Escape From Duggarville

[SKL]

I don't understand what a particular "brand" of feminist has to do with refusing to claim the title at all. Again, to me it's like refusing to call yourself an educator or homeschooler or Christian or mom because some people with those titles do bad things or things that you disagree with.

 

Why does a woman need a name such as "feminist"?  Is "woman" not descriptive enough?

[VeritasMama]

It doesn't matter.

 

 

Like I said, people have told me that I am not X, Y or Z for various reasons. They don't get to choose how I label *myself*. There is no large battle needed. Everyone woman in favor of gender equality simply needs to say, "yes, I'm a feminist." It doesn't have to be defined by anyone else.

Well, I like your spunk, but it is disheartening to say publically "I'm a feminist" only to be told by prominent feminists, "No you're not." They are defining it for us whether we like it or not, and I don't have time to join the debate. I honestly don't know if speaking out and insisting that pro-lifers can be feminists would accomplish what you think it would.

 

I do support equality, but I don't need a label to do so.

[Mrs Mungo]

I do support equality, but I don't need a label to do so.

What I was saying initially was that I think it is problematic for people who seek gender equality to actively reject the feminist label. I wish they wouldn't. I think it is a boon for misogynists everywhere that so many do.

[maize]

I have never before connected the word "gypped" to gypsies. When do words loose their connotations? Do they ever loose them?

 

Interesting question for me to ponder.

Good question.

 

Is the word "barbarian" a slander to men with beards? Or maybe a slander to anyone descended from those bearded groups to whom the Romans applied the term? Maybe I've been missing out on the chance to be offended all these years...

 

Realistically I think that when a word that originally held one connotation has taken on life and meaning of its own and most people no longer associate it with its derivation, it is a new word.

[VeritasMama]

What I was saying initially was that I think it is problematic for people who seek gender equality to actively reject the feminist label. I wish they wouldn't. I think it is a boon for misogynists everywhere that so many do.

I guess I just don't see how this is a boon for misogynists. But it may just be because the majority of people in my generation share feminist ideals even if they don't identify as feminists, or even know what feminism is/was. They have just become a mainstream part of our culture and so we don't see why the label is necessary.

 

But I concede I may just be naive and overly optimistic.

[AMJ]

Throw in something about Irish twins who are Gothard-following gypsies, and I might agree with you.

 

Wait, you forgot the bit about the cupcakes.

[AMJ]

The shark was jumped for me when Chris Matthews said that bringing up Chicago was a racist dog whistle.

 

 

:confused1:   Okay, this sentence includes a couple of phrases I am not familiar with.  Would you mind clarifying these for me, please?

• "the shark was jumped for me"
• "a racist dog whistle"

Honestly, I haven't heard these before!

[Slartibartfast]

Good question.

 

Is the word "barbarian" a slander to men with beards? Or maybe a slander to anyone descended from those bearded groups to whom the Romans applied the term? Maybe I've been missing out on the chance to be offended all these years...

 

Realistically I think that when a word that originally held one connotation has taken on life and meaning of its own and most people no longer associate it with its derivation, it is a new word.

 

The only people I have met who referred to themselves as Barbarians dressed up as Barbarians for Renaissance festival.

[CaffeineDiary]

Is the word "barbarian" a slander to men with beards? Or maybe a slander to anyone descended from those bearded groups to whom the Romans applied the term? Maybe I've been missing out on the chance to be offended all these years...

 

 

It's a Greek term, not a Latin term.  The connection with "barba" is a false cognate.  Barbarians were people whose language sounded like "Barbarbarbar" to the Greeks.

 

Anyway, the answer to your question is: language is a living thing, and some of the words we use one day may indeed turn out to be offensive the next.  Getting all huffy about it seems to me to be a sucker's play.  The mature thing to do is adapt and move on.  IMO.

 

[SKL]

Interesting to see the back and forth about whether the NFL bad boys should be fired and if they aren't, whether that means the NFL or some other organization or movement is rotten.

 

A variety of unrelated thoughts come to mind.

 

Do those in favor of firing Rice etc. also believe that every employer who believes an employee has committed a criminal or rotten act should fire all such people?  What about the compassionate (and also practical) view that it is better to ensure people with criminal records have employment?  Tremendous resources are expended toward this ideal.  I especially question the arguments that it doesn't matter whether the guy has been found guilty or not.  Can you imagine how many people would be out of work if employers were supposed to fire everyone they think might have done something wrong in the past?

 

Or is the issue that NFL players are supposed to be role models or something?  Really?  Says who?  Has anyone actually vetted all the players who have not been in the news recently?  Are they all squeaky clean?  What about the owners?  What about the fans?

 

But yeah, these folks are prominent and famous.  So I guess that means all the prominent and famous people who ever broke a law or did something rotten should be fired.  There go a lot of politicians, a big chunk of Hollywood, lots of big business owners, clergy, etc.  We'll still be supporting all these losers, but we can afford the soup lines if it means no more rotten people earning paychecks.

 

And what about unions?  These folks are members of the player's union, aren't they?  Will the union just sit back and let the members be fired over every incident the public doesn't like?

 

Another thing.  Am I the only person who senses a bit of racism in the sensationalism of these situations?

 

I don't really understand why the professional sports industry fascinates the general public enough to make athletes so rich.  I mean, I don't care really.  It's not my money and I think people should be free to vote with their pocketbooks.  But these are just flesh and blood human people, many without what we'd consider wholesome backgrounds, and I don't see how people expect a fat paycheck to suddenly make them all think and act like saints.  And then somehow their paycheck is tied to their saintliness.

 

I personally don't think it's an employer's responsibility to execute justice other than justice in the workplace (e.g., fair pay, workplace harassment, etc.).  I don't fault a company for getting rid of an employee who has publicly tarnished its name, but I don't demand it either.  We have a well-established justice system to deal with alleged crimes.

 

[VeritasMama]

:confused1: Okay, this sentence includes a couple of phrases I am not familiar with. Would you mind clarifying these for me, please?

• "the shark was jumped for me"
• "a racist dog whistle"

Honestly, I haven't heard these before!

The first was a play on the phrase "jumped the shark." It means something that has become a joke. It comes from Happy Days when Fonzie literally jumped over a shark tank with his motorcycle, it was seen as the point that the show became too ridiculous to enjoy. So if you say something has "jumped the shark" it means it was once respected or loved but is now laughed at or ignored.

 

A "dog whistle" is when people say something that seems innocuous, but it has a double meaning that others who agree with their point of view will know and recognize.

 

The more politically correct our culture becomes, the more people get accused of using "racist dog whistles" as a way to espouse their supposedly racist views that they supposedly used to be able to discuss openly but now have to hide. It has become a way to basically sniff out supposed racists.

 

Now it seems that paranoia has set in, and more and more words and phrases that really are straight forward with no hidden meaning are being labeled as "racist dog whistles" in order to demonize political opponents, and people like Chris Matthews stupidly go along with it.

 

So, for me the concept of the media sniffing out supposed "racist dog whistles" has jumped the shark." It has gone from a valid concern to a ridiculous farce.

[SKL]

I guess I just don't see how this is a boon for misogynists. But it may just be because the majority of people in my generation share feminist ideals even if they don't identify as feminists, or even know what feminism is/was. They have just become a mainstream part of our culture and so we don't see why the label is necessary.

 

But I concede I may just be naive and overly optimistic.

 

In my opinion, "feminists" who look down upon women who do not identify with that term are misogynists.

 

[Catwoman]

Don't worry. There will another thread just like this one in a few days.

:D

:lol:

 

I'm half tempted to start a new thread and just call it THE DUGGARS, and have my OP read "nm."

 

The thread will live on for days. :D

[Reefgazer]

Eh, I keep getting invited back with enthusiasm.  For many years.  Guess my friends can tolerate points of view at odds with theirs.

Man, you must be super-popular at parties.

 

[AMJ]

I used to consider myself a feminist, but I am also pro-life. After enough feminists told me I couldn't be pro-life and be a feminist, I stop using the feminist label.

 

It isn't that I refused to claim the title, they didn't want me. And my generation and the one after mine are much more pro-life than my mother and her sister's generation, even though we agree with second wave feminism when it comes to most other issues. I think this is part of the "brand" problem.

 

The other part of the "brand" problem of the label "feminist" is the implicit limitation of the label -- basically, if I self-identify as a feminist it is as much as saying I have an active interest in pursuing women's interests specifically.  While I do hold a lot of values common to feminism and I do what I can to support those values, my actual area of concern is wider than just how situations and concerns affect women.  I think a lot of women who self-identify as feminists likely share this wider area of concern, however I won't be claiming the feminist label for myself because it reflects only a portion of who I am AND is often seen as limiting myself to just that portion.

 

This has nothing to do with how I think the world SHOULD be, and everything to how I find it to be currently.  The people I encounter, with whom the label of feminism might even be raised in discussion, have this limitation firmly affixed to the label in their own minds.  It is easier and more productive, much of the time, to use the language in ways they understand and use it so we can discuss the bigger concerns, instead of derailing a budding, potentially fruitful discussion to hash over usage of terminology.

[VeritasMama]

Interesting to see the back and forth about whether the NFL bad boys should be fired and if they aren't, whether that means the NFL or some other organization or movement is rotten.

 

A variety of unrelated thoughts come to mind.

 

Do those in favor of firing Rice etc. also believe that every employer who believes an employee has committed a criminal or rotten act should fire all such people? What about the compassionate (and also practical) view that it is better to ensure people with criminal records have employment? Tremendous resources are expended toward this ideal. I especially question the arguments that it doesn't matter whether the guy has been found guilty or not. Can you imagine how many people would be out of work if employers were supposed to fire everyone they think might have done something wrong in the past?

 

Or is the issue that NFL players are supposed to be role models or something?

 

I don't really understand why the professional sports industry fascinates the general public enough to make athletes so rich. I mean, I don't care really. It's not my money and I think people should be free to vote with their pocketbooks. But these are just flesh and blood human people, many without what we'd consider wholesome backgrounds, and I don't see how people expect a fat paycheck to suddenly make them all think and act like saints. And then somehow their paycheck is tied to their saintliness.

 

I personally don't think it's an employer's responsibility to execute justice other than justice in the workplace (e.g., fair pay, workplace harassment, etc.). I don't fault a company for getting rid of an employee who has publicly tarnished its name, but I don't demand it either. We have a well-established justice system to deal with alleged crimes.

I think that athletes are treated differently because they are public figures and role models for many children. That is why image is so important, not because of the size of their paycheck but the size of their influence. I don't hold up athletes as role models for my kids, but many kids do look up to professional athletes and so there is a responsibility there. They sell themselves as family entertainment for that reason, and the fact that it is no longer perceived as family friendly is causing them a lot of problems.

[SKL]

I think that athletes are treated differently because they are public figures and role models for many children. That is why image is so important, not because of the size of their paycheck but the size of their influence. I don't hold up athletes as role models for my kids, but many kids do look up to professional athletes and so there is a responsibility there. They sell themselves as family entertainment for that reason, and the fact that it is no longer perceived as family friendly is causing them a lot of problems.

 

When and how was it ever perceived as family friendly?  Were athletes of the past held to a high personal standard?  Or were their personal lives ignored as long as they stayed out of jail and played their games well?

 

[Reefgazer]

So as not to clog up the thread anymore with multiple posts on this tangent, but to quickly answer you on two questions:

You said in another post to me: "I don't see anyone who claimed that private citizens cannot choose with whom they associate?" This was in response to me saying that a person has the right to discriminate as long as they are not acting in the capacity of a government job/agent of the government. You then said that my comment was a red herring, but the only reason I brought it up at all was because you asked me the question directly about discrimination. I agree that the comment was off-topic, but you brought up the topic of discrimination and I answered it, despite it not having anything to do with what we were discussing.

On to the below comment:  Yes, I absolutely think that a person should be able to do whatever they darned well want to on their own time (join the KKK, cheat on their wife, donate to causes they want to, etc), and their personal life should not influence their job.  Bill Clinton was a decent president, but appeared to be a cad of a husband.  Eh, I can live with that; the husband part is Hillary's battle, not my battle nor my business.  Ray Rice is his wife's battle, not mine and not NFL fans.

 

You disagree that companies should be able to fire people who do stupid things that indicate an extreme lack of judgment while representing the organization?

[AMJ]

I guess I just don't see how this is a boon for misogynists. But it may just be because the majority of people in my generation share feminist ideals even if they don't identify as feminists, or even know what feminism is/was. They have just become a mainstream part of our culture and so we don't see why the label is necessary.

 

But I concede I may just be naive and overly optimistic.

 

I wouldn't call you naive or overly optimistic on this.  The mainstreaming of gender equality is what is sought after, getting it to the point where society naturally assumes that this should be the case.  Period. 

[Reefgazer]

She is referring to a post of mine where I compared a person in an uproar over current NFL policies on domestic abusers (I called them trivial whiners) vs a person in an uproar over, oh, say, legally having the right to deny women credit without their DH's approval (which was legal a few short decades ago) or barring them from jobs based on femaleness a few decades ago.  IMO, the latter 2 types of institutionalized discrimination were much worse because they could not be easily changed in a day or two or without extensive court battles.  Then a few posters decided to run with the idea that I trivialized domestic violence, although it was crystal clear from my posts that that was not what I said.

I don't know anyone who is referring to it as "whining over trivial nonsense." The reports I have seen have been taking the current situations very seriously.

 

[AMJ]

BxvhCS0CMAAv2Ae.jpeg

 

I'm sorry.  Would you mind putting your response in words, please?  My computer doesn't like the link you supplied, for some reason.  I can't follow the link.

[VeritasMama]

When and how was it ever perceived as family friendly? Were athletes of the past held to a high personal standard? Or were their personal lives ignored as long as they stayed out of jail and played their games well?

 

Yes, it is watched by families, together. It has always been so, college football and professional football. Especially the last two decades when family friendly tv options that are entertaining for the whole family have dwindled.

 

That is why there has been so much anger over the inappropriate commercials and half time shows during the Super Bowl the last 12 years or so, because so many kids are watching.

 

Athletes are seen as role models, especially in the African American community. In years past professional athletes did have to abide by strict codes of conduct and even had dress codes, though they could get away with a lot of lewd conduct because the media simply didn't report on the private lives of athletes and politicians. But if they committed a crime? They could and probably would have been fired.

 

That has changed with the rise of players unions in professional sports. Athletes simply have more leverage now that the sports make more money, and they don't want to put up with dress codes and codes of conduct. It is not a coincidence that professional athletes have more tattoos, facial hair, piercings, etc. now than they did 15 years ago. Now, the unions fight hard to make sure it is near impossible for athletes to be fired simply for a criminal offense.

 

Obviously, now people are fed up, especially people with kids. Their ratings are down and sponsors are mad. So, now that it is finally affecting the bottom line, the union had to go along with firing Rice because the PR problem will start to affect the other players whom they also represent. The union will have to start making more concessions so the league can clean itself up and repair the damage done to the brand.

 

BTW, the NBA has a much bigger problem in terms of crime with it's athletes, which I think is why they no longer get anywhere near the kind of ratings the NFL gets. Just my opinion.

[Catwoman]

She is referring to a post of mine where I compared a person in an uproar over current NFL policies on domestic abusers (I called them trivial whiners) vs a person in an uproar over, oh, say, legally having the right to deny women credit without their DH's approval (which was legal a few short decades ago) or barring them from jobs based on femaleness a few decades ago. IMO, the latter 2 types of institutionalized discrimination were much worse because they could not be easily changed in a day or two or without extensive court battles. Then a few posters decided to run with the idea that I trivialized domestic violence, although it was crystal clear from my posts that that was not what I said.

Thanks.

 

I found your post and I understood what you were trying to say. :)

[idnib]

When and how was it ever perceived as family friendly?  Were athletes of the past held to a high personal standard?  Or were their personal lives ignored as long as they stayed out of jail and played their games well?

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't follow the NFL very closely. ;)

 

Here's a brief link to read about some of Ray Rice's anti-bullying campaign. Here's another link about him extending his event for children ages 7-14. And so on and so on.

 

I think athletes always behaved badly at the same rate they do now. But with video cameras and cell phones everywhere, plus social media and gossip sites like TMZ, they are more easily exposed. That's a good thing and is true for other professions as well, such as police officers. In this age, I think a lot of people, not just celebrities, have been exposed in their bad behavior and have been surprised when their antics went viral.

[SKL]

Yes, it is watched by families, together. It has always been so, college football and professional football. Especially the last two decades when family friendly tv options that are entertaining for the whole family have dwindled.

 

That is why there has been so much anger over the inappropriate commercials and half time shows during the Super Bowl the last 12 years or so, because so many kids are watching.

 

Athletes are seen as role models, especially in the African American community. In years past professional athletes did have to abide by strict codes of conduct and even had dress codes, though they could get away with a lot of lewd conduct because the media simply didn't report on the private lives of athletes and politicians. But if they committed a crime? They could and probably would have been fired.

 

That has changed with the rise of players unions in professional sports. Athletes simply have more leverage now that the sports make more money, and they don't want to put up with dress codes and codes of conduct. It is not a coincidence that professional athletes have more tattoos, facial hair, piercings, etc. now than they did 15 years ago. Now, the unions fight hard to make sure it is near impossible for athletes to be fired simply for a criminal offense.

 

Obviously, now people are fed up, especially people with kids. Their ratings are down and sponsors are mad. So, now that it is finally affecting the bottom line, the union had to go along with firing Rice because the PR problem will start to affect the other players whom they also represent. The union will have to start making more concessions so the league can clean itself up and repair the damage done to the brand.

 

BTW, the NBA has a much bigger problem in terms of crime with it's athletes, which I think is why they no longer get anywhere near the kind of ratings the NFL gets. Just my opinion.

 

Yes, it's watched by families; it's always been watched by my family of origin since I was little.  Watching athletes play a game on TV does not show kids what the athletes do on their own time.

 

The unnecessary building up and tearing down of professional athletes is not something that has always occurred.  Yes, there were usually some particularly charismatic players that people followed, but even they had private lives that we weren't privy to - and didn't expect to be privy to.

 

I guess part of it is because information travels so fast these days.  So people get used to the idea that everything is everybody's business.  And that everyone gets to vote on what needs to be done to people who screw up.

So now football is no longer about moving the ball toward the end zone.  It's about keeping up an image outside of game time.  This is not how things were when I watched football as a kid.

 

It's not football games that aren't family friendly, it's the news media AKA scandal industry.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, it's watched by families; it's always been watched by my family of origin since I was little. Watching athletes play a game on TV does not show kids what the athletes do on their own time.

 

The unnecessary building up and tearing down of professional athletes is not something that has always occurred. Yes, there were usually some particularly charismatic players that people followed, but even they had private lives that we weren't privy to - and didn't expect to be privy to.

 

I guess part of it is because information travels so fast these days. So people get used to the idea that everything is everybody's business. And that everyone gets to vote on what needs to be done to people who screw up.

So now football is no longer about moving the ball toward the end zone. It's about keeping up an image outside of game time. This is not how things were when I watched football as a kid.

 

It's not football games that aren't family friendly, it's the news media AKA scandal industry.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "building up then tearing down" but if someone has committed a crime then they ought to be punished.

 

Who do you mean was unnecessarily punished by the media?

 

 

[idnib]

So now football is no longer about moving the ball toward the end zone.

 

That was certainly the case for the Jets in the last quarter tonight.

 

 

Perhaps your recollection was affected by your youth and family culture. Certainly there were many football charities and children's events in the 1970s and 1980s. Sandusky's Second Mile was formed in 1977 but let's not talk about that; it was much nicer when we didn't discuss the bad behavior of those in sports. :001_huh:

[Slartibartfast]

She is referring to a post of mine where I compared a person in an uproar over current NFL policies on domestic abusers (I called them trivial whiners) vs a person in an uproar over, oh, say, legally having the right to deny women credit without their DH's approval (which was legal a few short decades ago) or barring them from jobs based on femaleness a few decades ago. IMO, the latter 2 types of institutionalized discrimination were much worse because they could not be easily changed in a day or two or without extensive court battles. Then a few posters decided to run with the idea that I trivialized domestic violence, although it was crystal clear from my posts that that was not what I said.

I did understand you, I disagreed.

 

How many partners of football players need to be murdered before the NFL takes it seriously? 

 

How many players need to be sitting in a courtroom on trial? It isn't as if that hasn't already happened more than once.

 

Does it impact as many women as as not being able to get credit, certain jobs or even vote? No, but it is still representative of a certain permissiveness towards violence against women in our culture and there does need to be a higher standards. These are people being supported by local cities and held up as someone for kids to aspire to.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-2013-off-season-nets-over-30-arrests-charges-range-from-dui-to-murder/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/us/nfl-players-domestic-violence-accusations/

 

 

 

At a domestic violence summit in Florida about 15 years ago, "the NFL actually sent a representative who argued, 'Are you kidding me? They're giving up two out of 16 paychecks for this issue. Isn't that a significant enough penalty?' And back then, they would take that (to the public). Today, it's a different story," said Don Yaeger, co-author of the 1998 book, "Pros and Cons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL."

 

Not to mention what happens in the NFL is being watched by hundreds of players on college campuses. Women should be able to go to college without being worried about the athletes, and then the school administration, police, and district attorneys turning a blind eye because they are football players.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/12/college-football-sexual-assualt-jameis-winston

 

It's wikipedia but it is just statistics, it is a list of professional athletes who have been convicted of crimes. It isn't just violence against women that is an issue but general illegal behavior as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sportspeople_convicted_of_crimes

 

Players sign a morals clause for a reason. They are expected to adhere to it.

 

[Frances]

Yes, it's watched by families; it's always been watched by my family of origin since I was little.  Watching athletes play a game on TV does not show kids what the athletes do on their own time.

 

The unnecessary building up and tearing down of professional athletes is not something that has always occurred.  Yes, there were usually some particularly charismatic players that people followed, but even they had private lives that we weren't privy to - and didn't expect to be privy to.

 

I guess part of it is because information travels so fast these days.  So people get used to the idea that everything is everybody's business.  And that everyone gets to vote on what needs to be done to people who screw up.

So now football is no longer about moving the ball toward the end zone.  It's about keeping up an image outside of game time.  This is not how things were when I watched football as a kid.

 

It's not football games that aren't family friendly, it's the news media AKA scandal industry.

 

The NFL is a brand that generates lots of money. If someone who is part of the NFL behaves in such a way that reflects badly on the brand and threatens revenue, the NFL is going to try to hide the behavior, discourage the behavior through fines or suspensions, or get rid of the person. If a player doesn't want to be held to some standards of behavior both on and off the field, they can always leave the NFL.

[Slartibartfast]

BTW, the NBA has a much bigger problem in terms of crime with it's athletes, which I think is why they no longer get anywhere near the kind of ratings the NFL gets. Just my opinion.

 

I think some teams have worked hard to overcome those issues but more needs to be done.

[LucyStoner]

As a feminist with a bad headache, I should have known better than to try to catch up on this thread. Wowza.

 

Anyone, left or right; up or down; red or blue claiming feminism is a monolithic squad enforcing some orthodoxy is just wrong. There are prolife feminists, just the same as there are prochoice Christians and people who are politically prochoice but personally opposed to abortion. I am staring at two books on the topic of prolife feminism on my nightstand now. Having a blog post published on Jezebel makes exactly no one the definitive arbiter of who is and is not a feminist. There is no such arbiter.

[maize]

Well, it's a little more nuanced than that!

 

Nuanced, yes, but I've gotten a strong vibe from certain self-proclaimed feminists that their interest in the voices and decisions and opinions of women is limited to those women who think just like them. 

 

I want women to have a voice. All women. Even those who don't agree with me. 

 

I want women to have the freedom and ability to stand up for things they believe in, even if I think their beliefs and opinions are wrong.

 

I want women to be supported for being politically active, even in parties I oppose.

 

This is not the message I get from many vocal feminists. I am not comfortable identifying with a term that is so frequently co-opted in support of various narrow social and political agendas in the name of womanhood, while dismissing entirely the diverse thoughts and experiences and desires of women.

[maize]

The other part of the "brand" problem of the label "feminist" is the implicit limitation of the label -- basically, if I self-identify as a feminist it is as much as saying I have an active interest in pursuing women's interests specifically.  While I do hold a lot of values common to feminism and I do what I can to support those values, my actual area of concern is wider than just how situations and concerns affect women.  I think a lot of women who self-identify as feminists likely share this wider area of concern, however I won't be claiming the feminist label for myself because it reflects only a portion of who I am AND is often seen as limiting myself to just that portion.

 

This has nothing to do with how I think the world SHOULD be, and everything to how I find it to be currently.  The people I encounter, with whom the label of feminism might even be raised in discussion, have this limitation firmly affixed to the label in their own minds.  It is easier and more productive, much of the time, to use the language in ways they understand and use it so we can discuss the bigger concerns, instead of derailing a budding, potentially fruitful discussion to hash over usage of terminology.

 

 

Yes to all of this.

[maize]

As a feminist with a bad headache, I should have known better than to try to catch up on this thread. Wowza.

 

Anyone, left or right; up or down; red or blue claiming feminism is a monolithic squad enforcing some orthodoxy is just wrong. There are prolife feminists, just the same as there are prochoice Christians and people who are politically prochoice but personally opposed to abortion. I am staring at two books on the topic of prolife feminism on my nightstand now. Having a blog post published on Jezebel makes exactly no one the definitive arbiter of who is and is not a feminist. There is no such arbiter.

 

I hope your headache is better soon!

[maize]

It's a Greek term, not a Latin term.  The connection with "barba" is a false cognate.  Barbarians were people whose language sounded like "Barbarbarbar" to the Greeks.

 

Anyway, the answer to your question is: language is a living thing, and some of the words we use one day may indeed turn out to be offensive the next.  Getting all huffy about it seems to me to be a sucker's play.  The mature thing to do is adapt and move on.  IMO.

 

Ah, I did not know that. I had to check my OED to verify :)

 

I don't think I've been huffy about anything? I thought the question of whether a term could lose its original connotation was interesting, and in the context of the discussion was trying to come up with a term that had originally had reference to a group of people but had lost that connotation; barbarian came to mind.

[SKL]

I am not sure what you mean by "building up then tearing down" but if someone has committed a crime then they ought to be punished.

 

Who do you mean was unnecessarily punished by the media?

 

Right, justice should be meted out by our justice system.  And employers should deal with their employees as they see fit.

 

Building up and tearing down is about people having unrealistic expectations of ordinary humans (and the organizations they participate in) and then reacting irrationally when those expectations are not met.

 

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous that on one hand we are afraid to let our kids walk down the street because we think there is a violent criminal behind every tree, and on the other hand, we act shocked that an organization full of people who grew up in actual dangerous places contains some individuals who break laws or do other things we think wrong.

[Rosie_0801]

Nuanced, yes, but I've gotten a strong vibe from certain self-proclaimed feminists that their interest in the voices and decisions and opinions of women is limited to those women who think just like them. 

 

I want women to have a voice. All women. Even those who don't agree with me. 

 

I want women to have the freedom and ability to stand up for things they believe in, even if I think their beliefs and opinions are wrong.

 

I want women to be supported for being politically active, even in parties I oppose.

 

This is not the message I get from many vocal feminists. I am not comfortable identifying with a term that is so frequently co-opted in support of various narrow social and political agendas in the name of womanhood, while dismissing entirely the diverse thoughts and experiences and desires of women.

 

Well. *Those* vocal feminists can take a long walk off a short pier, can't they?  ^_^

[SKL]

Well. *Those* vocal feminists can take a long walk off a short pier, can't they?  ^_^

 

That would certainly change things.  ;)

 

But I still don't see the need for a word.  Do women in a developed society really need to say we prefer to be treated as full humans?

[Free]

Feminist and Woman are not synonyms. Not all feminists are women. Not all women are feminists.

 

Having a voice or expressing an opinion does not automatically make a woman a feminist. It just makes her someone who is enjoying the fruits of past feminist movements.

 

I wear the label feminist proudly - I think the key operative word here being "proud". I am sure people who claim any label (Christian, atheist, conservative, liberal), do so because they have a certain pride associated with it and this pride does not dissipate because others who claim the same label think radically differently.

 

But here we have feminists who feel they have to reject the label feminism because of negative connotations, or because society at large (and many men in particular) somehow feel threatened by the word, or because the media continuously keeps harping on how feminists are just man-haters, or because using the word feminism is not conducive to dialogue - so let us just use something that makes others more comfortable and less threatened. Can I just say that all of this is actually a sad testimony to how our culture continues to subvert women's voices?

 

It is a familiar trope that plays itself out again and again. We cannot call ourselves feminists because feminists are angry, shrill, harsh and unladylike. And firm female bosses are b-t--es. Women who enjoy sex are sl-ts. And so on and on.

 

If you care passionately about women's rights then you are a feminist, as this male blogger found and expressed in this wonderful post - http://skepchick.org/2014/09/guest-post-coming-out-as-feminist/

[maize]

That would certainly change things.  ;)

 

But I still don't see the need for a word.  Do women in a developed society really need to say we prefer to be treated as full humans?

 

Maybe we could be "human-being-ists", "treat-people-as-people-ists", "respect-each-other-ists"...

 

I don't know if it is a word that is needed, but embracing such a concept is needed, and not just for women.

[Rosie_0801]

But I still don't see the need for a word.  Do women in a developed society really need to say we prefer to be treated as full humans?

 

Women in a developed society will need to say that as long as there are people who need to hear it, I suppose. But there is more to feminism than that. Do you really think humans will outgrow a need for philosophy? :)

[maize]

Feminist and Woman are not synonyms. Not all feminists are women. Not all women are feminists.

 

Having a voice or expressing an opinion does not automatically make a woman a feminist. It just makes her someone who is enjoying the fruits of past feminist movements.

 

I wear the label feminist proudly - I think the key operative word here being "proud". I am sure people who claim any label (Christian, atheist, conservative, liberal), do so because they have a certain pride associated with it and this pride does not dissipate because others who claim the same label think radically differently.

 

But here we have feminists who feel they have to reject the label feminism because of negative connotations, or because society at large (and many men in particular) somehow feel threatened by the word, or because the media continuously keeps harping on how feminists are just man-haters, or because using the word feminism is not conducive to dialogue - so let us just use something that makes others more comfortable and less threatened. Can I just say that all of this is actually a sad testimony to how our culture continues to subvert women's voices?

 

It is a familiar trope that plays itself out again and again. We cannot call ourselves feminists because feminists are angry, shrill, harsh and unladylike. And firm female bosses are b-t--es. Women who enjoy sex are sl-ts. And so on and on.

 

If you care passionately about women's rights then you are a feminist, as this male blogger found and expressed in this wonderful post - http://skepchick.org/2014/09/guest-post-coming-out-as-feminist/

 

 

I am very aware of benefiting from the efforts of past feminist movements, much of my life path would have been impossible two generations ago. It is not the media or fear of what men will think that has made me shrink from the term feminist. It is the people who use the term.

 

About a year ago I joined an online group of self-proclaimed feminists, thinking I had enough in common to share in the community. But what I found there was--yes, harsh, shrill, negative, anti male, anti diversity of opinion, anti women who embrace traditional nurturing roles ...it was a bunch of women who wanted to rain down fire and hailstones on everyone they disagreed with while mutually patting themselves on the back for their progressive, superior thinking.

 

I don't doubt there are other brands of feminist out there, people who are able to work towards equal recognition and opportunities for women without resorting to smug dismissal of thoughts and experiences which contrast with theirs. If I find such a group I will happily unite with them.

[Free]

I am very aware of benefiting from the efforts of past feminist movements, much of my life path would have been impossible two generations ago. It is not the media or fear of what men will think that has made me shrink from the term feminist. It is the people who use the term.

 

About a year ago I joined an online group of self-proclaimed feminists, thinking I had enough in common to share in the community. But what I found there was--yes, harsh, shrill, negative, anti male, anti diversity of opinion, anti women who embrace traditional nurturing roles ...it was a bunch of women who wanted to rain down fire and hailstones on everyone they disagreed with while mutually patting themselves on the back for their progressive, superior thinking.

 

I don't doubt there are other brands of feminist out there, people who are able to work towards equal recognition and opportunities for women without resorting to smug dismissal of thoughts and experiences which contrast with theirs. If I find such a group I will happily unite with them.

 

Sometime back I created an account on tumblr just for the heck of it. I came across the term "Social Justice Warrior", and the vitriol I found there was frightening. I tucked my tail and left tumblr. That is not for me. But then feminism is not a narrow movement. It is extremely broad, with a well established history and it is global in scope. I can easily carve my own niche and find people within the movement with whom I heartily agree.

 

[SKL]

So if a word is so important, what is the word for "non-hater-of men"?

[SKL]

I am Woman.

 

Somehow I think that sounds pretty awesome.

[Caroline]

That would certainly change things. ;)

 

But I still don't see the need for a word. Do women in a developed society really need to say we prefer to be treated as full humans?

Unfortunately, we do.

[Slartibartfast]

Right, justice should be meted out by our justice system. And employers should deal with their employees as they see fit.

 

Building up and tearing down is about people having unrealistic expectations of ordinary humans (and the organizations they participate in) and then reacting irrationally when those expectations are not met.

 

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous that on one hand we are afraid to let our kids walk down the street because we think there is a violent criminal behind every tree, and on the other hand, we act shocked that an organization full of people who grew up in actual dangerous places contains some individuals who break laws or do other things we think wrong.

Hm..

 

I think part of the problem is that while they are growing up they are just allowed to get away with everything, then they get to the NFL having been spoiled darlings who had never had any discipline from previous coaches.

 

The guys who raped that girl at OU thought the problem would be "taken care of" for them. Until the guilty verdict was read they never believed they would be punished.

[maize]

Hm..

 

I think part of the problem is that while they are growing up they are just allowed to get away with everything, then they get to the NFL having been spoiled darlings who had never had any discipline from previous coaches.

 

The guys who raped that girl at OU thought the problem would be "taken care of" for them. Until the guilty verdict was read they never believed they would be punished.

 

Do you think this is specifically a problem of kids who are sports stars coasting through without consequences, or do you think it is a problem overall of kids growing up not experiencing real consequences for their actions? Is it a boy specific problem because of an attitude of "boys will be boys"? 

[Free]

So if a word is so important, what is the word for "non-hater-of men"?

 

The opposite of misandry is philandry.

 

[SKL]

Hm..

 

I think part of the problem is that while they are growing up they are just allowed to get away with everything, then they get to the NFL having been spoiled darlings who had never had any discipline from previous coaches.

 

The guys who raped that girl at OU thought the problem would be "taken care of" for them. Until the guilty verdict was read they never believed they would be punished.

 

Actually I thought the guy who beat his kid had been abused as a child (and I believe it).

 

I really doubt these guys were "allowed to get away with everything" growing up.  Maybe once they were fancy pants football players (and then again, maybe not).

 

I think a lot of them grew up surrounded by crime and low expectations, no better than what a lot of our prison population saw as kids.