Originally Posted by Ele
Talking out of your ass again.
Google calls it "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
Wiki says it "to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women."
So, pray tell, what's your definition of feminism that you've undoubtedly constructed to serve your argument?
"womens rights on the grounds of equality"
".... rights for women"
I already said previously actions speak louder than words, but I think the words are pretty clear here too.
I already linked the wiki article for 3rd wave feminism, but I think you can research some feminist literature if you are interested.
Originally Posted by Ele
Since feminism is just an ideology that espouses equal rights for women, it's applicable anywhere inequality is present. This includes the East.
Well, I disagree on the basis that a western movement shouldn't be tackling eastern traditionalism issues.
But I also disagree on the basis of "whenever equality is present" when even from the the definitions you yourself posted it only tackles the women's side.
Originally Posted by Ele
Yeah, and it's understandable, justifiable thinking. If there's no real threat of yourself being harmed, then of course you don't hit them back. You don't hit a child back if they hit you, because they're not any threat to you. The same applies with women hitting men. Most of the time you're not in enough danger to justify hitting the woman. Don't let me stop you from punching the next woman that slaps you, though.
So maybe you should just say "don't hit people unless you have to" rather than randomly gendering non-gendered issues...
If someone assaults you then you have the right to defend yourself mate. Women who abuse "positive sexism" in order to assault people without reciprocation are not helping gender equality...
Originally Posted by Ele
Because I'm being specific, not general. Sue me.
Ok but it's really misleading and pointless...
Originally Posted by Ele
I didn't imply that. I said women who are unarmed generally aren't a threat. You can't logically, from that, say that I was implying that men who are unarmed aren't a threat. Please explain your logic.
Because usually people assume if you quantify something then you are doing it for a reason... Sorry mate this is how language works, if you specifically exclude men from your statement, people will assume you are doing it on purpose.
Your later statement that unarmed women aren't a threat once again excludes men...
I think you should just say what you mean instead of using such a round about way of saying things. If you think you shouldn't hit people who aren't a threat, then say that. Don't say "'don't hit women', and by that I mean don't hit women, children, or men if they are unarmed and aren't a threat".
Take a leaf out of proto's book and learn to communicate.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
"womens rights on the grounds of equality"
".... rights for women"
I already said previously actions speak louder than words, but I think the words are pretty clear here too.
Me too. You said feminism has nothing to do with equality. The words clearly disagree, don't they? Here's the rest of the second definition you excluded deliberately; "to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women". Notice how equality qualifies all the words that come after it? Yeah.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I already linked the wiki article for 3rd wave feminism, but I think you can research some feminist literature if you are interested.
I don't think we should be using 3rd wave feminism as our byword for feminism. Feminism includes 3rd wave feminism but isn't limited to it. You say 'feminism doesn't apply in the East', but you really mean '3rd wave feminism doesn't apply in the East'. Someone could argue that what you're doing is disingenous, but I think it's rooted in ignorance, so I won't argue that.
You're the one that needs to be careful about your words, not me.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Well, I disagree on the basis that a western movement shouldn't be tackling eastern traditionalism issues.
3rd wave feminism is a Western movement. Feminism is holistic, includes 3rd wave feminism, and includes many other movements that span the globe. You're arguing that feminism isn't applicable in the East from a eurocentric understanding of feminism.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
But I also disagree on the basis of "whenever equality is present" when even from the the definitions you yourself posted it only tackles the women's side.
Ignoring that I said, "whenever 'inequality' is present" (reading comprehension again, Pig), I don't understand your grievance. In a definition of feminism, it's not surprising that it's about women's rights on the basis of inequality. That's what it is. You want a man's definition of feminism? Look at the stupidity in this thread (yours included), you'll find many.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
So maybe you should just say "don't hit people unless you have to" rather than randomly gendering non-gendered issues...
No. He asked why we don't hit women. So I told him - the difference in power between men and women= lack of threat, so it's not needed and that's why we don't hit women. If I just said, 'it's not needed', then I wouldn't be explaining my argument fully, would I? I'd be skipping over B on my way to C. Have I gone slow enough for you?
And it's clearly a gendered issue, because people don't ask 'Why can't I hit men', do they?
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Ok but it's really misleading and pointless...
It's not misleading at all (you confuse yourself) and it clearly had a point, as I explained above.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Because usually people assume if you quantify something then you are doing it for a reason... Sorry mate this is how language works, if you specifically exclude men from your statement, people will assume you are doing it on purpose.
Your later statement that unarmed women aren't a threat once again excludes men...
The only implication you can make from "unarmed women aren't a threat", is that armed women are threats. Not that unarmed men aren't threats. That doesn't follow. You're not following.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I think you should just say what you mean instead of using such a round about way of saying things. If you think you shouldn't hit people who aren't a threat, then say that. Don't say "'don't hit women', and by that I mean don't hit women, children, or men if they are unarmed and aren't a threat".
Trust me bro. I'm saying that unarmed women aren't usually threats to me. That's what I'm saying. I'm not implying anything more than that. You can trust me. In fact, whenever I write something, you can always trust that what I write expresses exactly what I want I want to communicate. I'm super precise with my wording. I'd appreciate it then, if you'd respond to my words, instead of jumping ahead and falsely making accusations about implications.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Take a leaf out of proto's book and learn to communicate.
You're right you know. There is a problem with communication here. You might've noticed that whenever you get into arguments with people, there seems to be a lot of miscommunication. It's because of you, not them. You know why? Your problem is that you don't respond to what people write. You half-read what they write (which means you're probably misrepresenting the person from the get-go) and then you trip over your own 'genius' by throwing in implications and fallacies all over the place. You make up your own, delusional narrative and force people to respond to that, because whoever controls the narrative controls the power.
So to help you out, I'm requesting that you take your time to properly read what people are writing. Respond to what they actually write, not what you think they write, because when you do that, that's when communication breaks down.
Last edited by Ele; Jan 29, 2015 at 04:11 AM.
Originally Posted by protonitron
I don't think it is only a matter if self protection. If swine I know well runs into me or something, I would be much more likely to retaliate with a playful mimicry of fighting (doing stuff like squaring up to them or shoulder barging) if they were a guy because if it was a girl I would feel like I was either belittling violence against women or being threatening or overly physical. The feeling of belittlement of violence against women would be alts entirely subconsiouse as would the idea that a girl would feel more threatened than a guy. This might just be my upbringing (all boys schools don't tend to lead to numerous strong relationships with the opposite sex, so my innate discomfort in the aforementioned scenario could just be from a lack of social confidence with girls).
To be it boils down to the fact that boys tend to play a lot more physical games when growing up than girls (this us cultural). Therefore they feel more ready for violence when it comes to situations where there is no real danger (if a mofo tries to shank you then you will probably react similarly regardless of gender). This point might be stupid, I feel like I am missing something obviouse.
The different social pressures for girls make being punched in the face potentially more problematic because people seem to care so much more about how girls look. A guy who gets a black eye or bruise or scar in a fight can actually look more manly whereas if a girl has a black eye it could seriously mess with her confidence.
And btw, I understand that how well you can take a punch depends more on upbringing than on sex, but I also believe that in general your upbringing is greatly affected by your sex.
But you don't mind belittling violence against men?
Personally I don't think it's bad to acknowledge that there are differences between people, and thus between sexes or races, but I don't think you can reconcile treating people differently with a belief that all people are the same.
Also, if you claim men being more physical is cultural, then can you name a culture where roles are reversed?
Originally Posted by Ele
Me too. You said feminism has nothing to do with equality. The words clearly disagree, don't they? Here's the rest of the second definition you excluded deliberately; "to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women". Notice how equality qualifies all the words that come after it? Yeah.
Lol ok, you got me. I think you are just playing word games, but in order for this conversation to keep moving forward, I will concede that feminism does use equality as an excuse for their actions.
Originally Posted by Ele
I don't think we should be using 3rd wave feminism as our byword for feminism. Feminism includes 3rd wave feminism but isn't limited to it. You say 'feminism doesn't apply in the East', but you really mean '3rd wave feminism doesn't apply in the East'. Someone could argue that what you're doing is disingenous, but I think it's rooted in ignorance, so I won't argue that.
You're the one that needs to be careful about your words, not me.
So are you saying that the now extinct second or first wave feminism are applicable? Because you know they don't exist anymore right?
What a pointless argument to raise...
Originally Posted by Ele
3rd wave feminism is a Western movement. Feminism is holistic, includes 3rd wave feminism, and includes many other movements that span the globe. You're arguing that feminism isn't applicable in the East from a eurocentric understanding of feminism.
Feminism is western. Yes, there are feminists outside of the west.
If you are going to feign ignorance and claim that feminism arose from a global consciousness then I don't see a point in continuing this line of discussion.
Originally Posted by Ele
Ignoring that I said, "whenever 'inequality' is present" (reading comprehension again, Pig), I don't understand your grievance. In a definition of feminism, it's not surprising that it's about women's rights on the basis of inequality. That's what it is. You want a man's definition of feminism? Look at the stupidity in this thread (yours included), you'll find many.
Oh no autocorrect, gotta claim that one is down to reading comprehension right?! LOL NICE ONE ELE.
We have already established above and from your defintion that feminism is only concerned with women's problems. Obviously this makes it inappropriate when the problem does not fall in that scope. Again, there's no point in pursuing this line of reasoning...
Originally Posted by Ele
No. He asked why we don't hit women. So I told him - the difference in power between men and women= lack of threat, so it's not needed and that's why we don't hit women. If I just said, 'it's not needed', then I wouldn't be explaining my argument fully, would I? I'd be skipping over B on my way to C. Have I gone slow enough for you?
And it's clearly a gendered issue, because people don't ask 'Why can't I hit men', do they?
Because there's no saying "don't hit men", so why would people ask it? You yourself even implied it's fine to hit men because they are a 'threat'.
If you really believe this then I advise you to talk to a specialist. Assuming all men are dangerous and that you are justified in assaulting them is a very deluded thing to believe.
If someone asks you "why can't I hit women" you should at the very least mention that ideally you shouldn't hit anyone, but you may have to hit a woman some time.
Originally Posted by Ele
It's not misleading at all (you confuse yourself) and it clearly had a point, as I explained above.
Using an inappropriate qualifier changes the nuance of a statement. I know I end up having to explain English to you a lot, and I know you struggle with it, so I'm not going to push this any further.
Think about the implication of saying "men are good at mathematics" and "people are good at mathematics". If it's not obvious then I can continue to explain English to you, but if you understand then there's no need to reply.
Originally Posted by Ele
The only implication you can make from "unarmed women aren't a threat", is that armed women are threats. Not that unarmed men aren't threats. That doesn't follow. You're not following.
Again, that's not how English works. I did explain this above, but you used two qualifiers 'unarmed' and 'women'.
There are 4 different combinations those qualifiers can form; "unarmed women", "armed women", "unarmed men", "armed men". A native English speaker will assume you picked them for a reason, so the implication would be that the 3 combinations not encompassed in your statement are a threat, namely; "armed women, "unarmed men", and "armed men".
I think you can see that it's clumsy to list "unarmed men" and "armed men" and you are probably included to simplify this to "men". This method of qualifier removal makes a statement simpler and easier to understand.
If what you mean to say is "unarmed people aren't a threat" then you should say that.
Originally Posted by Ele
Trust me bro. I'm saying that unarmed women aren't usually threats to me. That's what I'm saying. I'm not implying anything more than that. You can trust me. In fact, whenever I write something, you can always trust that what I write expresses exactly what I want I want to communicate. I'm super precise with my wording. I'd appreciate it then, if you'd respond to my words, instead of jumping ahead and falsely making accusations about implications.
Read above.
Originally Posted by Ele
You're right you know. There is a problem with communication here. You might've noticed that whenever you get into arguments with people, there seems to be a lot of miscommunication. It's because of you, not them. You know why? Your problem is that you don't respond to what people write. You half-read what they write (which means you're probably misrepresenting the person from the get-go) and then you trip over your own 'genius' by throwing in implications and fallacies all over the place. You make up your own, delusional narrative and force people to respond to that, because whoever controls the narrative controls the power.
So to help you out, I'm requesting that you take your time to properly read what people are writing. Respond to what they actually write, not what you think they write, because when you do that, that's when communication breaks down.
It's just language barrier, I know not everyone is a native English speaker and I don't hold it against you. So don't worry, if you say something a bit different to what you mean, we can always sort it out. That's why it's so important to ask questions.
That's why if you say "the red berries are poisonous" I ask "what about the blue berries?" because I know you may have not know what you are saying, so it's better to be safe than sorry!
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Lol ok, you got me. I think you are just playing word games, but in order for this conversation to keep moving forward, I will concede that feminism does use equality as an excuse for their actions.
As an excuse... As if seeking rights for women on the basis of equality is something that needs to be excused. Man...
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
So are you saying that the now extinct second or first wave feminism are applicable? Because you know they don't exist anymore right?
Again with your crazy inferences that misrepresent my position. Again, take my words for what they are. I'm expressing exactly what I want to say.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Feminism is western. Yes, there are feminists outside of the west.
If you are going to feign ignorance and claim that feminism arose from a global consciousness then I don't see a point in continuing this line of discussion.
Never said feminism arose from a global consciousness. I'm saying feminism can be anywhere, because feminism is just the seeking of rights on the basis of equality. That's why before I said wherever inequality is present, feminism is applicable. So, before, in response to that you said, "inequality has nothing to do with feminism". Now though, we've agreed that it does. Since feminism is about inequality, and since there's inequality in the East, feminism is applicable to the East.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Because there's no saying "don't hit men", so why would people ask it? You yourself even implied it's fine to hit men because they are a 'threat'.
If you really believe this then I advise you to talk to a specialist. Assuming all men are dangerous and that you are justified in assaulting them is a very deluded thing to believe.
Your quote at the start of this thread is a far more shining example of deluded thinking. In general, a woman isn't a physical threat to a man. In general, a man is a physical threat. Not all the time, but in general. That's what I'm saying, and I don't think you'll find anyone that would agree with you in saying that that's ridiculous and deluded.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If someone asks you "why can't I hit women" you should at the very least mention that ideally you shouldn't hit anyone, but you may have to hit a woman some time.
I think it's poor form to assume someone doesn't know that they shouldn't be hitting anyone. I also think I covered your second phrase by saying 'in general' , 'rarely' and 'most of the time' in my explanation.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Using an inappropriate qualifier changes the nuance of a statement. I know I end up having to explain English to you a lot, and I know you struggle with it, so I'm not going to push this any further.
I don't think you understand what a qualifier is.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Again, that's not how English works. I did explain this above, but you used two qualifiers 'unarmed' and 'women'.
That's not how English works. Woman is not a qualifier. Woman is the subject. The subject of a sentence can't be a qualifier.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
It's just language barrier, I know not everyone is a native English speaker and I don't hold it against you. So don't worry, if you say something a bit different to what you mean, we can always sort it out. That's why it's so important to ask questions.
I'm going to toot my own horn and tell you I got 7 (on the 7 point scale) for my linguistics course at university last year. Unless you've done a similar course, I'm going to go ahead and say that it's probably a safe bet that I know more about the ins and outs of the English language than you do. So respond to what I actually write - what you're reading is exactly what I want to express. Nothing less, nothing more. Enough with your deluded implications.
Originally Posted by Ele
As an excuse... As if seeking rights for women on the basis of equality is something that needs to be excused. Man...
Oh we are talking about 1st/2nd wave? Or are you claiming 3rd wave/modern feminism is seeking equal rights? Are you a bit confused? What rights do you think feminism is now seeking? :S
Originally Posted by Ele
Again with your crazy inferences that misrepresent my position. Again, take my words for what they are. I'm expressing exactly what I want to say.
3rd wave feminism is modern feminism. Your idea that there are non-modern feminists still working in modern times is strange to say the least.
Originally Posted by Ele
Never said feminism arose from a global consciousness. I'm saying feminism can be anywhere, because feminism is just the seeking of rights on the basis of equality. That's why before I said wherever inequality is present, feminism is applicable. So, before, in response to that you said, "inequality has nothing to do with feminism". Now though, we've agreed that it does. Since feminism is about inequality, and since there's inequality in the East, feminism is applicable to the East.
Sure, it can be anywhere. I never said it couldn't be, I believe I said it shouldn't be...
And I'm not sure why you are changing the definition of feminism again, didn't we agree on something to the effect of "women's rights" or "rights for women on the grounds of equality"?
Originally Posted by Ele
Your quote at the start of this thread is a far more shining example of deluded thinking. In general, a woman isn't a physical threat to a man. In general, a man is a physical threat. Not all the time, but in general. That's what I'm saying, and I don't think you'll find anyone that would agree with you in saying that that's ridiculous and deluded.
I think that's quite a sexist stereotype you are perpetuating, and if you are going to advocate for a saying that has so many exceptions maybe it's not such a good thing to advocate for.
If you seriously think that in general men are a physical threat to your existence and you have no problem assaulting them without provocation, then seek help before you end up in jail mate.
Originally Posted by Ele
I think it's poor form to assume someone doesn't know that they shouldn't be hitting anyone.
Then why do you say it...
Originally Posted by Ele
I don't think you understand what a qualifier is.
Unfortunately for your argument, I do.
Originally Posted by Ele
That's not how English works. Woman is not a qualifier. Woman is the subject. The subject of a sentence can't be a qualifier.
That's a very technical view to take for someone with such a tenuous grasp on grammar! I'm guessing you just looked it up just then, good job for being willing to learn.
Since you are putting in the effort, I should do my best to help you too.
In English anything that 'qualifies' is a 'qualifier', and 'qualify' means to give a 'quality'. In this case you are gendering the subject, instead of saying 'don't hit people' you say 'don't hit women'. By attributing this quality you are qualifying the statement. You have to be careful in English, even though you surely had good intentions and meant "Don't hit women. Don't hit children. Don't hit men. Unless you really have to" but if you only say "Don't hit women" then anyone reading it will think you are saying this on purpose: "Why don't you mention men?! How about children or the elderly?! Can we never hit women?!".
So just be careful with your language, you may say something and assume that only the very most superficially literal meaning will be noticed, but when it is read there's a lot more that is understood! Google "reading between the lines", "figurative speech" and "connotation" to learn more!
Originally Posted by Ele
I'm going to toot my own horn and tell you I got 7 (on the 7 point scale) for my linguistics course at university last year. Unless you've done a similar course, I'm going to go ahead and say that it's probably a safe bet that I know more about the ins and outs of the English language than you do. So respond to what I actually write - what you're reading is exactly what I want to express. Nothing less, nothing more. Enough with your deluded implications.
Nice work Ele! Good luck on your studies!
Actually your English is pretty good, probably much better than I am at your native language lol. If it weren't for the fact that we are discussing these things in a semi-serious fashion, it would probably be impossible anyone to tell you are not writing your native language.
This probably isn't the place to teach grammar or discuss second languages, so feel free to make a thread or PM me. Redundant will get mad if we keep going offtopic...
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
