What is feminism all about?

Anyone on record as saying he fears that some of his sexual encounters as a student could be classed as rape today, has no place discussing feminism or any other movement that promotes fairness and equality. It's just another vested interest.

This is the danger of a political ideology-- in promoting one narrative, the goal is to silence all other narratives. The narrative is more important than the facts, anyone who questions the ideology is purposely pushed out of the "discussion". If you are in a position to dictate who has a place "discussing feminism"than your point of view will always win.. not because it has any validity, but because it is the only point of view available. This is a decidedly one-sided view of the ideology.

My complaint about feminism as an ideology is that it often puts the narrative over the facts, and any dissenting viewpoints (factual or not) are silenced. There is not dialog, no need for discussion, no need to question... the ideology is important.

I will point out again that many of the critics of feminism are female. This uncomfortable truth doesn't fit narrative.

Instead of an intelligent discussion about feminism, any questioning of the ideology results in personal attacks.

For anyone reading I will point out that I have not attacked anyone here. I have not said anything particularly controversial (other than suggesting that there is more than one side of the story to gamer gate). And I have agreed with the basic principle that women should be equal to men.

All I have done is suggested that what is called "feminism" can be a political ideology that sometimes puts a narrative over the facts.

The fact that the word "feminism" is sacred... that even my rather tame suggestion leads to personal attacks kind of proves my point. It is as if the label "feminism" is more important that the principle "men and women should be equal". I think Izzy has made my point rather well. I wonder if Jespah and Osso agree with him (I suspect not, but I will let them speak for themselves).

I agree with the basic principle of equality for women. I often agree with self-identified feminists on political issues, like reproductive rights and equal pay. I disagree with "feminists" on other issues and I think that the ideology at times pushes a narrative that isn't supported by facts.

That is my point. The principle is more important than the political ideology.

This is a pretty sleazy personal attack, I would like to see the link you are talking about. There is no sexual encounter I had as a student that could be classed as rape today. The in-clique thumb crowd loves these types of personal attacks, but they really prove my point.

Post a link, where I (or anyone else) is "on record" as saying anything like this, or are you just being a jerk?

When things get ugly between Izzy and I (again), I want to point out that I have made no personal attacks to this point. He drew first blood.

Izzy is accusing me of being a rapist. The only reason for this is that I question his ideology. This is really the point about political ideologies, question the ideology and you receive the most vile personal attacks that are up-thumbed by the faithful.

Izzy is lying.

"Men" who are scared of feminism have something to hide which is why they keep tying themselves up in knots.

Without male privilege I am nothing.

What about women who are "afraid" of feminism? It is an awfully simplistic ideological attack to say that anyone who doesn't accept a political ideology is "afraid". Izzy is setting up an ideological narrative where anyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong, but also somehow morally deficient.

I agree with many ideas that come from feminism, including fair pay and reproductive rights. I disagree with the ideology that can't accept any facts that disagree with a narrative, and that responds to any questioning with personal attacks.

What is wrong with saying "I agree with you on this point but think that the facts don't support you on this other point"? You can disagree with someone without the need to vilify them.

This is one of things that become difficult once you have a political ideology that can't be questioned. And that really is my big beef with what modern feminism has become. Izzy and I agree on most practical issues (based on what he writes here). But, he can't seem to accept the fact that I question his ideology on a couple of issues.

Hence the personal attacks.

For the record, I am not saying that every feminist is like Izzy (although based only on thumbs, Izzy's personal attacks continue to be quite popular). Izzy's posts represent an expression of ideological righteousness that is a common theme in modern public discourse. Of course it isn't just feminists, you see the same behavior from other ideological groups as well.

But it is unfortunate, and it is the reason that people in closed ideological bubbles where difference of opinion is attacked rather than discussed or understood.

I would be curious to know if anyone here identifies as a feminist, yet favors respectful discussion to personal attacks.

Could someone give me a little hope for civility?

I'll be civil and give you credit for doing a job in articulating the real roots and purposes of political correctness. Now if you only could only see how that applies to your own open borders agenda, eh?

For the record Layman, my position on the topic is probably closer to Izzy than it is to you. I believe that Milo is a clown. I believe he should be allowed to speak for him to be censored is wrong (particularly on a college campus). But I still think that he doesn't make many good arguments (other than he has a right to say offensive crap).

There is plenty of intelligent critique on feminist ideology. I am a fan of Christina Hoff Sommers.



She makes her case against the ideological parts of what she calls "gender feminism" without being offensive. Of course she has also had some pretty nasty attacks made against her.

Did you read what I wrote about being able to disagree and still have a civil discussion? That really is the point here. If you want to say that you think I am wrong about immigration, fine. But you can still be willing to listen to my points and accept it when there are facts on my side... or if you don't think any facts are on my side, you can disagree respectfully.

If you say that everyone who disagrees with Trump on immigration enforcement is in favor of "open borders", then you are doing exactly what the feminists are doing. You are pushing a narrative and attaching labels rather than being willing to discuss the issue respectfully.

Feminism is man hatred.