The disease of politcal correctness

Adder wrote:

ren wrote:

It's like a lobby group, they focus on a particular area which needs work (in their opinion), and therefore identify themselves about their particular focus area.

The reason why it should be abolished. right there.
How about... Big Oil is the 'egalitarian energy movement focused on the problems facing oil exploiters'. Well no of course it's not. When you exclude people you are literally discriminating and can therefore not be egalitarian. Big Oil discriminates against Small Green, feminism discriminates against men. Some people may wrongly believe themselves to be egalitarians when they are in fact feminists, some people may wrongly believe themselves to be feminists when they are egalitarians. The confusion is part of the game, Big Oil and the other big lobbies play it very well too....

I dunno how lobby groups work in the US (where the term seems prevalent), but the idea I was trying to express when I said "like a lobby group" is groups and individuals (why I used the work movement instead of group) working towards achieving outcomes in specific policy, legal, behavioral/social and therefore cultural domains to achieve an egalitarian outcome in regards to human rights in the area of gender disparity. So I'd say your use of "big lobbies" and comparing it to "Big Oil" is a chunk of a misrepresentation when used for feminism.

Focusing on one area of gender disparity is not excluding anyone, its just the scope of their activity. Nothing would get done if everything needed to be done when anything was attempted - your logic makes no sense in real terms. Feminists are egalitarians (target cause) and feminists (work focus). Its just convenient for anti-feminists to blur this distinction between goal and action. As I've explained this to you before ren, but IMO if a system is unbalanced, then movement in the direction of balance is not the same thing as movement past balance - because that would mean the target had changed. Such that any discriminatory nature in application of feminism should be to restore equality from an existing inequality. Can it go too far, yes, can it not go far enough, yes. You'd have to ignore the problem to truly believe that solving it was not required, and that person would not be an egalitarian.... so arguing against feminism generally is arguing for a patriarchy. If you wanted to label people who wanted a matriarchy then they wouldn't be feminist's, they'd have their own label to identify the different target (cause) and therefore different work focus.

Feminism IS a lobby group. Actually, multiple lobby groups. The most powerful ones too. Arguing against feminism isn't arguing for patriarchy, it's arguing against feminism, much like arguing against the KKK isn't arguing for black supremacy, it's just arguing against the KKK.
The patriarchy they talk about has never existed: I look at our male ancestors and fail to see how any of them were actually privileged. Even those of them who lived better than everyone else (monarchy and bourgeoisie) had to go to war and work in order to survive. Their female counterparts did not. The suffragists fought much harder battles than suffragettes ever did. The suffragists fought for themselves.... The suffragettes even more so... You want to look them up: their hatred of non-whites and gay men knew no precedent.

You assume what they say is true despite evidence it isn't. That's the disease of political correctness: The most privileged people of all time, the white woman, have somewhat masterminded a system in which they are constantly assumed and must constantly be assumed to be damsels in distress. What we live in and have lived in for a very long time is in fact a matriarchy. But let's not be racist. You can always go visit china see how asians do it. They're the ones breaking all the records when it comes to the princess syndrome.


When a system is not balanced, you remove that which causes the imbalance. Trying to compensate for stuff is patchy work and never works out the way you want it to. Just look at your country's history, or at other countries' history if you must. You can explain it all you want: it doesn't change the fact it doesn't and has never worked.

You once again tell me what the politically correct goal of feminism is, I ask you which actions carried out by individual feminists or groups actually support this supposed goal. I've asked for this many times at totjo now, people prefer personal attacks to answers, locked threads over discussions...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT9jeK30yH8

Speaking of feminism -- certainly some good things have been done for equality between genders by the feminist movement in the past, but I legitimately haven't seen a single important feminist action occur since I've been conscious. Put a woman on the dollar just because, people participating in "slut walk" by walking down the street with very little clothing, protesting in massive numbers to change media and things that people enjoy just because they're not comfortable with it (advocating for censorship on a massive scale), and preventing men's rights groups in some cases from even meeting and discussing issues. That's pretty much all I've heard from feminism.

There is no plan to end female genital mutilation as a cultural norm in the middle east.
There is only spotty evidence concerning actual numbers in the wage gap.
There is no reason to believe that we live in a patriarchal rape culture, as the majority of feminists I've met have said.

I just don't see the purpose of modern feminism in the West. I've only met a few feminists who aren't radical feminists, champions of PC culture, or what people are calling social justice warriors. It seems to me that what people are saying is a small radical portion is actually the majority of active feminists today -- or at least they're the only feminists who seem to be trying to do anything at all.

IMO.

1) I remember a story about a woman who came into Moscow, Russia from USA. Two men have came to met her in the airport, but the car was parked about a kilometer from terminal exit. That fact was unbeknownst to a woman.

So, when they exit the terminal, one of the men offers his help with a heavy suitcase. Being in a feminist mood (as I was told by this man), woman refuses. Then she drags her suitcase for 1 km all by herself, being clearly not very happy about it. Men do not intervene.

I don't know, what the morale of this story should be. I told it to illustrate my position, not to offend anyone, just in case.

I hope there exist women who consider themselves feminists who go to *really* patriarchal countries with shariah, I hope that such healthy core of feminism does exist and, if it does - my deepest respect to these heroic women.

2) I think, the whole naming of "feminism" is biased, which is part of the problem. It does not have a supposed measure in it. Let's say I want the legal migrants from Tajikistan, who live in Moscow, to have decent payment and other conditions. I will not call my motivation "tajikistanism", I'll call it a fight for human rights, according to UN declaration and applied to this single group of people, whom I somehow hold dear.

3) One thing I strive to remember in such conflicts is that we are all human and have a good normative document - the above mentioned UN declaration. This document I trust, and whoever goes out of it's limits - a man, a woman, Russian, Tajikistan, Christian, Muslim, me, another - whoever goes out of it's limits, works against peace. And that is a matter in which Jedi must excel.

4) If I lived in a country with tons of PC in medias I use, I'd just adhere to my personal code of behavior and filter out the noise, whatever holy lobbying there occurred. I believe, the reaction can be only stopped with proaction. The only constructive thing to do, as I see it, is to create a personal gentleman code, adhere to it and promote it. The rest is noise.

It's much more then a few lobby groups, big or small. Internet memes, blogs and statistical interpretations are all fine for fragmentary viewpoints, which can be gathered in any number of patterns to describe any nature of situation. But constructing arguments for the sake of arguing is limiting the reach into the actual topic, and more just an appeal to like minded folk to have a [strike]whinge [/strike]information sharing experience.

Using 'online' and often biased views to define a movement with over a 100 years history is.... interesting, but a looong way from compelling. Those's things are not close to the real picture IMO. I'm just reflecting on my personal experience helping my partner work at the highest levels of the public service in this exact field, where she worked, again at the top level (CEO's, Boards, Vice Chancellor's etc) with leading education, corporate and government bodies in this stuff, including lectures, training and policy generation to government. Most of the drama online about it is more comedy then serious...

But lobby is a misnomer when used about feminism IMO. I only used it to highlite how a group can focus on one thing within a broader sphere of activity. It's not discriminatory to do that. But the other point is that balancing action of feminism can be seen in isolation as discriminatory in nature, but I tried to point out how, say a movement is like a vector, with a direction and strength. To Jedi-it, lets say;

Appearance, yet Nature.

The nature is egalitarian, yet its appearance, by virtue of the pre-established patriarchal conditions, appears discriminatory sometimes. The intention is most relevant here. But its worth considering that if people want to stay/return to patriarchy, that its that patriarchal culture which created feminism to begin with... so its kind of like sticking ones head in the sand and ignoring everything else which is inconvenient to their established belief.

Quite simply in my opinion if mens rights advocates want to lambaste about irregularities in equal opportunity legislation and practise, and still be taken seriously outside their own sphere of adherents, I'd advice them to stop using feminism to define what might be better termed misandrist and misandry. Identify the real depth of misandry within feminism and stop attacking feminism, and instead focus on the misandry. All of a sudden you'd increase your reach and increase your effectiveness massively.

The sad thing is, from personal experience I know, that people working in gender equality mostly do work for men and women both, and the reason the focus tends to be on women is not so much about the people doing the work, but rather that its because its where the greatest disparity exists. Who'd have thought!!!!

But this topic was meant to be about being PC. I'd say its important to be accurate to avoid confusion, unless confusion is the point of course
:S

Adder wrote: Quite simply in my opinion if mens rights advocates want to lambaste about irregularities in equal opportunity legislation and practise, and still be taken seriously outside their own sphere of adherents, I'd advice them to stop using feminism to define what might be better termed misandrist and misandry. Identify the real depth of misandry within feminism and stop attacking feminism, and instead focus on the misandry. All of a sudden you'd increase your reach and increase your effectiveness massively

Excellent point. Clarity is paramount so that both "sides" can let their guard down for a while and stop reacting defensively and actually realize what they are discussing in the first place.

To keep this thread from going too off-topic from political correctness into feminism, I'll put a different example: last year, the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo was bombed by Muslim extremists due to an offensive cartoon they published. Aside from the whole discussion of whether it was provocative or not, it was pointed out that one of the collaborators at Charlie Hebdo had made an equally offensive cartoon before, but the "target" was not Islam but Jews. The cartoon was never published. So the question is why they felt the need to keep it zipped when it came to offending Jews, but not when it came to offending Muslims?

Manu wrote:

Adder wrote: Quite simply in my opinion if mens rights advocates want to lambaste about irregularities in equal opportunity legislation and practise, and still be taken seriously outside their own sphere of adherents, I'd advice them to stop using feminism to define what might be better termed misandrist and misandry. Identify the real depth of misandry within feminism and stop attacking feminism, and instead focus on the misandry. All of a sudden you'd increase your reach and increase your effectiveness massively

Excellent point. Clarity is paramount so that both "sides" can let their guard down for a while and stop reacting defensively and actually realize what they are discussing in the first place.

To keep this thread from going too off-topic from political correctness into feminism, I'll put a different example: last year, the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo was bombed by Muslim extremists due to an offensive cartoon they published. Aside from the whole discussion of whether it was provocative or not, it was pointed out that one of the collaborators at Charlie Hebdo had made an equally offensive cartoon before, but the "target" was not Islam but Jews. The cartoon was never published. So the question is why they felt the need to keep it zipped when it came to offending Jews, but not when it came to offending Muslims?

because jews, thanks to their lobby (much like women with feminism actually lol) are privileged. Publishing that cartoon would have been a crime in france, as criticism of jews or Israel is now prohibited by recent "anti-semitism" laws. Over there you better not dare wonder whether the holocaust as officially described actually happened or not. It's stupid, really: Questioning the accuracy of historical records is a much different business from advocating mass murder. All such laws do is encourage actual antisemitism imo, or in the case of feminism (sorry to go back to that again), actual misogyny. Do you think women these days are: better respected, equally respected, or less respected than their pre-feminism counterparts? Political correctness breeds anger and destroys morals, just look at totjo's censorship in the "open discussions" area lately. The ones doing the censoring are Knights for goodness' sake.

Quite simply in my opinion if mens rights advocates want to lambaste about irregularities in equal opportunity legislation and practise, and still be taken seriously outside their own sphere of adherents, I'd advice them to stop using feminism to define what might be better termed misandrist and misandry. Identify the real depth of misandry within feminism and stop attacking feminism, and instead focus on the misandry. All of a sudden you'd increase your reach and increase your effectiveness massively

Warren Farell, a prominent mangina who did quite a lot for feminism, tried switching to men's rights, you know, to make things fair and equal the very way you suggest.... This is how it went:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

People sometimes assume I'm a men's rights advocate... I'm not. Men are very quickly getting bored of women (to the point where this is obvious in my everyday life), are cheaper to maintain (educate, medicate, look after in old age) and more versatile. All they need is reproductive liberation, and to be fair, it's feminism who may very well give the world the artificial womb. Gay rights will ensure men have access to it... So... yeah, no need for MRAs when we've got science and technology.

ren wrote:

Manu wrote:

Adder wrote: Quite simply in my opinion if mens rights advocates want to lambaste about irregularities in equal opportunity legislation and practise, and still be taken seriously outside their own sphere of adherents, I'd advice them to stop using feminism to define what might be better termed misandrist and misandry. Identify the real depth of misandry within feminism and stop attacking feminism, and instead focus on the misandry. All of a sudden you'd increase your reach and increase your effectiveness massively

Excellent point. Clarity is paramount so that both "sides" can let their guard down for a while and stop reacting defensively and actually realize what they are discussing in the first place.

To keep this thread from going too off-topic from political correctness into feminism, I'll put a different example: last year, the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo was bombed by Muslim extremists due to an offensive cartoon they published. Aside from the whole discussion of whether it was provocative or not, it was pointed out that one of the collaborators at Charlie Hebdo had made an equally offensive cartoon before, but the "target" was not Islam but Jews. The cartoon was never published. So the question is why they felt the need to keep it zipped when it came to offending Jews, but not when it came to offending Muslims?

because jews, thanks to their lobby (much like women with feminism actually lol) are privileged. Publishing that cartoon would have been a crime in france, as criticism of jews or Israel is now prohibited by recent "anti-semitism" laws.

If that is the case, isn't it an abuse of political correctness on behalf of one demographic?

Manu wrote:

ren wrote:

Manu wrote:

Adder wrote: Quite simply in my opinion if mens rights advocates want to lambaste about irregularities in equal opportunity legislation and practise, and still be taken seriously outside their own sphere of adherents, I'd advice them to stop using feminism to define what might be better termed misandrist and misandry. Identify the real depth of misandry within feminism and stop attacking feminism, and instead focus on the misandry. All of a sudden you'd increase your reach and increase your effectiveness massively

Excellent point. Clarity is paramount so that both "sides" can let their guard down for a while and stop reacting defensively and actually realize what they are discussing in the first place.

To keep this thread from going too off-topic from political correctness into feminism, I'll put a different example: last year, the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo was bombed by Muslim extremists due to an offensive cartoon they published. Aside from the whole discussion of whether it was provocative or not, it was pointed out that one of the collaborators at Charlie Hebdo had made an equally offensive cartoon before, but the "target" was not Islam but Jews. The cartoon was never published. So the question is why they felt the need to keep it zipped when it came to offending Jews, but not when it came to offending Muslims?

because jews, thanks to their lobby (much like women with feminism actually lol) are privileged. Publishing that cartoon would have been a crime in france, as criticism of jews or Israel is now prohibited by recent "anti-semitism" laws.

If that is the case, isn't it an abuse of political correctness on behalf of one demographic?

That's exactly what it is. Fortunately the french system isn't too poorly built so those things can be contested, but the french system is affected by the EU and the EU is affected by powerful lobbies, all thanks to the UK. That's one of the reasons why I want the UK out of the EU, but now I'm digressing. Feminism for example also has very limited impact in france when compared to the english-speaking world, men aren't treated like second rate assholes like they are in the UK... And while foreigners go there to protest (like that femen group), there's also a lot of people protesting against the english-speaking world's batshit insane gender politics. It's far from perfect, but in terms of equality it's really not too bad. Over there for example fathers do not need to ask for permission to be involved in their children's lives, they automatically possess half of the parental authority. This law regarding judaism/antisemitism goes too far, but they made it happen because jews were being targeted (mostly by muslims actually), and it's not like it can't be challenged or changed. They've had to repeal legislation on sexual harassment for being sexist (prohibited by the constitution), they can also repeal this "jew law" for violating other constitutional rights (freedom of conscience and expression). The current president and his ministers have been twats about this though, treating the forces at their disposal a bit like a private army, these guys definitely have to permanently go away. I'm glad I left my former place of work before they came in, and the way they've been misusing my legacy has seriously pissed me off.

PC isn't the same or a substitute for common sense and politeness.

Rickie wrote: PC isn't the same or a substitute for common sense and politeness.

Best comment in this thread if you ask me...