look around you. It's not like they all get it, so why should they expect it to be clear for everyone else?

That is the price we pay for having views.

With canned responses, you get strawmen.

In order to understand why that's there, go to the page this comes from and read the way you're supposed to use the BINGO sheet. It's not about any one answer, many are completely innocuous in and of themselves. They are only questionable when seen in conjunction with others on the board.

I'm actually more used to this version of Anti-Feminist Bingo. If you go there, the rules should be explained. (And this one which is specific to the world of comics.)

But, still, that's not looking at how that statement enters into the discussion. For all these standard issues, there's a stock set of back-and-forth responses that usually happen. It's like there's an argument script. And in my experience, the "innocent until proven guilty" line is normally pulled out right after the "we should give the victim/woman the benefit of the doubt and assume she's telling the truth, because it's so hard to prove".

evangelical movements are ones in which the ultimate goal is to convert EVERYONE. even the jerks and willfully ignorant.

if you honestly think that the majority of people are going to seek out information on the feminist movement, take the time to absorb it, and convert themselves all on their own, you're sadly mistaken.

there's an enormous gulf between adherents to the feminist ideals in a laissez-faire manner such as morgan and yourself and those actively proselytizing in an attempt to effect real change that needs to be closed, or at least narrowed, if we expect real change to happen.

The only way I could see that you could possibly see all feminists not agreeing on the same philosophical views as being either somehow a flaw in feminism or a even a problem says to me that you still have alot to learn about feminism. You might as well ask why the Libertarians and Republicans don't go off on that island retreat for all the sense it makes.

Do you know the difference between a first wave, second wave, and post feminist?

Feminism is an umbrella term that may at the end of the day always mean that a feminist is concerned with a woman's place in the social and economic hierarchy, but the divisions lie in where and how they want to address the issue. Much like politicians and policy. Wacky isn't it?

Feminism isn't even close to being an "evangelical movement", which is why it doesn't bother me when women who call themselves feminists don't show an infinite amount of patience when it comes to coddling jerks and the willfully ignorant.

i'll admit that that was an oversimplification. however this:

is a more laissez-faire attitude than, in my opinion, is required to effect real change. i believe that the onus is completely on us to deal with the great unwashed masses with patience and persistence, making every effort and working through the exasperation we feel when confronted with their willful ignorance and antagonistic behavior.

you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but you're not going to catch any flies at all if you expect them to serve themselves.

this is, of course, just my opinion.

You've got to pick your battles. If I tried to sit down and have hours-long conversations with every person who didn't seem to get "feminism", I'd have to quit my day job and either be homeless or hope someone else would support me while I educated the masses.

Is Morgan the problem bc she sometimes has better and more important things to do that preach to everyone she comes across? I think not. We're fighting an uphill battle here, as most of the messages in the mainstream media are very much anti-feminist.

I don't know. I haven't seen Morgan go off on people or be rude to them when trying to express or when being questioned about her views.

I want to clarify something in case there is any confusion.

Just because I have a problem with the way a message is spread - that doesn't mean that I disagree with the message at all.

On this site, the one person who I believe could benefit the most by changing their approach is Bitch_PhD.

I just get disappointed when I see such an important cause go unheard because the responding focus is not on the message or information, but appears to put many readers in a defensive position.

Looking at yourself and how you come across to others is never a bad thing. I think only the truly stupid believe that they don't have room for improvement.

Everyone should put as much time into improving themselves as they put into expecting others to change.

Well, no, go ahead...
as long as you use it as a rebuttal to a debate opponent's irrelevant testimonial-style argument point (as it's intended),
and NEVER as a cheap cop-out to absolve yourself from any of your weaker "arguments" should you feel at any point you've been out-argued.

I dunno. It's one thing to adamantly believe in a cause.

But simply believing in it doesn't further that cause.

You have to convince other people that don't yet believe in it, that it is a cause chock-full of merit.

I have the sneaking suspicion that those you refer to as "the flies" are those who are ignorant of the cause or those who disagree with you.

Whereas, those who are not the flies, already the support the cause, so you've nothing to gain in terms of support in explaining things to these folks anyways, or in engaging them in a discussion on a subject where they're in agreement with you anyways. That's simply preaching to the converted.


Directing the antagonistic, and the ignorant to some web-page because you think it's THEIR duty to educate themselves just demonstrates a lack of passion. Not only will they NOT look at the web-page, they'll in turn think, "If she, a self-proclaimed feminist, isn't even passionate about it, why should I be?"

The ignorant continue to be ignorant. The nay-sayers continue to say nay.

You new here?