The women's march shows it's true colors

[Loren Pechtel]

Something to consider here: Attire.

Women frequently wear skirts or dresses. Sitting with legs spread very well might show their underwear--or their bits if they weren't wearing underwear. Very few men wear garments without a crotch, sitting with legs spread won't show anything.

Thus women will tend to sit with their legs together for reasons of modesty, this would likely carry over even when wearing attire for which that is not an issue.

 

[Toni]

Something to consider here: Attire.

Women frequently wear skirts or dresses. Sitting with legs spread very well might show their underwear--or their bits if they weren't wearing underwear. Very few men wear garments without a crotch, sitting with legs spread won't show anything.

Thus women will tend to sit with their legs together for reasons of modesty, this would likely carry over even when wearing attire for which that is not an issue.

50 years ago, women frequently wore skirts and dresses that indeed might risk showing their underwear. Today? Women rarely wear
skirts or dresses outside of more formal occasions. I think (and forgive me if I am wrong) that you might live in Utah, which is much more conservative that the rest of the US, with a very large segment of the population belonging to some variety of the Mormon church. I live in the Midwest and have for most of my life. In the Midwest, most people are not Mormons but it is generally much more conservative than either coast. If I walked all over town and campus today (any of them, including one that is religious based) I might possibly see one or two women wearing a skirt and there’s a 50/50 chance it would be down near her ankles, given fashion trends of the day.

So yes, knees together was justified years ago as modesty for those of us compelled to wear skirts. Today that’s not much of a thing.

 

[ruby sparks]

Chicago subway pamphlet, 1918.

 

[ruby sparks]

Something to consider here: Attire.

Women frequently wear skirts or dresses. Sitting with legs spread very well might show their underwear--or their bits if they weren't wearing underwear.

Except that when the ideas of how a ‘proper’ woman should sit were developed, women were still wearing skirts that came all the way down to their ankles.

 

[Metaphor]

For example, you don't dismiss hasty generalizations attacking feminists

The group "feminists" is not the same as the group "women". Feminism is an ideology. Most women do not identify as feminists and there are many male feminists.

Attacking feminism is not attacking women.

 

[Toni]

For example, you don't dismiss hasty generalizations attacking feminists

The group "feminists" is not the same as the group "women". Feminism is an ideology. Most women do not identify as feminists and there are many male feminists.

Attacking feminism is not attacking women.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of equal rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. So, I beg to differ. Attacking feminism is attacking women.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

For example, you don't dismiss hasty generalizations attacking feminists

The group "feminists" is not the same as the group "women". Feminism is an ideology. Most women do not identify as feminists and there are many male feminists.

Attacking feminism is not attacking women.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of equal rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. So, I beg to differ. Attacking feminism is attacking women.

There is feminism, and there is feminism and then there is feminism. It always irritates me to see some moron hold up some radical kook type feminist as a typical feminist to smear rational and reasonable feminists a radical loonies. We have been getting a steady diet of that crap from Lush Rimjob and other Faux morons for years. It seems to have become somewhat mainstreamed after years of beating that rancid old drum. There should be a name for this sort of ugly logical fallacy.

 

[Metaphor]

For example, you don't dismiss hasty generalizations attacking feminists

The group "feminists" is not the same as the group "women". Feminism is an ideology. Most women do not identify as feminists and there are many male feminists.

Attacking feminism is not attacking women.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of equal rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. So, I beg to differ. Attacking feminism is attacking women.

Toni, your response is so exquisitely perfect to illustrate feminist thinking, I could not have crafted a satirical response to illustrate it better.

You claim feminism is about advocacy of equal rights between the sexes, and yet you immediately take an attack on feminism to mean an attack on women. Of course, it wouldn't have occurred to you for a moment that attacking feminism might be an attack on men, even though that would also follow given your reasoning.

The first dictionary definition of feminism supports your definition. Additional definitions in the same dictionary (such as that feminism is specifically advocacy and championing of women's rights) have nothing to do with equality. The word itself is gendered.

But the dictionary meaning isn't what I see feminists do in practice, anyway. And I'll attack the ideology that drives that behaviour, because the ideology is fucked up. And maybe I'll be silenced when feminists have finally "smashed the patriarchy", though it isn't always clear whether they need men's help to do it. In any case they've been smashing it for a while now. I wonder how long it'll take?

 

[Toni]

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of equal rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. So, I beg to differ. Attacking feminism is attacking women.

Toni, your response is so exquisitely perfect to illustrate feminist thinking, I could not have crafted a satirical response to illustrate it better.

You claim feminism is about advocacy of equal rights between the sexes, and yet you immediately take an attack on feminism to mean an attack on women. Of course, it wouldn't have occurred to you for a moment that attacking feminism might be an attack on men, even though that would also follow given your reasoning.

The first dictionary definition of feminism supports your definition. Additional definitions in the same dictionary (such as that feminism is specifically advocacy and championing of women's rights) have nothing to do with equality. The word itself is gendered.

But the dictionary meaning isn't what I see feminists do in practice, anyway. And I'll attack the ideology that drives that behaviour, because the ideology is fucked up. And maybe I'll be silenced when feminists have finally "smashed the patriarchy", though it isn't always clear whether they need men's help to do it. In any case they've been smashing it for a while now. I wonder how long it'll take?

lol.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For example, you don't dismiss hasty generalizations attacking feminists

The group "feminists" is not the same as the group "women". Feminism is an ideology. Most women do not identify as feminists and there are many male feminists.

Attacking feminism is not attacking women.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of equal rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. So, I beg to differ. Attacking feminism is attacking women.

That would be egalitarianism and one ever shrinking group of self identifying feminists. Those aren't the feminists I was speaking of and long ago became a minority of those who call themselves feminists.

It would be great if more feminists would advocate for equal treatment, even within what they see as women's issues. I am fully on board with those who do. Sadly, that's not the ones I usually hear are the ones spreading hatred of men. But "why can't we hate men" right?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have personal experience of a feminist colleague claiming that men are stronger than women because male children are given more protein than female children. This is the kind of mental derangement you have to deal with when talking to a feminist.

Here is an example of Metaphor going from the specific of an alleged crazy person (crazy people exist with all ideologies) to a general rule....and not dealing with the real definition of the ideology because he doesn't want to.

The first dictionary definition of feminism supports your definition. ...

Full stop.

Nope, feminism is about equality. Of course, if you want to attack specific persons who are not about equality, that's different.

 

[Rhea]

No. You can raise any issue you want. I can judge them however I want. When you see an aggressive or over emotional woman do you call her a bitch or link her hysterics to her gender? When you see a black man being violent do you attribute that to his race? How about it a Jew is being cheap? Do you feed into bigoted stereotypes or do you judge behaviors of individuals as behaviors of those individuals without making links to their gender or ethnicity? I would hope the latter. So why do the former with men? If a man is talking over a woman or if he is rudely spreading out to take up seats others want to use, that doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with his gender, and we should not assume it to as rants about manspreading and Mansplaining invariably do.

Jolly, YOU brought up manspreading in post #4 in a thread about the Women’s March.

YOU.
Brought it up.

YOU did.

Talk about the ultimate attempt to drain a conversation of meaning.
Now you’ve been whinging through 150 posts about a topic that YOU brought up in an unrelated thread.

I’m going to just bookmark this as the national standard under glass for “derail.”

 

[Rhea]

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of equal rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. So, I beg to differ. Attacking feminism is attacking women.

That would be egalitarianism and one ever shrinking group of self identifying feminists. Those aren't the feminists I was speaking of and long ago became a minority of those who call themselves feminists.

It would be great if more feminists would advocate for equal treatment, even within what they see as women's issues. I am fully on board with those who do. Sadly, that's not the ones I usually hear are the ones spreading hatred of men. But "why can't we hate men" right?

*citation required or it’s bullshit.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Talk about the ultimate attempt to drain a conversation of meaning.
Now you’ve been whinging through 150 posts about a topic that YOU brought up in an unrelated thread.

And for every post of mine mentioning it, you lot have posted a post about it. It takes more than one to have a conversation. Apparently my mentioning it (along with the gender pay gap; I wonder why that wasn't seized upon) got people wanting to discuss it. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What's so wrong with the word egalitarian?

 

[ruby sparks]

What's so wrong with the word egalitarian?

Nothing. But now we have again got to the part where you tell certain feminists that they're not really feminists. That they're egalitarians.

 

[Metaphor]

I have personal experience of a feminist colleague claiming that men are stronger than women because male children are given more protein than female children. This is the kind of mental derangement you have to deal with when talking to a feminist.

Here is an example of Metaphor going from the specific of an alleged crazy person (crazy people exist with all ideologies) to a general rule....and not dealing with the real definition of the ideology because he doesn't want to.

The first dictionary definition of feminism supports your definition. ...

Full stop.

Nope, feminism is about equality. Of course, if you want to attack specific persons who are not about equality, that's different.

Ye shall know them by their deeds. But I know, I know. Any feminist who supports insane gibberish is not a true Scotsman neither.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, that's not how reality works. The truth or falsity of a statement doesn't rely on any citation for it.

When you make claims, you need to back them up when challenged.

There's something strange in the neighborhood.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Was that “good” original intent having Western women put on burkas and pretend to be oppressed while totally ignoring women in Muslim countries who are jailed for making a different choice?

Emphasis added.

...and here Trausti, like Metaphor, generalizes entire groups of women.

 

[ruby sparks]

Was that “good” original intent having Western women put on burkas and pretend to be oppressed while totally ignoring women in Muslim countries who are jailed for making a different choice?

Emphasis added.

...and here Trausti, like Metaphor, generalizes entire groups of women.

Not to mention talking bollocks. Since when did western feminists totally ignore women in other countries.

And yet a certain poster was in like flynn with 'good point trausti old comrade in arms' (just before bringing up manspreading).